gwales: Curiosity isn't on Mars to take pictures...
Then why does it have 17 cameras?
Without pictures, Curiosity would have no way of knowing where to go and where to use its miriad of devices to test the soil. The rover cannot make those decisions on its own. They are made by scientists on the ground who examine the images to determine which sites and rocks to go to and test. One of the most intersting finds on Mars was discovered in an image and only confirmed by the test instruments.
To the scientists, the images serve a practical function, but to the rest of us,the visual images are very important. We want to see what it looks like on the surface and view these pictures with wonder.
Visual imagery has and still does represent the most important tool of discovery and exploration. The mysterious features of Jupiter, Saturn and Europa, Titan and the other moons, that have piqued our curiosity, were discovered by vusual imagery.
A visit to Mars is a photo op we could not fail to take advantage of.
How did DP review come to the conclusion that the D3200 competes with the Canon T3?
The T3 is nothing more than a bare bones low entry level DSLR for consumers who've never owned a DSLR and don't know how to buy one.
To anyone who wants a T3 I say "You really should buy a $1300 camera....Because by the time you figure out how to use the camera you will realize that it's less camera than you want and you'll end up spending another $800 for a T3i sooner rather than later."
Regardless of any shortcomings some may find in the D3200, it far outclasses the T3.
I think the D3200 would appeal more to the kind of photographer who might buy a Canon T3i or T4i. With it's higher resolution and lower price point it'll certainly give those cameras a run for the money.
If I didn't already own a bagfull of Canon glass, I'd give this camera serious consideration. And if the recent trend of Canon and Nikon continues, I may dump that glass and switch to Nikon.
facedodge: Consumers will soon learn that it's not all about Megapixels with camera phones catching up. Until then... 24MP will be a key selling feature. It's the first item they list on the stat sheet.
"hey Joe, what about this red one over here? it's $150 more expensive than that Canon, but it's got twice the pixels"
Only someone who doesn't understand the relationship between sensor size, focal length, perspective, angle of view, depth of field and optical resolution, digital noise and dynamic range would think that a camera phone with a 24mpx is equivelent to a DSLR.
Charrick: There are so many people who hate more megapixels. I know that more megapixels decreases the size of each pixel (that is, image sensor element), thus allowing it to gather less light. I'm not disputing that.
But with the D800, I thought people would have learned that, at least in low to moderate ISO settings, more megapixels DOES translate into a sharper picture with more details. Some people are pretending that technological innovation with sensor sensitivity to light stopped in 2006. And if that were the case, then perhaps 6 megapixel sensors would be good enough.
I, for one, am glad that some companies are pushing the envelope. I don't like pixels just for their own sake, but it's clear that at the 24MP range, pictures taken in daytime will probably look better than with, say, a 12-16MP sensor of the same size. Then again, I take far more pictures in the daytime than in the middle of the night or in candle-lit rooms.
Oh, one more thing:
Since the beginning of digital photography one of the most important commandments was ;"Thou shalt not waste pixels.". In other words, frame the image as close to the final cropping as possible, so as to avoid having to crop any pixels out.
With high MPX images, we can go ahead and crop the image and still make 8x10 prints or larger, without having to uprez.
Who needs a $12,000, 600mm lens when for less money you can get a 36MPX camera and a couple of great lenses and just crop the image on the rare occasions that 300mm just isn't enough.
Many photographers have gotten so used to cropping in camera and saving pixels that they have forgotten that once, long ago in a galaxy far far away, photographers shot film and cropped their images in the darkroom.
With more pixels we can throw away the "Thall shalt not waste pixels" commandment.
In a head to head comparison of my older 10MPX to my new 18MPX Canons. with camera noise suppression shut off, the 18MPX camera exhibited less noise at ISO 1600 than the 10MPX does at 800.
In post production noise reduction using Photoshop and Topaz Denoise, of images of the same scene same crop, the high MPX images required a lesser degree of filtration to supress noise than the 10 MPX image.
Finally, in post production sharpening , the 18MPX image required less sharpening to achieve optimal sharpness resulting in less enchancement of noise and fewer sharpening artifacts. In higher resolution images ,sharpening has a greater effect on details in proportion to its effect on noise in smooth low contrast areas. Conversely, in higher resolution images more sharpening can be applied before noise becomes objectionable.
When scaled down to match the 10 MPX print output, 8X12 @300PPI, the 18MPX prints are distinctly crisper and cleaner than those from the 10MPX.
Higher MPX does matter.
AnHund: First of all D3200 is not an evolution it is a revolution. Image quality is stunning. If you won't or can't buy a D800 (which is extraordinary) then get the D3200 which is really capable of producing very, very good images seen from a technical perspective.
Regarding the comment "you can always use the 18-55mm as a paperweight" - this is a downright ridiculus comment. The 18-55mm is really good for the price and can easily be used with the D3200 for very good results. Of course better and more expensive lenses will give better results, but the 18-55mm is really a lot of value for next to no money.
