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
wildbild
By wildbild (Apr 28, 2012)

I do not see the Nikon d3100 being better nor do I see the canon 600d outperform this camera as some of you think.
But what I certainly see is that with the right glass--resolutionwise--it is as good as my 4x5 inch camera. Unfortunately the d3200 doesn't come with a funny up side down ground glass (or at least a better viewfinder).

1 upvote
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Apr 28, 2012)

?!

1 upvote
mario7
By mario7 (Apr 28, 2012)

We see things differently then.

0 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (Apr 28, 2012)

This camera looks prettier than the ugly D800 or D5100.

When the hell will Nikon remove the red triangle piece insert just above the hand grip? The rubber below it is too easy to peel off the grip area. Look at some of the used D200 models. It is very common that the rubber gets away from the grip.

1 upvote
undergrounddigga
By undergrounddigga (Apr 28, 2012)

It seems to me, that this camera is the perfect example for the introduction of unnecessarily large megapixels. I am an inexperienced, amateur photographer, and perhaps I'm wrong, but looking at these pictures, all I can see is that the Canon 600D completely outperforms Nikon 3200.

As an amateur I don't really understand, why would someone buy a Nikon 3200 camera? I found it too big to carry it with everyday, everywhere. I own a Canon G11 - which is a fabulous camera - as it brings smile to my face, absolutely adore using it. Let's face it, I will never be a paid photographer, so for me, taking pictures is to preserve great memories while I'm having fun.

However, I would have a question to a few pro's, if you don't mind.
The reason why I have looked at entry/mid range DSLRs myself, is the ability to take super-macro's (I work on microscopes, so I like that sort of stuff).
How does a Canon MP-E 65mm lens work with a camera such as 600D (FF too expensive/not worth it for me).
Cheers

6 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Apr 28, 2012)

Macro lenses provide more magnification on crop sensor cameras (like the 600D) than they do on FF cameras (like the 1Ds/5D series).

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Apr 28, 2012)

By What I've tried with Macro a crop sensor is just fine, or better if you'll crop in anyways. I use an extension tube on my 50mm and it works well, albeit inconvenient with no automatic control over aperture...

1 upvote
Razaghi
By Razaghi (Apr 28, 2012)

MP-E 65 works great on both FF and crop sensor cameras. You will need a lot of patiance and trials to know how to work with it. It works differently than other Macro lenses. On 600D it will be close to 100 mm, but you can focus only manually and focusing means to get the lens closer or further from the subject. For semi microscopic photos you will have a great lens. Lens quality is excellent. I am working with it since many years.

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 28, 2012)

Wow. Yes the G11 is fantastic..especially the great view finder and huge sensor :-) Probably the best thing since sliced bread. I would personally recommend the s95 which has the same sensor as the G12 and is a lot smaller than the ugly G11.

But compared to the D3200 none of these Canons come even close in IQ.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
undergrounddigga
By undergrounddigga (Apr 28, 2012)

Thank you for your replies. Unfortunately the people at the camera shops where I live, are very inexperienced, and couldn't answer my question - which is Don't worry it will work well. :)

I am aware of manual focus, and of the need of a macro-flash. I read about it being fantastic(the lens) and although the 600D is a relatively cheap camera, it has great reviews and would be the right camera for me. Seriously, no need for more for a hobby.

Razaghi, would love to see some photos! :)
Cheers

0 upvotes
undergrounddigga
By undergrounddigga (Apr 28, 2012)

AnHund, you are missing the point. Nobody was comparing the sensor size in G11 and Nikon. Relax. I can completely understand if an amateur chains his Nikon 3200 around his neck 24/7, just as much I understand supermarathon runners, who run 40 km every day. (although I must say for the later ones I do have respect) All I said, I am having fun with the camera, and perhaps for me that's the most important. I have no interest in competing in photography :) give it a rest.

