Just Posted: Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery

I think he is talking about some primes like 18mm and 23mm (or 24mm) for DX cameras (28 and 35 equivalent in 35mm). These lenses should be smaller and lighter compared to FF lenses. The new 28mm is nice, but it is not really small if you check, not to mention 35mm 1.4.... Nikon has not been very quick to offer these type of DX lenses for sometimes now. Maybe again, like someone put, most DX cameras users will only use their kit zoom lenses .

I guess you understand that all images posted here are in jpeg. If you want to pp high iso images from raw,I bet it will look better. They just wanted to show us this camera's capability and I'm quite impressed with it. You just can NOT expect perfect noise free high iso image from a $699 camera. But for the price you pay,you get a lot of camera and I don't think SONY NEX7 is worth twice as much as D3200.

BTW,can iphone take better high iso image at iso12800 than D3200?

Not really. Shouldn't dpreview provide neutral advice? Relegating companies with smaller market share to the back of the queue demonstrates editorial bias.

We do tend to prioritise cameras that we actually have.

So how'd you do a hands-on without the camera? This is less than transparent.

"On a recent trip to Samsung's Seoul headquarters I got the opportunity to use the new NX20, and get a feel for how it performs. I only had a short time with a pre-production camera"

This quote from the preview article seems to explain it. Perhaps you need to stop trying to see conspiracies every where.

I was about to post that same quote myself. It seems pretty transparent to me.

zing!

I think DP understands the appetite and interest of it's visitors. I would not be surprised if forum activity helps set editorial priorities, a good thing in my mind.

The real question for Canon is if they've decided to invest money in their sensor research and fabrication plants. If not, it looks like Canon will continue to get hammered by Nikon's (Sony's?) sensor technology, no matter how many megapixels they decide to include.

Canon will continue to bleed marketshare to Nikon because they have inferior sensor technology just like Nikon suffered at Canon's hands for the last 7 years when the shoe was on the other foot.

Hardly... These are right on par with the Canon T3I. Seriously, don't kid yourself.

Indeed.

Would you "trade up" from the D3100? Buy the D3200 body alone without lenses? If not attracted by the kit lens bargain, why not buy a D5200 or D7100 body?

As for me, a bit higher model, something between 5200 and 7200, let me say.

Ok, you're right R Butler.
But Nikonians can have already excellent and cheap lenses as 50/1.8 D or 85/1.8 D.

It is just great that the samples are with the kit zoom and jpeg, because that means even better output with a prof. lens and raw.

The T3 is the current Canon equivalent of a D3100. The T4 (the T3 plus more pixels) will be the answer to the D3200. Most of the competitive advantage will hinge on which firm offers the cheaper two lens package to the market, plus whether the consumer wants a new DSLR or prefers to upgrade the phone from 3G to 4G.

I think the OP was trying to express the inherent difficulty in judging highly processed JPEG images. Not everyone will crank the in-camera NR and other dynamic range effects all the way up and only output JPEG files. As for your analogy, you might be interested in seeing the raw ingredients of a great meal if they were stored in a dirty container with flies buzzing around...no matter how good the meal is after its cooked you might think twice if you saw it before it was prettied up. And the high ISO noise levels are important, but it's also a worst-case scenario and comparing it to other cameras at that level is important though not the complete picture.

i think we need some perspective here. the image was shot at 12,800 on a sub $1,000 camera. at that price i am hoping i can print an 11 x 17 image shot at 3200. and from what i am seeing the d3200 will give you a better image at iso 5000 than the d7000 will at 1600.

more importantly what does this mean? we can shoot still shots in moderately lit bars. we can get strong indoor shots with fast lenses and we can shoot indoor sports at 2.8 without noise killing the image.

my biggest complaint about the camera is that i cant pop out the sensor on my d7000 and replace it with this new sensor.

If you do not make your own sensors, you use what your supplier makes - so there is your answer on MPX :)

It'd be a matter of time that D7000 would get a 24MP sensor as well, so be patient. As much as I'd like the DSLR image quality (I do have a DSLR), nowadays I shot mostly with my P300 or P7000 for convenience. Hopefully a P7100 successor would have a APS size sensor with a fixed zoom, then I'd be set.

