Well after the RX-1 has proven a market for this type of camera, perhaps Nikon is aiming at folks that can't afford the high price of that camera. Does that make it an RX-1 wannabe? Or if the RX-1 is, as some have suggested, a Leica wannabe, does this mean that this camera becomes a Leica wannabe wannabe?
Or does this post just prove that I should have had more coffee this morning before hitting the blogosphere?
photo nuts: Brilliant strategy to generate web traffic in DPreview.
Nothing beats a multi-way fanboy fight. ;)
Yes, well put - all this proves is that we are a highly tribal and ideological species - and we already knew that! Trolling and fanboy hooliganism is easy to create and hard to stop. Too bad none of that has anything to do with photography.
Douglas F Watt: Well I'm not sure what anybody else thinks, but this is much more problematic than DP reviews appears to appreciate. First of all every new camera is going to shoot this test scene instead of the old test scene. How in the world are you going to compare newly reviewed cameras to older and previously reviewed cameras unless all those old cameras shoot the same test scene too. It seems to me one of the great advantages of your standard scene comparator tool was the huge database of images at different ISOs both JPEG and RAW that were shot with every camera. This means the you could compare easily a 100% view across four different cameras with little hassle. How are you going to keep that functionality with this new test scene unless every old camera re-shoots this new scene?
Well, that's actually very reassuring and thanks for responding so promptly. You guys will make a lot of extra work for yourselves on this one!!
I assume that you have lots of older cameras around to re-shoot the standard scene with? I for one will miss the gold coin (from the Martini vermouth bottle?) Made some important (and correct) decisions about cameras from that gold coin.
Well I'm not sure what anybody else thinks, but this is much more problematic than DP reviews appears to appreciate. First of all every new camera is going to shoot this test scene instead of the old test scene. How in the world are you going to compare newly reviewed cameras to older and previously reviewed cameras unless all those old cameras shoot the same test scene too. It seems to me one of the great advantages of your standard scene comparator tool was the huge database of images at different ISOs both JPEG and RAW that were shot with every camera. This means the you could compare easily a 100% view across four different cameras with little hassle. How are you going to keep that functionality with this new test scene unless every old camera re-shoots this new scene?
gchamp727: This better have some kick-ass (as in D600 level) high ISO performance or I am giving up on Sony and selling my Sony gear. They blew it on the A-77 and from what I see, they don't support any firmware upgrades after a new model comes out. On top of that, in the non-camera world, they have been trying to rule the world and have the hackers attacking their websites (which I agree with). Sony is just too big and does not care about its loyal customers. We would be better off if the next earthquake swallows the whole damn company.
By my eye (did some comparisons of A99 and A65 at high ISO), this camera will be roughly two stops better in terms of noise compared to A77/65. It will be about 1/2 F stop poorer than D600 with virtually identical sensors given the ~ 30% light lost via the SLT approach, but that's not huge. My brief shooting experience with the A99 was pretty impressive in terms of noise, with usable ISO 6400. So don't blow up the company yet!
kjeldsendk: The amount of "fanboyish" posts here is staggering. It's about time we got some moderation going and the owners of this site made an effort to improve these forums/comments. Read though the posters history and pick some moderators please...!
This is an amazing camera anyone claiming something else is not objective in any way whatsoever.
With that being said there is plenty of room for discussion without resorting to petty fanboy huff and puff matches.
Canon shooter since the EOS 650 planning to buy a 1DX
Agreed. The oneupmanship and petty competitiveness on the site are worrisome and at times really out of control. It's like the fans of hostile sport teams! We are all supposed to be interested in the same thing, can't we improve our dialogue?? - if we can't shouldn't the moderators step in and set limits?
Guidenet: There are huge computers in modern cameras. These computers have operating systems and applications just like your home computer. When a new operating system for Apple, Windows or Linux is released, we can expect a few crashes here and there until it gets ironed out. It's fairly normal. Even with huge beta periods and a lot of testing, computer bugs crop up after release. Nobody likes it, especially the releasing company. No matter how un-rushed you are to market, it happens.
There are two types of errors; syntactical and logical. Syntax errors are usually all caught in beta and other testing. This is where you made a grammatical error in your coding. A logical error is much harder to find. It will only crop up when that logic is tested. It might mean a series of events simultaneously triggering another series of events where something in the middle tried to divide by zero.
Finding these bugs is not that hard and pretty trivial to repair. I'd buy one today without issue.
I couldn't agree more Graybalanced. Both the software and hardware in a high end DSLR are both so complicated, it speaks to the kind of effort put into testing that there aren't more problems. Expecting no problems in a new system (and that even extensive testing will or should catch all issues) just isn't realistic.
kdaphoto: Such hyperbole, extreme views, and misinformation used to be the domain of political pundits. Based on many of the comments here, it's sad to see that it has come down to camera fans. Do we really need a partisan divide based on camera brands?
