Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Apr 24, 2012 at 23:34 GMT

We've prepared a samples gallery using the D3200 - Nikon's latest entry-level DSLR. While many of the features are familiar from the D3100, the latest model incorporates a 24MP sensor, so we thought we'd see what the pictures look like. Given the kind of user it's aimed at, we decided to see what the D3200 could do using the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 VR kit lens, at a various of ISO settings and in different lighting conditions.

There's no Raw support for the D3200 yet, so all these images were shot with the camera's default JPEG settings (which has noise reduction and Active D-lighting on). The last nine images are JPEGs re-processed in camera, using a variety of post-capture filter options.

Nikon D3200 samples gallery

There are 36 images in this samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Nikon D3200 Preview Samples - posted on 24th April 2012

Comments

Total comments: 495
1234
Brooklyn465
By Brooklyn465 (11 months ago)

Can anyone please offer any advise? I am very new to this site... I am interested in the Nikon 3200 and the Sony Alpha 58. I am looking to take picture/action shoots of my sons playing baseball and family pictures. Which is a better choice?? thanks

0 upvotes
ovi369
By ovi369 (Nov 4, 2012)

some samples with d3200 http://www.nikond3200photos.blogspot.com/

0 upvotes
ProPixels
By ProPixels (May 11, 2012)

I purchased a D3200 and tested it for 2 days before returning it. It looks great, feels great, has a wonderful and easy to use interface. But none of that matters because all of the images produced with various lenses in various lighting conditions, even on a tripod, were all BLURRY and SOFT! Even working from RAW via Lightroom 4.1, Blurry and Soft. I could literally get equal results with a half frame of my Canon 5D Mark II in side-by-side tests. That is 10MP in focus, as compared to 24 in super-soft focus (even with great optics). I don't know what Nikon did wrong here, but they came so close to a perfect camera, it pained me to box it up and send it back.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
darrenberk
By darrenberk (Jun 15, 2012)

Not sure what went wrong there buddy but I've scoured reviews from popular reviews site and the D3200 actually got a generally positive rating. Case in point, check out

http://www.squidoo.com/nikond3200review

0 upvotes
Ellen KORANSKY
By Ellen KORANSKY (May 7, 2012)

Help! I am a professional portrait photographer with a Nikon D 700 and several other cameras. I have to photograph several parties this summer and want a DSLR camera that is lightweight and easy to handle. I do not want a point and shoot and do I not want to lug around the D 700 with a flash unit. Any suggestions??????
Thanks!

0 upvotes
Gasman66
By Gasman66 (May 6, 2012)

What's the point in Previews, really? They all basically say "well this looks like an improvement over the last one with a couple of exciting new features, and we can't wait to get our hands on one to undertake the full review soon!" Yawn.

0 upvotes
darrenberk
By darrenberk (Jun 15, 2012)

I totally agree! Good thing I found a nice comparison site way before this "review" was released

http://www.squidoo.com/nikond3200review

0 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (May 3, 2012)

I wonder if the after market battery grips for the d3100 will fit this d3200?

0 upvotes
bryanhempstead
By bryanhempstead (May 2, 2012)

I don't think most of you understand that this is an ENTRY level DSLR.
Yeah, an ISO at that high is going to be pretty unusable from almost any camera, but the fact it can go that high is remarkable for a entry level DSLR.
It is better than the 5100 as far as specs go.
-4 FPS
-expeed 3 Processor
-11 AF points
-60 FPS in 720p in video
That's pretty bumpin for $699 and that's the kit
Not to mention the 24.2 mega pixels which is nice for you people that like to crop and print large.

Obviously it's not going to be built as well as the 5100, but it's a great camera for a beginner- moderate user.

But colored DSLRS can suck it.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (May 2, 2012)

Just saw a 11MB lands scape image from a d3200 shot on main Nikon webpage and there is no detail at all! bluf camera

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (May 25, 2012)

Bluff comment. Get a decent monitor.

1 upvote
TPeterson
By TPeterson (May 1, 2012)

How would this compare to my old D40? I'm getting everything I can from that camera, but I'm starting to be limited now for prints and books.

Should I be considering this next b/c of price or to upgrade to something like the D7000, D300s, or their replacements?

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (May 1, 2012)

T.P. My first Nikon DSLR was a D40 and I'm currently using a D7000. Yes, D40 is a great little camera, but D300s and D7000 are in completely different category providing you totally new experience and possibilities.

Regarding the features, the D300s and the D7000 are very similar. They both have AF motor in the body and they can also meter old manual focus Nikkor Ai lenses as well. The advantage of a D300s is the full Magnesium Alloy body (in D7000 only partially) and a CompactFlash card slot. But what is the big advantage of the D7000 over the D300s is the newer generation low noise 16MP sensor (vs. 12MP). Personally, I would warmly recommend upgrading to a D7000. Of course, you can wait for their replacements, but once you start waiting you may continue waiting for the next replacements and so on...

2 upvotes
TPeterson
By TPeterson (May 1, 2012)

thanks for the advise.

0 upvotes
Craig Gillette
By Craig Gillette (May 2, 2012)

This is certainly a more capable camera than the D40 when it comes to things like usable iso range, resolution - for larger prints, etc. It has an improved finder and rear display, etc. The D7000 and D300s are going to have even more expanded feature sets, the replacements, when they come (no one's telling when yet), will likely use this sensor.