Josh....About a decade ago when I was shooting with a 6 MPX Canon 10D, the 7 K$ Canon 1DS was an astounding 11 MPX!! At the same time I was shooting in the studio with a 22MPX Imacon back on a RZ67, which cost twice what the 1DS was selling for at the time. Now 30mpx is the low end for medium format and the top end is at 80 MPX and could soon go higher.
Every few years, what was top of the line in MPX works it's way down into the entry level mainstream while the top of the line high MPX cameras reach ever higher resolutions. Nothing remarkable about that. Whats revolutionary is the difference in MPX between the entry and top levels is less...in 2002 the top canon camera had twice the MPX as the entry level,(6MPX:11MPX) now the top canon has only about 20% more (19MPX:22MPX). The D800 only has 50% more than the D3200 (24MPX:36MPX) Whats revolutionary is the price for the top end;3k for 36 MPX!!! More than 50% more MPX than canons flagship, for fewer $$$s! Thats revolutionary!
I've done alot of aerial photography from a helicopter and I've used a remote controled model helicopter. Actually going up in the helipcopter is way more fun than using the RC platform.
Making great pictures is only part of the reason I got into photography...the other is that the act of taking photographs is so much fun.
The willingness and ability to be in he right place at the right time is one of the reasons we are hired as photographers. But now they are going to hire a technician to mount the camera and the photographer does not even have to be on the scene to take the shot...he could be locked away in a mobile vehicle far away from the location like the TV crews.
That takes all the fun out of it.
Ashley Pomeroy: I can't wait for them to attach cameras to the athletes - it might slow 'em down a bit, but think about the possibilities. e.g. beach volleyball. What happens if two rival news agencies put robot cameras next to each other? Will they fight?
While photography the start of a road race, I noticed quite few runners with those small action video cams strapeed to their chests.
jon404: Next -- robot cameras with 'decisive moment' AI software!
Why not? Your point 'n shoot will already take a picture when it 'sees' a cat or dog... and can process a pile of snaps to come up with the 'best portrait.'
Brave new world! Sort of.
With 4K video cams,it's not necessary to take a picture at the decisive moment, a still quality high resolution image can be extracted from the video recording. The decisive moment will take place in the editing.
I don't even like to use fast frame rate on my DSLR...too much work downloading and editing. Imagine going through three seconds of action at 30 FPS???
Scott Eaton: The vast majority of complaints about HDR images often being 'over-cooked' have NOTHING to do with HDR. HDR images when properly executed are usually subtle, if not dull because of the expanded contrast range. Further manipulation is usually required to make them look normal, or aethestically pleasing.
It's the post tone-mapping algorithms often applied to HDR images that cause all the fuss, and the cartoonish images.
Alot of point and shoot cameras and smart phones have whjhat is called an HDR function but is nothing more than a rudementarty tonemapping function. Does not matter what they call it ebcause most snapshooter have no understanding of either process. They just know that if they enable that function they get nice bright colors.
acidic: I'm really disappointed that the author chose to make this a HDR guide for images made with a digital SLR. Too bad. I thought this guide would help me do HDR with my mirrorless cameras. Oh well, I'll just have to wait for the appropriate book :-(
Any camera can be used for HDR as long as it the following features:
A) shutter priority or manual exposure B) manual focus C) can be mounted to a tripod D) exposure compensation of at least + or - one stop or auto exposure bracketing.
most mirrorless and advanced point and shoot cameras should have these features.
Rachotilko: "Now, HDR resides in the basement of color photography from where it may never come out"Has the Politbyro come out with a decree prohibiting people from utilizing HDR skillfully ? Has any gifted photog been sentenced to forced labor for doing such a despicable act ?
Long before digital photography existed, my color photography teacher told us "If you can't make it good, make it big and make it red."
Bright colors attract attention and to most amateurs they think that making the image brighter is more eyecatching and therefore better.
But, contrary to popular beliefs, the average person is actually capable of appreciating subtle differences in our senses. Pastel colors, soft music with subtle harmonies, a perfectly cooked meal can all be greatly appreciated by average ordinary people with no special sensory skills in those areas. They appreciate these things without really knowing why. But when it comes to creating works of great subtlty, that's a different story. Just turning the amp up to 11 does not make great music.
A slightly tonemapped image can have as much pop as an overprocessed. The average snapshooter does not have the skill to create one but they can appreciate it when they see it, without even knowing how it was done.
doctor digi: A shame they can't use the correct term for the book's title - it's actually tone-mapping that is being created. A true HDR image cannot be displayed with any available technology.
Great review though.
As me and my colleagues see it, HDR does not refer to the dynamic range of the final output or display, but to the dynamic range of the scene being captured.
If the DR of the scene exceeeds the DR of the sensor and requires multiple exposures to capture the entire DR, then the scene could be described as being HDR.
The point behind HDR photography is to capture the entire DR of the scene , then process the image so it can be presented through a low dynamic range media.
Thus the term "HDR photography" refers to the method of capture much like panoramic, high speed, low light, artificial light or Zone System photography.
Tonemapping refers to the post processing methods used to render HDR images to the desired result, much as stitching renders the panarama or push/pull processing renders the Zone System negative.