Apparently we do. I am astonished at the level of bickering, nasty comments, mean-spirited competitiveness and oneupsmanship associated with camera blogs! Can't we disagree more respectfully? it's really like watching Red Sox and Yankee fans or Real Madrid and Barcelona fans go at each other. And this is about cameras and photography!! Jeez. Come on guys!! And does anyone believe that this kind of discourse helps improve the field . . . or our experience in it?
z9z9z9z9: I think anyone who has looked at the comparative dimensions of the Nikon and Sony sensors (23.2x15.4mm vs. 23.5x15.6mm) realises that this is not the same sensor. You can't "tweek" photosite pitch -- it's a static design parameter.
Well, that's nice z9, and very concrete, but you are missing the forest for the trees here. Nikon has never MADE (fabricated) a single sensor to my knowledge. They pass on specification requests to the big chip players, mostly Sony, who create a chip for them. The 36MP in the D800 is a Sony chip with Nikon microlenses and probably some other parameterization. Just to create RAM chips from scratch (from design to fabrication plant) is a 1 billion dollar project - to create CMOS sensors from scratch is even more expensive. Why would Nikon, with no experience in this aspect of the business, not buy the chips from established players? You guys again are very concrete. Nikon says it 'designed' the chip - that's not the same as making it. If Nikon had gone into the sensor business, they would have trumpeted this (constantly?) and you would have heard about it. Sony made that chip.
It is astonishing that people on this site continue to cling to the notion that the sensor came from someone other than Sony. Come on guys. It's noise profile in RAW is very similar, and more to the point, no one else is making a 24 MP sensor. It's JPEGS actually look slightly worse than the A65 JPEGS, but its RAW noise looks like ~ 1/2 stop better than the A65 (but not NEX-7) - exactly what you would predict from the light loss associated with the SLT approach. Still, a great deal for $699. Nikon will sell a boatload.
El Profe: A 24MP's APS-C sensor camera for only $699... Incredible specs for an "entry level" camera. Specially for a camera that may end probably having better photo quality than any other camera, since is probably using the same 24MP's sensor of the Sony A77. But without having a translucent mirror reducing the amount of light hitting the sensor, or degrading the image sharpness, and for half the price!!!
I think he meant better photo quality than "any other (ENTRY-LEVEL) camera. That part sounds very possible.
RakinMuhtadi: Now why would anyone buy this with $699 when you can get the D5100 kit for the same price (after recent cuts)? Seems like a good camera, this. Although what everyone is ranting on abt the higher megapixel bothers me. What's so bad abt more pixels??
Absolutely, the DXO testing shows a wide spectrum of low light performance for a given pixel density – and more importantly shows that in the context of progressive technical development, sensor performance involves both more resolution and better low light performance. The D800 sensor is close to the low light performance of the D3 sensor. All this raises troubling questions about all the condescending comments to the effect that extra megapixels are just there to seduce stupid amateur photographers who don't even know how to shoot in raw (or similar sentiments).
Troubling that ideology trumps observation here too often. Although rants about the 'megapixel war' are most popular posts ("24MP for entry level camera is absurd" is highest rated comment), these unfortunately don't square with the scientific and technical story of DP over last 10 years - which is that sensor (and to a lesser extent software) evolution have allowed cameras to have both higher resolution and better low light performance simultaneously. Although at any given point in time, higher pixel density sensors generally have poorer low light performance than lower density ones, there is wide spectrum of performance on this (witness LL performance of latest m4/3 sensor in the new Olympus ILC). More importantly, over time, newer (higher resolution) sensors have at least equaled, if not exceeded, the low light performance of the older generation systems. Witness the surprising low light ability of the D800 sensor, which is remarkably close to LL performance of D3 sensor.
keekimaru: Link : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B007VGGFZU/tipfla-20
Don’t let the D3200’s compact size and price fool you—packed inside this easy to use HD-SLR is serious Nikon power: a 24.2 MP DX-format CMOS sensor that excels in any light, EXPEED 3 image-processing for fast operation and creative in-camera effects, Full HD (1080p) movie recording, in-camera tutorials and much more. What does this mean for you? Simply stunning photos and videos in any setting. And now, with Nikon’s optional Wireless Mobile Adapter, you can share those masterpieces instantly with your Smartphone or tablet easily!
More Detail : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=16
It's astonishing that you guys still believe that Nikon MAKES (fabricates) sensors. They don't. They give specs and design targets to the truly big technology players (mostly Sony as they clearly like Sony sensors), and then spin their design and microlens specifications into the press release that you guys are really misinterpreting. Designing a chip and making it are two radically different technology challenges. Making CMOS chips from scratch is probably a 3 billion dollar tech investment. If Nikon was MAKING chips, you'd hear about it. It's a Sony chip, with some Nikon design work and specification.