Do you need a faster or more rugged camera? Any interest in video? shoot indoors or need weather resistance? Either the D7000 or the D300s would be a substantial step up in many ways (short of overall resolution/pixel count).

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (May 25, 2012)

No comparison at all. D3200 is much, much better than D40 - it's a state of the art 2012 camera.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (May 1, 2012)

A blurry mess. Why would anyone want to buy that?

0 upvotes
intruder61
By intruder61 (May 3, 2012)

such an informed, intelligent reply......Not.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (May 3, 2012)

"'such an informed, intelligent reply......Not."

What more did you expect? The fact that the samples are all soft and blurry is obvious.

1 upvote
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 30, 2012)

DPR staff: please let me know when the comparison - and in depth reviews - between the 5D Mark III and the D800 is coming. I'm really looking forward to it.

0 upvotes
Cultured Woman
By Cultured Woman (Apr 30, 2012)

Dude, it's red... even if its a really great camera... it looks like a toy...

Everyone likes to play, n'est pas?

;)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 30, 2012)

Dude, who would ever buy a red or yellow Ferrari or Lamborghini? Even if they are really great cars...they look like toys!

Seriously, though, you have to remember that red is only an *option*. You have the choice of red or black. Red is probably for people who are a little more adventurous and less narrow-minded. Nothing wrong with offering consumers a bit of choice...especially in a sea of black DSLRs.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Apr 30, 2012)

There's nothing wrong in giving a red option for those who prefer something other than black..

1 upvote
CedricL1984
By CedricL1984 (May 1, 2012)

Haha still better than magenta!

0 upvotes
Aputra
By Aputra (May 1, 2012)

How about cyan?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 30, 2012)

I wish these super high megapixel cameras would also advertise what their average file size is going to be (RAW and JPEG). They should add that to the specs page so that consumers understand at least one of the ramifications of shooting with a camera that has so many megapixels. It's pretty pointless to have such high resolutions, and have such large file sizes, when the average buyer is probably never going to be printing these images very large anyway. They certainly aren't going to be printing at billboard sizes.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Apr 30, 2012)

So true. High megapixel is good for large prints for sure. But many people are never going to print any picture. I see rich girls buying a D3200 and posting pictures of their friends on facebook.

They could get the same results with a D40.

0 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (May 1, 2012)

Isn't it wonderful to know how reasonably priced memory of all kinds is today!
Just compare to what it cost a few short years ago when the 6 MP D40 was the entry level Nikon DSLR...
Now we can have the option to use 24MP sensors because we have such reasonably priced memory cards and hard drives.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (May 1, 2012)

Marco - yes. I assume you mean a D3100. The D40 is not on the market any more. Of course the rich girls can get just as good images with a D3100. But they are rich. So why not get D3200? I dont see the point. BTW - I am not a Nikon guy - isnt there more differences between D3100 and D3200 than the MP count?

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (May 1, 2012)

I totally agree. If they do upgrades on the D300s or the D7000, I hope they don't go overboard on the sensor density. 16MP is enough for a DX sensor. Just my thought on that subject.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Apr 30, 2012)

It's hard to take any camera that comes in a bright red version seriously. It's either a camera or a fashion accessory.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 30, 2012)

Why can't it be both? We live in a different world now. A camera no longer has to look like a tank or some other piece of military equipment. The reality is that there are some people who want their cameras to be a camera *and* to be "fashionable." Just take a look at Leica owners who put snake skin or lizard skin leathers on their Leica M bodies.

We also have to remember that practically any DSLR sold today, no matter what color it is, offers a level of performance that would knock the socks off of a lot of high end pro bodies from the past.

1 upvote
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Apr 30, 2012)

I red DSLR says "leave me alone, I'm not a Serious Photographer." (grin) Back when I had a black film-SLR, it seems that every passerby was compelled to come over and talk to me. Eww. So much for Quite Time.

0 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 30, 2012)

Colour should not have any connection/association with the quality of the tool.

In the past all quality cars were black.
Does it mean that all black cars are of high quality now?

I believe we need to accept that having an option to choose the color of the camera wil only make consumers more satified and camera producers more profitable.

Who cares that the camera does not have a "pro" body colour when it can take "pro" quality pictures?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (Apr 30, 2012)

They could offer camouflage for wildlife shooters. Heck, even I would buy one since it would look really cool, like military gear.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Apr 30, 2012)

You're quite right, T3. The bias is entirely my own. :)

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
wepwawet
By wepwawet (Apr 30, 2012)

I personally don't buy cameras to 'look serious' but it seems lots of people here do (most of which I suspect aren't even pros).

0 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Apr 30, 2012)

I have an Oly E-PL1 that is red. Looks pretty sweet. If I bought a Nikon I'd probably choose this red one, for the same reason.
But then again I understand the "pro looks" and their necessity of blackness. We would have "Men in Pink" instead of Black if it wasn't like this ;) Nonetheless, remember we deal with an entry level DSLR. So why not play with its colors? :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (May 1, 2012)

It is hard to take anyone's comment seriously when the color options are their way of judging the capabilities of any camera.
The word superficial comes to mind.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Apr 30, 2012)

Still not better than Pentax K-r(1 1/2 years old)

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 30, 2012)

Who cares about Pentax when reading about Nikon?