Tonemapping can be also applied to a single low DR image
I think of HDR photography and tonemapping as two seperate procedures, with HDR dependent upon tonemapping.
Demmos: Excellent review... honestly I think it should have rated higher! :-)
But the cons are definitively no built in GPS or Wifi/Bluetooth. At this point, pro-level cameras should have such support included. Both of these options lead to more creative control, especially by external software.
And before it is said, the second battery in the grip would offset the added power drain...
I can see where WiFi/bluetooth might be usefull but wouldn't say it's a 'con' not having it. Being free from the cable certainly would make one more physically unemcumbered, but I would not consider it a negative because the camera does not have it.
As far as GPS, perhaps you could explain how that would lead to more creative control. I cannot for the life of me figure out how GPS is going to have any impact on creative control.
Just a Photographer: 1 Billion, Isn't that a bit over the top to pay for a gadgetry app maker?Not to say that I don't like Instagram, but come on 1billion.
OK. Thats true. Well acvtually no. He's making this investment ahead of the IPO, he's still in control of the most of facebooks assetts. That the thing about holding shares...as long as there's someone who has the majority, or a controling percentage of the shares, that person is in control of how money is spent, investments the company makes, etc.
AFter the IPO, then he'll be accountable to the investors.It seems reckless and irresponsible.
I agree on one thing: investors in facebook are really investing in thin air.
XmanX: I'd like the ability to browse all apps on my phone and all websites on my computer without ever being hounded by the facebook or twitter logos.
I'm officially sick of the constant harassment by app/website designers to make me "Like" something or "Share" something. I'd like to once-and-for-all answer that with NO.
Apple should consider including these options in their Settings menu that a user can configure to never be bothered again to look at the logos of "f" and "t" in any app. I want to live a facebook-free and twitter-free online existence.
I reserve the right to revisit the issue if facebook and twitter started paying me.
There are many web services for which people pay. At first people were reluctant to pay, but as time goes by more people will get used to paying for special content. There will always be the free aspect; the internet could not exist without it. But there is also a place for paid content. If there were a popular subscription service like facebook that didn’t come with the issues that facebook has, I would subscribe to that service. I do in fact subscribe to a similar service but they are not as large as facebook.
The premium content I pay for on the web is exactly that: "premium!" It's worth the fee, otherwise I wouldn't pay it. It's not just content, it's services too.
You say that people won't pay but what about Linkedin? For all the free porn online, people will pay for the content they want.
I think in the grander scheme of things, the amount I pay for online content is small. My monthly expenses for printed material is actually higher, but I can afford it.
In that vein I am disturbed to see that DP Reviews has inserted a "Pin It" icon on it's pages.
If there's any site that against the interest of professional photographers, its Pinterest. DPR points out that the samples they post for our examination are not supposed to be reproduced, yet they invite everyone to pin DP Reviews to Pinterest. Once on Pinterest those images will be widely reproduced and used by others without payment or even acknowledgment of the source.
Combatmedic870: ....People....they didnt really pay 1 billion for the ONLY the app....Its for the app and USERS of the app. The first day the app was released on android it downloaded by a million users....
I've created my fair share, but that's a pointless comeback.
Politicians trumpet the value of wealthy entrepreneurs for their ability to create jobs. In proportion to the earnings and the value of the company, facebook has created very few jobs.
A larger percentage of the jobs in America are created by people and small companies you've never heard of. Many photographers like myself create jobs by hiring assistants, studio and office managers, accountants, Photoshop artists printers...just because were not billionaires does not mean we don't create jobs!
I'm just saying for the amount of investemtn facebook just made, it's not going to create many jobs. If thet billion was instead invested in a totlay new venture, housands of jobs could have been created.
mosman: After a quick flick through the comments, it appears there's an awful lot of people failing to see the writing on the wall.
Ignore the hype and vitriol for a moment and think of the impact this style of image taking and distribution is doing, and is going to do:- to professionals in the industry across all genres,- the company that makes your favorite PP program,- the manufacturers that rely on the margin from P&S and entry level DSLRs to fund the higher end models.
The cameras included in smart phones now are only a short time removed from 'traditionally' formed products that wowed people here on DPR. Throw in ongoing financial pressures and increasingly easy methods of distribution and you have a perfect storm for camera manufacturers.
Relevant to DPR and it's reader base? You bet it is.
You hit the nail on the head.
At somewhere around $35 per user, that one very expensive mailing list!
In comparison ;Elon Musk founder of Zip2corp.(sold to Compaq Computer Co.) co founder of PayPal(sold to E Bay) heads up Tesla Motors and SolarCity Corp. has invested $100 million dollars to create "Space X" the first private company to launch a payload into space and return it safely to Earth. Space X has secured 4 billion in contracts to launch satellites and bring cargo to the space station. Eventually he want to launch astronauts for NASA!
WOW!...He's started a company to build space ships and go to space for one tenth of the investment that Facebook has made in a cell phone app!
For a billion dollars Zuck could have launched a new camera company building real cameras, not just an app and it's user base(a large percentage of are already facebook users!). I just don't see the value of it. That billion could have been put to better use.
How many jobs will that investment create?