"The only way to really know how this sensor performs is when we see a raw image at ISO 12800..."
Sorry but I disagree - from an end user point of view. 95%+ of the people that buy this camera will probably NEVER adjust NR or ADL. DPReview has done well to demonstrate how the camera will do for those 95%+. If you aren't in the target audience for the D3200 that Nikon is shooting for, then you probably under stand RAW processing, and will use programs like Noise Ninja to make better High ISO shots.
The other thing to point out is that very high ISO performance, for a great many people, simply doesn't matter or is of little consequence. The target market will look at the 24mp resolution and think the camera will make great enlargements. The real question should be: Can it? I'd have to say yes, for most situations.

MP does not equal detail resolution. 24MP of garbage will make a large print of garbage. Actual detail resolved by the lens and sensor will determine how good a large print will look. As for whether the print is worth being made in the first place, that's up to whoever wants to hang it in their house.

By rich12: "Most people's images aren't worth printing, especially for $9."

It's worse than that. You buy a $25 ink cartridge to print one big picture that the recipients look at for 10 seconds, then put in a drawer or throw away. When the impulse to make a "fine print" gift again, the ink cartidge has dried up. Perhaps Mom will cherish the grandkids' print, and put it on the mantle, but she'd do the same with a 4x6 disposable cam snapshot with equal affection.

Costco uses RA-4, not ink, which is why the prints cost $9. For that matter, given a sane viewing distance, a 20x30 print made with a kit lens on a 24mp camera will look the same as a 16 or 18mp camera.

No, megapixels are added because unless you shoot 2000+ images at a time and/or need really high fps, you will always benefit from more megapixels.

This idea that you only need 8/12/16 megapixels and any more is a detriment is coming from people who wont/can't buy the higher megapixel cameras either due to cost or the reasons given above. They say you don't need the megapixels to feel better about not buying the higher megapixel cameras.

By Josh152: "...you will always benefit from more megapixels."

How so? On a 4x6 print, 1mp might be fine. On a 1920x1080 screen, what advantage is there in any resolution above that? Even if you zoom or crop, any resolution over 6mp is for naught unless you have a very good lens and good light. Even with good light, using a 1/2.3" sensor, a large file blown to "actual" size looks pretty much like a smaller file: lots of NR or softness. Anything over 10MP does nothing but waste memory space, unless you have a very good lens, large sensor, and need to crop a lot. Most people, even ones with DSLRs, haven't the time or need for that. Life has other chores and duties that command prior attention. "Dear, please shut off the PC, get off your lazy duff, and help me clean up the XXXX."

In an article on AlphaRumors, Nikon claims it is different, which likely means it's a 24 mp EXMOR with Nikon tweaks.

Yes it is, with some Nikon tweaks like different AA filter and microlens array (the one on the NEX-7 is optimized for shorter flange distances)

Probably not. The sensor looks different enough to doubt it's an Exmor design and there seems to be a lot more read noise at low ISO in deeper shadows, which strengthens the former suspicion.

Different AA filter, different lens array. So the only thing that the sensors share is "Made by Sony".
What's the point, Nikon or Sony. Nikon is outsourcing sensor production to Sony, that's all. They do the same with Aptina on Nikon 1 sensors.

Until I see actual proof that the sillicon is from Sony, I'll stick with what I said above rather than wild guesses.

"Until I see actual proof that the sillicon is from Sony, I'll stick with what I said above rather than wild guesses." - Untill I see some proof it's NOT a sensor from Sony - I'll stick to the most likely version, one that Nikon fanboys tried to avoid through wide spectrum of previous Nikon cameras:
Yep, it is a Sony sensor.

Why is it likely? The D3100 didn't have a Sony sensor either, when Sony had a 14MP Exmor on the shelves for quite some time. Add this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=41280229
(no not the picture Bobn2 showed)

And the shadow noise at low ISO (which Exmors don't show) and your guess loses ground fast.

How many people buy a D3100 or D3200 to shoot RAW? How many who shoot 500 RAW shots on a trip or visit have the time or skill to edit photos any better than the built-in JPEG engine? How many fuddy-duds believe themselves to be great artists trapped in the body of fuddy-dud mechanics or actuaries?