1 upvote
mmcfine
By mmcfine (May 1, 2012)

People should be aware that they are better alternatives to this product such as the Pentax K r. Having a 24 MP behemoth should not be a consideration factor these days.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Apr 29, 2012)

In Amateur Photographer Magazine, a Nikon representative said: "Megapixels is a spec point that features whenever you look at a website, a brochure – it's always highlighted....For that [entry-level] customer it will be important, but higher up… enthusiast-level D7000 customers, for example, have a much broader range of demands on their list to tick off, such as performance in low light, or being more robust."

In short, 24MP is just a marketing gimmick aimed at entry-level buyers.

3 upvotes
Kananga
By Kananga (Apr 29, 2012)

Well if it works and Nikon sell more cameras then they will have more revenue for R&D to develop better technology for enthusiasts. Let them have their 24MP, it isn't hurting anyone.

0 upvotes
rudymnv
By rudymnv (Apr 29, 2012)

Well, yes and no. Typical consumer mind will choose box with higher number for same amount of money, from marketing standpoint this is good thing. Needing faster and higher capacity memory cards, faster in-camera processors and computers... from industry standpoint this is good thing. Moore's law on its best, and it will continue to develop in future to some really ridiculous Mpix numbers. But from consumer standpoint, there is lack of awareness regarding most important part of any camera, its lens. While shooting with high quality optics (usualy very pricey, several times the price of D3200), having high Mpix count has its benefit even on APS-C sensors, shooting with kit-lens and expecting miraculous IQ is just lack of awareness. Marketing gimmick or technology evolution... answer is in mind (or lens) of beholder.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Apr 29, 2012)

Well; I was first to say high megapixel count was not good but seeing the IQ of the sony NEX 7 I have to say I am very impressed. By looking at RAW crops seems that Nex 7 sensors has been improved in this camera.

1 upvote
lancespring
By lancespring (Apr 29, 2012)

"In short, 24MP is just a marketing gimmick aimed at entry-level buyers."

Not true, as the Sony A77 is most definitely not aimed at entry level buyers.

1 upvote
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Apr 29, 2012)

@Kananga

Look at Apple. As they discovered they make much more money with the consumer market, they're abandoning the professional one. And that's bad.

Higher entry level sellings = more founds to invest in innovation for professional and prosumer is not always right.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 29, 2012)

For DSLRs, 24 mp simply means higher resolution. It has zero to do with marketing. These are not lousy P&Ss for which manufacturers continue to up the megapixels often at the expense of IQ.

The D800 at 36 mp has more than any other DSLR, it also has great low-light performance, and awesome IQ.

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 30, 2012)

You know what....if it sells to beginners and new comers then it's good for everybody. If we still remember, DSLR's were pretty expensive back then. Today, a mainstream but affordable 600D or Nikon D5100 works so well. Enthusiasts are also buying into full frame cameras which makes them more affordable. Some Nikon rumors says that Nikon is going to produce a full frame cheaper than the D800.

The photography industry is fast becoming the electronics/computer industry.

0 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 30, 2012)

Yes,
BUT who will use all 24 MP at mainstream level
when 90-95% of future D3200 users will never print a picture bigger than 11X14 ????????????

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jimr
By jimr (May 1, 2012)

I'll take that 'gimmick' and it's added capability anytime ...
$699.
A steal of a deal....

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (May 1, 2012)

@Dimitri - so you say most will not need 24 MP. They would make just as good images e.g. at 12 MP or maybe even less. OK - that might be true. But - tell me what advantages you see for mainstream photographers to have less pixels?

0 upvotes
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Apr 29, 2012)

By the kind of questions I read here, I think is clear that Nikon is giving new entry photographers something they don't need or understand. But makes them THINK they need it, that makes profit for Nikon itself.

Don't really think this brings any good to the market nor the buyers.

Many people had trouble deciding between entry level cameras with a "regular" mpx count, now they get so confused some people actually consider buying the D3200 instead of the D5100. Pretty crazy IMO.

3 upvotes
tampadave
By tampadave (Apr 29, 2012)

And the entry photographer will get more in the future. When possible, 50-60mp is coming.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538521/nikon-d3200-bows-to-megapixel-mania-update2

2 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 30, 2012)

Yes,
BUT who will use all 24 MP at mainstream level, let alone 50-60MP,
when 90-95% of future D3200 users will never print a picture bigger than 11X14 ????????????

2 upvotes
dawn2dusk
By dawn2dusk (Apr 29, 2012)

Hello, for long i hve been planning to buy d5100, but after this came out there is a chaos in my mind. D5100 is great except it doesnt have inbuilt focus motor in it, so as this camera.(I m much into photography than video so dont care much whether manual contrl is there or not). But what really took my attention about this camera is that i can crop the photo n can get little closer to the subject without the need of large zoom lens(need ur opion if i m right on this). Also i want to know if i take a picture with high iso with both the cameras and then later i bring the size of the d3200 image down to the size of d5100 will i be able to get the same picture quality(with similar amount of noise). I m really confused i think the price of d3200 and d5100 is around same and i dont want 2 spend more than tat. And if d5200 comes out it would definitely be more expensive. So i want to stick with these two. Please give ur opinions which one would be a better deal. Planning 2 buy soon.Help!!

0 upvotes
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Apr 29, 2012)

Well, I say stick with D5100. it's 16mox so you can still crop a good amount of the picture. Plus, cropping doesn't make up for the lack of a good telephoto lens, keep that in mind. I'd go with the D5100 just because it's less entry level, that is something real, instead of bull**** about picture quality, megapixels and other minor differences between the sensor of the two models.