Valiant Thor: I'm just a mid-grade prosumer and wanted to ask those posting here if this D3200 will most likely be on par with the Sony NEX-7 given the same or similar sensors? I have a few nice Nikon lenses and thought the D3200 would stack up pretty well against the NEX-7 for a nice carry-around camera and some video. Any constructive thoughts regarding the pros and cons of these similar cameras would be appreciated. Thanks!
well like everyone says, too early to truly know, but I would bet that it is at least the equal of the NEX-7 in low light and its image quality is pretty fine also. Early images suggest very good IQ, competing with the other cameras using that sensor (A77/65/NEX7)
All things considered (and outside from the megapixel phobes that inhabit these parts and who believe that the escalation of pixels is a great evil and corrupting true photography), this looks like a great camera for the money - and a real challenge for both Sony and Canon in the entry level segment.
While it probably won't have the low light performance of the Pentax K-5, it will be at least as good at the NEX-7 (which ain't bad), and it's a lot less than even the Sony A65. Of course, it won't have 10 FPS, and can't do constant phase detection AF during movies, but it's small, light, has the Nikon ecosystem around it. It will probably be a HUGE seller, grousing and complaining on this page to the contrary. I still prefer the EVF of the A65 to the cramped and dim OVF of subframe DSLRs, but I'm sure that's just a sign to the ideological and other true cogniscienti that I have been corrupted by the dark side.
plasnu: Better dynamic range than 5d3?
you guys are kidding right? Not made by Sony? Who made it then? Because Nikon doesn't make sensors. They advertize (generously) that the sensor was 'designed' by Nikon - that's a far cry from being fabricated by Nikon. How many sensors has Nikon actually fabricated? I'd wager zero.
You Nikon fans are just this side of delusional. Sony made that sensor, no question. Nikon hasn't actually MADE a sensor ever. They might offer some design parameters to Sony, that's it. Sensor manufacturing is a huge technical undertaking, Nikon has no track record at all, no established competence in this. Come on guys, being a fan is one thing, being in total denial is something else. Given Nikon's great capacities for press releases, if they had gone into the sensor business, you'd have heard about it. Endlessly. They might design the microlenses, give those specs to Sony, and get what they want.
sdyue: Sony Sensor Densities:
SLT-A57 = ~212.7 pixels/mm (lower APS-C model) = ~16.7MpNEX-5N = ~213.1 pixels/mm (lower APS-C model) = ~16.5MpNEX-7/SLT-A77 = ~259.7 pixels/mm (higher APS-C model) = ~24.7Mp
Nikon Sensor Densities (from Sony):D3200 = ~262.8 pixels/mm (lower APS-C model) = ~24.7MpD800 = ~206.7 pixels/mm (lower FF model) = ~36.8MpD4 = ~138.9 pixels/mm (higher FF model) = ~16.6Mp
Samsung Sensor Densities:NX-20/NX-210 = ~242.0 pixels/mm (high-end APS-C model) = ~21.6Mp
sits just slightly better (lower density; larger pixel) than NEX-7/SLT-A77but not as low density as NEX-5N, so overall NX IQ could exceed either NEX/SLT models if Samsung has made pixel sensor progress.
So, Howaboutraw, you're kidding right? You believe that Nikon has the chip expertize to create both the new 36MP FF and the 24MP APS-C sensor, instead of buying those (modified to their specs perhaps) from Sony? With all the evidence that Nikon loves Sony sensors (D3x, D7000 among many others), they decided to invest (without it making a ripple in the technology ocean and without any major hiring away from competition) the ~ 2 billion it takes to create sensors from scratch and with no real prior manufacturing experience? Check out http://www.chipworks.com/media/wpmu/uploads/blogs.dir/4/files/2011/01/IMX071_diemrk.jpg. I suppose that the Sony A99 sensor (36MP by all accounts) is just coincidence (w/ the D800)?
Red123: I'm a newbie but I do know a little about shooting. I've literally spent the last two days weighing up my camera options with the measly budget I have available and was going to get a D5100 next week. Could someone pls give me some unbiased advice on whether I should go for the D3200 with the 24mp or still go for a D5100. Will be using to take urban, street, graffiti photos, so manual settings are cool but I also need to be able to shoot quick, crisp photos many of which will be edited in Photoshop for final use. I do understand that my own ability with the camera is also important to end results. Thanks.
I would wait for the 3200. Although you may be sacrificing a bit of low light performance, sensor evolution continues to move the goalposts on this one. A 24 megapixel sensor in the APS C format now gives roughly the low light performance of a 16 megapixel sensor from three years ago. I suspect that the low light performance of this is going to be slightly better than the Sony A 77/65 and perhaps slightly better even than the NEX 7. in addition to sensor evolution there is also software evolution – for example even though the Nikon D3X has significantly better raw files at high ISO then say the Sony A77/65, its JPEGs at high ISO are not better. Between software evolution and sensor evolution, all of the people complaining on this website about the megapixel race are missing something.