Well, for the sake of the vast numbers of us fuddy-duds without such illusions, but want an affordable way to take nice pictures, reviews based on JPEG are a good idea.

True, but then we also live in a world where review sites has a monetary interest in producing rave reviews..

The D3200 was announced 6 days ago. How fast do you need it? And why so dependent on reviews? A 24 mp APS-C camera from Nikon for $699: do you think there's a snowballs chance it's going to be a poor performer?

Blige! there will be people queuing up like it was an iPad next. Get a life the review will be ready before Christmas and thats all you need to know.

Why the rush? The camera isn't even available yet.

Actually FeedMe, in this case we're a site that has a monetary interest in producing content people are interested in. Any advertising comes because we have readers and readers come only if we publish things they want to read.

(If large numbers of people didn't feel they could trust our reviews, we wouldn't get readers, so rave reviews aren't helpful unless the product is worth raving about).

ISO is the new megapixels. ;)

I very rarely need to go over ISO 1600. Maybe 1% of my shots have been at ISO 3200, at most.

Obviously there many other criteria to image quality than just high ISO performance. It is just apparent and somewhat surprising that the images from this camera appear so much cleaner than the A77/A65 at higher ISO. Ok maybe not 2 stops like I said before but it is obviously better. That said I find the low ISO images from A77 brilliant.

Rashkae - It's a $700 camera for people who want to learn more about photography. Lighten up.

I've an A1 of a 10mp photo on my wall. It's fine.

This targets the 95% out there that think "bigger numbers is better". They don't even understand that AF can be better or that the CDAF of Nikon in live view blows chunks. To them, they want nice facebook pictures and to "look cool" and "look pro" by wearing their DSLR fashion accessory.

And don't forget those massive 4x6 prints handed out to their friends.

bigger files are slower to edit even with new PC.

This “Sony sensor“ talking is getting very old and boring. You tell me: in which Sony camera can we find D3(D700), D3s, D800 sensors? These are clearly Nikon sensors, maybe they are made in Sony factories, but its Nikon design and product. Do you think all the parts that goes in Nikon cameras but sensor are made in Nikon plants? Don`t be silly.
Sony is just a contractor for making sensors that Nikon have designed (hi end Fx) just like many other factories that make screws, light bulbs for flashes, hot shoes…

It's mostly the other way around: sensor manufacturers offer their wares and Nikon picks whatever suits them best.

Sony makes the sensors and offers them to third parties, which add their own tweaks and image processors (Xpeed for Nikon vs. Exmor for Sony). D3 and D700 are supposedly from Aptina.

So, you think that Sony made sensor, put it on open market and anyone can buy it?
Where can i order d3s sensor to put in in my d3000?

You sir, have no idea how modern world works.

sorry mate to differ with you...i think the 24 mp sensor is an extremely efficient point of sale...i as an example will go for it for a backup dslr with my present d7000

Ivanaker: Yes, Nikon and Pentax are able to buy the sensor. Of course, you are proving how little of the modern world you understand if you think these are sold individually to consumers, or that sensors are interchangeable. They are offered in bulk, with minimum lot sizes and costs involved.

Also, it is well known that the D3, D3s and D700 sensors are NOT from Sony, but the other sensors are.

I would request that you please stop talking nonsense, it's painful to see how little you know.

You all are entirely missing the point. It doesnt matter if the sensors Nikon is putting in cameras are made in Sony, Canon, Kodak, Samsung or Fuji factories. What matters is that it is a Nikon designed sensor made by the lowest bidder, a sub contractor, like many other parts in many products in the world. Sony didnt make a random sensor and then Nikon put in in camera, its the other way around, Nikon designed sensor, and some factory (doesnt really matter which) made it, by Nikon design.
I still dont get why are people so posesed by where Nikon sensors are made (those are Nikon sensors).

Ivanaker: No, Nikon did not hand Sony the design and just use Sony as the fab. It's Sony's own design that was mildly tweaked by Nikon. Sony have far far more skill in digital sensor design and development than Nikon does.

Ivanaker - don't be silly. What else would you want to see? A mark on the back of camera? Such deals are secret and you won't find it out as same as you won't find a developer of chip responsible for video in Nikon camera (which... surprise... also isn't made nor developed by Nikon!).