1 upvote
rudymnv
By rudymnv (Apr 29, 2012)

I would go with D5100. While cropping can be useful for web/onscreen view, as you get more experience with framing and composition, you'll come to point where you don't want to crop at all. So IQ wise, cropping is not good, it's not replacement for telephoto lens, and it's something you don't want to do on regular basis. Like stated in comment above D5100 is more serious photographer tool. And if you can somehow save a little more for D7000 that would be a real win.

1 upvote
Then4
By Then4 (Apr 29, 2012)

D5100 is a good camera and good build one. If i wher a first time buyer of a DLSR only want it for good photos. It have lovely colours.I'm dont think D3200 will have the same build quality. Recent Nikon cheap cameras have really droped in feel quality thinking of P510.

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Apr 29, 2012)

Hey dawn2dusk, don't get confused because of 24MP. Decision should be a no-brainer, go for a better and (most likely) snappier—D5100. And scaling down to reduce noise is pretty lame—especially in cases when you have to crop—something Canon guys have been touting for long to compete with D3/D700/D3s:s high ISO performance.

2 upvotes
lancespring
By lancespring (Apr 29, 2012)

Lots of bad advice here, that is totally ignoring the new advances in the D3200. For one, it has the same new EXPEED 3 image processor that the D800 and D4 have. That is really going to result in great looking photos, as this preview's samples clearly demonstrate.

The D3200 has lots of great video features too. It shoots 1080 in 24p, 25p, and 30p, and 720 in 60p. Allows for full manual exposure control when shooting video, has on screen audio recording meters to monitor audio, and there is no ISO limitation on recording video either.

So don't discount the fact the the D3200 has some features and new technology which the D5100 simply does not have.

4 upvotes
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Apr 29, 2012)

1) EXPEED3? Does that make good pictures? I thought PHOTOGRAPHER made the picture...maybe the camera if you want....but now the processor? Oh boy, we're going really down.

2) D5100 shoots video too, D3200 is just a minor improvement in that field if any noticeable. And most of all: video? C'mon please.

dawn2dusk, listen to people who actually take pictures like me or the others above, get a D5100.

And I'm no professional shooter, but my D3000 is still enough for me, I invested in some VERY good lenses. THOSE make the difference together with your talent. Not 60p vs 50p or 8mpx more.

3 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Apr 29, 2012)

One more thing, dawn2dusk, remember that D3200's LCD is fixed whereas the D5100 has a 3" Vari-angle 921K-dot LCD (which is very nice when shooting high or low).

5 upvotes
dawn2dusk
By dawn2dusk (Apr 30, 2012)

Thanx people for all ur comments...now i have a stable mind !!! Dont know why i was falling towards this camera...nice marketing strategy by the way to lure the novice users.

0 upvotes
Wubslin
By Wubslin (Apr 29, 2012)

I see Nikon's PR department have been busy today. Anyone who isn't fooled by their shiny toys is a 'Canon troll' apparently. Got it.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 29, 2012)

I could definitely see going out street shooting two of these, one with a 20 mm 2.8 and one with the new 85 1.8. They 're cheap enough I could afford to buy more lenses.

0 upvotes
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (Apr 29, 2012)

Hello, I am an amateur and have a question for the more experienced here. The D3200 lists 3 Image Size MP Modes: 24.1, 13.5, and 6.0. What would the image quality result be shooting at the lower MP Modes such as 13.5 or even the 6.0 MP? Is the camera still making full use of the entire sensor? If one were not intending to make large prints, how would shooting at the lower MP size settings affect the resulting images? Then there's the issue of the Image quality settings which are JPEG basic, JPEG normal, JPEG fine, NEF (RAW) and NEF (RAW) + JPEG fine. If one were to shoot at say the 13.5 MP or 6.0 MP Image size and JPEG fine, I assume that would result in a pretty HQ image output and an easy to handle file size. Any thoughts on these different settings and options would be most welcome. Thanks!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 29, 2012)

Every time, despite what setting you choose (raw, jpeg, fine, small etc), the camera shoots raw. The quality setting tells the camera a. to keep or to discard the raw file (raw quality settings) and b. how to process the raw file (picture controls, jpeg options). So every output comes from 24 mp raw. To ensure maximum quality you need to keep and process the raw file with a raw converter outside of the camera (in your computer) but many people are happy with OOC jpegs and I can understand why. A downsized OOC jpeg is what most potential buyers of this camera want. Choose the least jpeg compression (jpeg fine) and experiment with the various mp settings to find the optimal balance between file size, quality and SD-card/hard-disk storage.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
mmcfine
By mmcfine (Apr 29, 2012)

Poor consumers who will buy this or any mega pixel camera without considering the post production or loading and editing these huge files.

2 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 29, 2012)

There is always the option to output reduced down to 6mp jpeg files. Unless the average consumer always shoot and process raw :).

1 upvote
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Apr 29, 2012)

I think nowadays computers have enough power and disk space to handle a 24mp file without great problems...

5 upvotes
nilux
By nilux (Apr 29, 2012)

The poor consumer will be shooting 24MP JPEG which is a lot easier to handle thamn 24MP RAW.

3 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Apr 29, 2012)

Average consumer will say :
Check out man I have a 24mp camera !!!!

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
mmcfine
By mmcfine (Apr 30, 2012)

exactly my point ARTASHES !
TOMPABES2: yes nowadays computers have enough power but the average consumer doesn't buy those computer, most of my non-pro friends who have mega pixel cameras use Picasa, Windows on some cheap crap Dell laptop.

Most average consumers buy 24 MP cameras and never read the instructions, have no basic idea of photography or intentions to learn.
Most average consumers use these mega pixel DSLR as a P&P.

More average consumer DLSR sales = reduced prices on hi-end stuff for us...-)

0 upvotes
Wubslin
By Wubslin (Apr 29, 2012)

Another failure from the desperate Nikon. No great surprise...

1 upvote
marbo uk
By marbo uk (Apr 29, 2012)

Someone else living in a parallel universe.

12 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 29, 2012)

Canon troll.

12 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Apr 29, 2012)

Pathetic post...

2 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Apr 29, 2012)

The WiFi adapter alone is a very cool selling argument. AFAIK no other vendor makes it so easy to get the pics where the average consumer wants them. No high class prints, no post processing ... just fun on my Android or iPad device.

Very clever Nikon.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Apr 29, 2012)

Cameras with built in wifi have been around for several years.

1 upvote
iBuzz
By iBuzz (Apr 29, 2012)

Maybe you don't understand the real value of this new WIFI adapter: this Wi-Fi setup give you a Wireless Live View on your phone screen and add many possibilities to share your pictures on social network!

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 29, 2012)

The recently announced Samsung mirrorless cameras offer WiFi features too, including automatic back-up and remote live view. And without the need for an adapter, I might add.

0 upvotes
SBoudreault
By SBoudreault (Apr 30, 2012)

"The recently announced Samsung mirrorless cameras offer WiFi features too, including automatic back-up and remote live view. And without the need for an adapter, I might add."

But it's a Samsung...They make good TV's, decent phones, but cameras ? Maybe decent... Good glass, oops not much there !
S.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (May 1, 2012)

I wasn't really suggesting that Samsung makes better cameras than Nikon. I was just pointing out, in response to the OP, that Nikon isn't the only manufacturer offering these features.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 29, 2012)

There is one thing many high MP haters overlook and that is the ability to get "zooming capability" for free, because you can crop more and still maintain the image size of your older low MP camera :-)

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 29, 2012)

More pixels leads generally to better IQ. There are three advantages with few pixels:

1. You get better images at extremely high ISO.
2. You get a faster camera.
3. You save memory/disc space.

But, as APS-C has a rather large area, you can have many more than 24 MP before running in to IQ problems, except for extremely high ISO, and then you have IQ problems with any camera, just less with big pixel cameras.

2 upvotes
Hrvoje Crvelin
By Hrvoje Crvelin (Apr 29, 2012)

It is not that simple. High MP requires investment into higher quality glass too to take advantage of such sensor. This is what kept me away from nex7. At such point d3200 becomes too expensive entry level camera. With dSLR one is truth; you find your lenses first and then body. My wish is to have camera like d300, but at lower price range... I might wait couple of year for that... until then, I bought d5100 yesterday which to me (and for what I do) is better choice than d3200.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 29, 2012)

No - higher MP count does not demand better glass. It will improve any glass.

3 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 29, 2012)

I have all the Nikon pro lenses, but still think the 18-55 is doing pretty well. You get a lot of value for very, very little money. Great for holidays if you don't want to bring a pro lens that is heavy and cost 10-20 times as much.

1 upvote
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 30, 2012)

More pixels will not lead to the better images at extremely high ISO.

Hi-ISO IQ depends on the sensor signal/noise specs and not MP count!!!

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 30, 2012)

@Dimitri - you are right - up to a point ISO wise. But - at a certain point, the noise added by each detector adds up to a substantial ratio of the image information. Then you can get less bad images with fewer and larger detectors. But with modern APS-C sensor size technology, for 24 MP that happens at very high ISO.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (May 1, 2012)

@Dimitr - yes you are right. At extremely high ISO, more pixels will not improve image quality. It might even do the opposite. But, thats not all that important for most people. Because at very high ISO, all cameras have cr@ppy image quality. The competition who has the cra@ppies is not all that interesting IMHO.

Oops - sorry for replying twice. But now I have said it :) Twice

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
djmm
By djmm (Apr 29, 2012)

Hello
Can I take rabbit pictures with this camera? I know it can probably take cat pictures but how about rabbit?
Rabbit is a whole different ball game compared to cats.

15 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 29, 2012)

I don't think the camera manufacturers do any rabbit tests. It's not considered appropriate for a photographer to have any other pets than cats.

8 upvotes
Mousehound
By Mousehound (Apr 29, 2012)

As a Nikon preferer and (I also use Canon) user I am sure that this model will sell in bucket-loads. This level of user will always go for the high pixel count. Sadly the Canon is clearly the winner in actual clarity of pictures.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Apr 29, 2012)

I am sure it will sell a lot. Bigger is better, you know, for a lot of smart consumers ;)

24MP is better than 23MP or 18MP. A car with 8 cylinders in a car must be better than 6 or 4. A bigger DSLR must be better than a small MILC. A 50-inch TV must be better than a 46-inch one, for sure.

Such is the intelligence of so many consumers, or should I say the majority of consumers! They either learn by heart some brands' names, like Nike or Nikon, etc, or they can only remember one measurement for a product. For cars, it is the displacement of number of cylinders, for TVs it is the size in inches, for cameras, it is the number of MPs. The masses will still flock to this camera and other such beginner DSLRs from Canon for a while, as the average person buying cameras have, er, average intelligence. That's by definition. :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 29, 2012)

@Sergey - I say it once more in this thread - and then no more. In general the IQ increases with pixel count. Its a myth that this is not the case.

The biggest advantage with few pixels is speed - if you are in a hurry - either to take 11 images per second or if you have to send your images fast to the sport news.

A smaller advantage is the you get less cr@ppy images at extreme ISO. But - thats really only for a very few people. Getting cr@ppy images instead of even cra@ppier is not all that interesting for most of us.

3 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Apr 29, 2012)

@Roland - I will only say this once more, just for you. The point I made is about needing many things for a good camera, not just high ISO. Large number of cylinders and displacement in a car also guarantees means more raw power, but can you control that power if the suspension and steering are not up to it? Can the power translate to speed, if the tyres are not up to it, or the car skids and slides? Similarly, high MP alone is not enough. You need to get the picture first, meaning good AF, accurate exposure etc etc. The highest MP is no use if it is too dark, too blurry due to erroneous AF. You get it now?

Read my post again, if not. It is about how this camera will sell based on the 24MP, and although IQ is important it is not the only measurement that is important. I was not talking about higher MP not a good thing.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (May 1, 2012)

@Sergey - the comparison with the car only holds if 24 MP in any way is a relevant problem. The problems I can see is speed and file size. Do you find any of those relevant for you?

NOTE - file size you can fix. There are lower resolutions. Speed on the other hand you cant. Do you think you need/want more than 4 FPS?

0 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Apr 28, 2012)

Glad I paid a little more for the 16MP Oly OM-D w/ kit lens, which is about half the size and weight of this $699 Nikon.

1 upvote
iBuzz
By iBuzz (Apr 29, 2012)

Glad I didn't paid twice the price of Nikon D3200 for low megapixel Oly OM-D w/kit lens with slow AF for cats and dogs running and not so good RAW files.

6 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Apr 28, 2012)

I think the IQ( don't mean the image quality) of this forum has to improve.

14 upvotes
senn_b
By senn_b (Apr 29, 2012)

for sure ! .. :-))

0 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Apr 28, 2012)

I have to wonder why people are comparing the Canon 7D ($1400), Pentax K5 ($1060), Sony NEX7 ($1199) and Nikon D3200 ($620). Giving the edge to these much more expensive cameras at very high ISO seems like a crazy argument when in fact the real issue should be, how can a $620 Nikon compare so favourably with those cameras. Like many, I am waiting for the in-depth review but from what I have seen so far, there is a lot of camera here for the price.

Note: these prices are all Canadian $, body only, my local area.

3 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Apr 28, 2012)

550D/600D gets 7D sensor, D700 had D3's sensor, D5000 has D300s sensor, today in fact the lowest class Nikon APS-C camera beats the highest class one the D300s in therms of IQ (it's old I know but still), today the IQ or the sensor performance isn't the main factor of camera's class but focusing, speed, built quality, performance are, so comparing the IQ of diff-class cameras isn't shocking to me.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
s1Lma
By s1Lma (Apr 28, 2012)

WTF? Why is the exposure so high compared to other cameras???

btw, hard to judge noise in the shots made

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

Very nice RAW performance, up with the Sony, actually a lityle better at 6400 and 12800. Well-done Nikon. If this is not a Sony sensor, as it's seems to be, interesting tech coming from Nikon and whatever maker involved.

1 upvote
derfla1949
By derfla1949 (Apr 28, 2012)

This camera is priced as a consumer level product.
So you should expect just what you pay for.
Out of camera jpeg at ISO 800 is mediocre, and at 1600 is just horrible, yes, but so what?
People can use a flash on their grandpa's birthday.

As long as there is a pixel count difference with a mobile phone, there is no need to compare IQ.

3 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Apr 28, 2012)

At least Nikon has improved on the high iso performance of the a-77 Nex-7 which probably use the same sensor. Still not nearly as good as the 16mp in the D7000/K5/D5100.

1 upvote
MichaelK81
By MichaelK81 (Apr 28, 2012)

People in this market segment do not care about IQ. Entry level SLRs sell mostly on price and specs. And D3200 will sell like pancakes.

5 upvotes
mario7
By mario7 (Apr 28, 2012)

Worse noise from 800 ISO up compared to 3100, 5000, 5100 and T3i. Not good.

5 upvotes
injeklitio
By injeklitio (Apr 28, 2012)

look the samples in raw, focus in mickey mouse pants and set the iso 1600, the worse is the d3200, following d3100, cannon 600d and the better the d5100, too much mp for this camara, there is nothig new in the d3200, bad for nikon.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 28, 2012)

And in RAW ISO 1600, look at any grey patch like under the pencils, and you'll see the D3200 has much less chroma noise than the 600D, and smaller, tighter noise pattern.

If you were to normalize all cameras at 14 mp of the D3100, you'd see the difference in ISO performance even more, with the D3200 outperforming the others. Great for Nikon.

4 upvotes
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Apr 28, 2012)

To much hot pixels in D3200 samples to my taste, that said it may be the key argue for non Sony sensor in D3200, from those pics at least

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (Apr 28, 2012)

@ marike6 - come on... you have got to admit that the high ISO performance of the D3200 is mediocre at best... ISO 1600 and above is practically unusable even by amateur standards...

The Canon 600D is much cleaner in just about every aspect of the DPR sample image... look at the brush... the legibility of characters on the bottles & the Kodak colour chart... the cloth fibre... the blue clock... the womans face... & that patch of tiger skin... everything is rendered with realistic pinpoint accuracy...

And considering this camera is targeted at a segment of the market which will comprise mainly of amateurs... i doubt anyone will bother downsampling to reduce noise patterns & artifacts...

3 upvotes
Then4
By Then4 (Apr 28, 2012)

Nikon D3200 seems to be the first victim in the MP race. I only produse larger files but in quality Nikon D3100 and Canon 600D outperform it.

3 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 28, 2012)

You definitely need glasses or a better monitor :-)

8 upvotes
mario7
By mario7 (Apr 28, 2012)

Agree.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 28, 2012)

Sigh - the too many pixels myth is very difficult to kill. An APS-C is rather plenty of square mm. 24 MP is far from the limit where you start to get problems.

5 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

What is this? The pack of fans from other makers tryong to put down a very good RAW performance? It's better than all in the sample here.

3 upvotes
Then4
By Then4 (Apr 28, 2012)

RAW peformance is not good. Maybe i had a bad monitor but the pink colour i really get wrong in the samples and to see so much noise in every ISO. I think many hoped that this model would de a poor mans D800. But save your money and get a real D800 is better if you want high MP.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Apr 28, 2012)

AnHund, Mario7, Rhlpetrus: fanboys blinded by their fanaticism. It's VERY obvious the D3200 has AWFUL high ISO performance. And let me tell you this: unlike chroma noise, those hot spots in high ISO cannot be removed without compromising image details.

Sure, the D3200 has seemingly better noise performance than the Sony NEX 7, but this was achieved by reduced color sensitivity. Look at how washed out the colors become as ISO levels start to climb.

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 29, 2012)

Photo nuts. Just stick with your NEX and let us fanboys enjoy the d3200 :-)

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 29, 2012)

@Then4. Of course D800 is better than D3200 - its twice the sensor area. That has some impact on IQ. But - that has not to do with pixel size - thats sensor size.

So - if you claim that more pixels (on the same size sensor) means lesser IQ - I think its up to you to prove it to be the case. Its my belief that the world in general has the opposite opinion, i.e. that more pixels leads to better images. To a certain limit of course. But that limit is far away for APS-C.

0 upvotes
HopeSpringsEternal
By HopeSpringsEternal (Apr 28, 2012)

Actually this Nikon may be using an Aptina 24mpx sensor. Afterall, this is a high volume camera for Nikon and I'm sure Nikon would prefer not to enrich Sony with this model and I'm sure that Sony is very unhappy that Nikon is deploying 24mpx at the lowest end cutting of its air supply at the mid-end with the A65/A77

Aptina also developed the sensor with phase detection for Nikon used in the "1"-series cameras.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Apr 28, 2012)

Con: No Automatic Exposure Bracketing, just like the D3100. Geez, even my 2003 Canon G5 compact camera has AEB. How backwards of Nikon. AEB is a convenient way to get a perfectly exposed photo under tricky lighting conditions. It's not just about use with HDR software.

2 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Apr 28, 2012)

My Pentax 33L, same year, has exposure, white balance, contrast and saturation bracketing. I think your Canon G5 also has focus bracketing. I agree, this isn't a difference maker like focus speed, viewfinder size and coverage, AF points, processor power, etc. that should determine price points.

0 upvotes
Simage
By Simage (Apr 28, 2012)

Interesting, at first glance is does not look as good as the other cameras, however according to this test the output is similar to the D3X and I don't see many people complaining about the D3X IQ.....:)

1 upvote
Niucamer
By Niucamer (Apr 28, 2012)

I was going to say that. 90% of D3X IQ for 10x times less, plus video. Amazing, isn't it?

3 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Apr 28, 2012)

to all nikon fanboys: the camera uses sony sensor, it's insider information

2 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Apr 28, 2012)

Gee, I'm sure all the nikon fanboys are weeping after this...

3 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (Apr 28, 2012)

But ain't Nikon making some of the instruments that Sony use in the CMOS sensor production? If so they are for sure sharing much sensor technology between them. I only more or less guess here, no rumors from me ;)

0 upvotes
jimitav
By jimitav (Apr 28, 2012)

So what?

5 upvotes
Just Ed
By Just Ed (Apr 28, 2012)

That's just fine, Sony does make the best consumer sensors...by far!

1 upvote
John Koch
By John Koch (Apr 28, 2012)

If only Sony could report some profits too!

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

Not what the technically litterate say ... but it's actually irrelevant, Sony/Nikon partnership is producing the very best sensor tech available at the moment.

2 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 28, 2012)

I honestly don't know why Nikon fanbois are complaining about Nikon using Sony sensors. Nikon does tweak the sensor better than what Sony does and at the end of the day most of its newer sensors are better than what Canon has so whether its Sony, Kodak or any other XYZ company making the sensor it shouldn't bother anyone.

At the end of the day its still a Nikon branded camera. :)

1 upvote
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (Apr 29, 2012)

And to Leica fanboys (emacs23), Leica uses awful Kodak CCDs...what was your point again?

1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Apr 30, 2012)

@AngryCorgi

I hope leica will use that 36Mp sony sensor in their M10.

0 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (Apr 28, 2012)

I'm using D700 and interested to know how far the IQ of that new DX sensor would fall behind the FX. As such, I have downloaded those NEF samples and converted to JPG using Capture NX2 v2.3.2. After checking the result (with limited samples), I have an impression that the D3200's IQ is considerably far away from FX (D700). However, 24MP (DX) vs 12MP (FX) might be a matter of concern.

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 28, 2012)

I tried the same with the ISO 3200 samples and after down sampling the D3200 image and doing a little post processing I was amazed how close the IQ is to the D700 - not as clean and with a little more noise (not annoying), but with details perfectly retained.

Also note that the D700 was shoot with the 85mm 1.8 and the D3200 with the 50mm 1.4. That may give a little difference as well.

3 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Apr 28, 2012)

You can see here D3200 jpg samples with 40mm f/2.8G:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d3200/sample.htm

Not bad.
I have D700 and 85mm f/1.8.
D3200 + 40/1.8 is cheaper.

0 upvotes
Julian
By Julian (Apr 28, 2012)

So now we're in a world where you have to put the best pro-glass on the lowest spec DSLR to get it to perform...

6 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 28, 2012)

I don't think so. It's more like this: If you intent to print your pictures at the same size the D3200 with lens will be probably better than D3100 with the same lens and surely better than a D40 with the same lens.
Every lens will benefit from more mp. More mp is the trend because its better. Look at the Nokia 40mp phone. Look at the Nikon 1 with a pixel density of 74mp in FF terms. Do you think that Nikon 1 kit lenses are top grade?

7 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 28, 2012)

More MP is better? That's probably why the top models all have....LESS MP. A camera is a whole lot more than just MP, MP is much more just a marketing tool.

4 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 28, 2012)

D4 is only 16mp because it has to shoot at 11fps. When the data-rate capability will increase mp count will follow.

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 28, 2012)

Also the higher end models are updated less often so they end up playing catch up to the lower end models features and MP wise.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 28, 2012)

@ Rubenski

The top model, the D800, has more MP, and it gets a ridiculously good High ISO (sports) score of 2835 ISO and 14 EV DR on DxOMark. Marketing, you were saying?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 28, 2012)

Cameras like the D4 have less MP because they are for sports/event/PJ shooters who often need to shoot 2000+ images at a time and in the case of sports/pj shooters send them to the wire service while the event is still going on.

Under these circumstances having smaller file sizes is vitally important. Especially considering the images are often being captured at 10+ fps.

The D4 type cameras are actually a very niche, specialist cameras.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

BS, pure and simple. More pixels make your lens, any lens, better than lower pixel count. Learn a bit about how to measure it or how to use it in real life situations.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 29, 2012)

@Rubenski. You already have got some answers. In the future I recommend you to do a reality check before spreading faulty information. The main reason for few pixels in top models is speed, both when taking and when manipulating and sending the images. They are for sports and journalist photographers. They shot away lots of images and also have very short time to delivery.

We that have the time to read and write here can take it somewhat more slowly. And then many pixels is best.

1 upvote
NorthwestF
By NorthwestF (Apr 28, 2012)

This may not be a Sony's sensor, see the picture of the sensor here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=41285538

It's not going to score high dynamic range on dxomark, as Nex-7 and D7000

3 upvotes
NorthwestF
By NorthwestF (Apr 28, 2012)

Nex-7 out of camera jpegs look better.

3 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (Apr 28, 2012)

I just checked the test again guys and I was wrong in one thing. The lab test were conducted using a Nikon 50mm G lens , not the 18-55mm which was used for the photos samples.

0 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (Apr 28, 2012)

In the lab test I saw the nikon bettered the other cameras on some markers but on others it was rather nominal . The 25MP sensor is being strained and hold back by the lens used which could be the reason but that aside the truth of the pudding are photographs and there I liked what I saw not withstanding they were taken with nikons least expensive lens so we must expect much better performance from this camera with a top notch lens which is the way test should be conducted . But analyzing all this another way those who do buy this camera will not be using it with nikons best lens . In any event we should wait for the camera to come out on the market and see what it will give . One more thing , I liked the canon 600D very much in it's jpg files but we all have to remember all these test are done at default setting and Canon always sets it's default setting with more contrast and sharpness then Nikon .

2 upvotes
Eigenmeat
By Eigenmeat (Apr 28, 2012)

The AA filter is way too strong... I still don't why manufacturer pay AA filters on such high density sensors... Compared to the NEX7 raw side by side, the pixel acuity is way inferior. I think Nikon crippled the D3200 in purpose to protect D800 sales =).

Yes, I know sharpening can even the different to some degree, but sharpening always comes at the cost of making noise more visible...

4 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Apr 28, 2012)

It's not the strong AA filter. It's the lens failure to meet the huge demands of the densely packed 24 MP APS-C sensor (equivalent to 58 MP FF).

2 upvotes
Eigenmeat
By Eigenmeat (Apr 28, 2012)

I think all these studio tests are not done by kit lens, they are using stop down 50mms. If you look at the raw samples for the NEX7, you will see these 50mm are fully capable of resolving 24mp apsc

6 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Apr 28, 2012)

Eigenmeat: you may be right. But it's a Sony lens, not a Nikkor lens!

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Apr 28, 2012)

Check out the centre of the playing card at ISO 100 RAW.
The D3200 completely breaks apart the red, has less contrast, and less sharpness, compared to the D3100.
This is completly unnacceptable from a world reknowned camera/lens maker.
Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for producing a worse product than the previous model.
Suckers are gonna lap up the marketing hype and bigger numbers though. So I can imagine it selling well.

wildbird: When is the last time you had your eyes checked? As good as a 4x5 camera? Wow. Hahaha

8 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 28, 2012)

Maybe you need glasses or a better monitor?..ha..ha :-)

3 upvotes
Total comments: 495
1234