0 upvotes
Razaghi
By Razaghi (Apr 28, 2012)

@undergrounddigga
At this moment I don't have samples taken with it on my website, I will try to upload some later.
You do not necerilly need a flash, more important and effective would be a tripod. But when having low light, a macro flash will help to focus better, at least by the canon ring flash which I have, but that you can achieve with another light source, like even the light of your mobile...

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 28, 2012)

undergrounddigga, Funny comparison - the G11 weighs 400 grams and the D3200 weighs 750 grams with the 18-55mm, but good you are having fun with the G11 - I own an s95 and the IQ is very good for a P&S camera and with only half the weight of the G11 :-)

0 upvotes
pittguy53178
By pittguy53178 (Apr 28, 2012)

Of course the 600D would outperform the D3200. The D3200 and 600D are in totally different segments. The D600 D is probably going to get an upgrade in a few weeks so it would be best to compare the D3200 to the new 650D

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

600D outperforms it? Really. I don't see it and in real life shooting, I doubt anyone here will se the difference, printed or on a monitor. And if you need the extra pixels, they are there.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 28, 2012)

DPR, what's up with the D3200 colors in RAW? Saturation seems really low, I thought I was looking at the SD1 samples for a second.

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

Means Nikon has to reduce color sensitivity at high ISO to mask the poor high ISO performance of the sensor. Definitely not a good sign. This is a far cry from what we see with the D3100 and 600D. Maybe in a years time we'll see a Nikon D3500 with improved 24 MP APS-C sensor. Nikon has done this before and will probably need to do it again.

5 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 28, 2012)

It could be early colour profiling by Adobe - I wouldn't read too much into it for now.

3 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Apr 28, 2012)

Thanks for that bit of info. Knowing that is much better than having to think to myself "what in the hell have they done wrong?!"

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

Thnaks Richard, people like to declare cameras a failure or a success on the first round of tests. Pretty decent IQ in RAW, but Nikon better update their jpeg engines. I think, from the aspect and contacts, that this sensor is not a Sony designed one, very different from the ones in the A77 or NEX7. It'd be interesting to know if Aptina like V1 or more like D3-D4 lineage.

0 upvotes
thegoochot
By thegoochot (Apr 28, 2012)

I know it's too early, but from the info seen so far is the D5100 a better camera, being that they are now the same price?

2 upvotes
yomasa
By yomasa (Apr 28, 2012)

I smell a scam, Theres no reason for this camera to look that bad using the same sensor as the Sony a77 and nex7, I think Nikon dumb it down

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 28, 2012)

Bad? You obviously didn't look at the RAW where the D3200 clearly out performs the A65 at every ISO. Ignore the JPEG, look at RAW.

D3100 looks great, and so does the D3200.

2 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Apr 28, 2012)

There seems to be good reason to believe this camera does not use the 24mp Sony sensor found in the NEX 7 and a77. See:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=41285538

Maybe that's why the image characteristics are different.

Seems that the sensor may be made by Aptina or someone else, not Sony.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
aim120
By aim120 (Apr 28, 2012)

@marike6
I do NOT see the D3200 performing better then the A65/77 in ever iso,i believe from 6400ISO the D3200 does seem to have the edge.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
philo123
By philo123 (Apr 28, 2012)

Eh? I ccompared the D3200, NEX-7, and 2 lower resolution sensors Canon 7D and Pentax K-5. Looked at the Playing card queens head in RAW at ISO 400. The results to me go in order of best to worst--- Canon 7D, K5, NEX-7 and then the D3200.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Apr 28, 2012)

i'll wait for the D600

1 upvote
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 28, 2012)

I swear there is something wrong with the Studio scene comparison.
The picture of D3200 is very bad and blurred.

It that because of too high aperture? or just not well-focused?

How do you think of it?

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

That is because the high pixel density sensor (equivalent to 58 MP on FF sensor) makes huge demands on the lens, and clearly the attached lens cannot meet that demand.

4 upvotes
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 28, 2012)

Thanks your post.
Yeah, I agree with that.

but then, A entry-DSLR with the high pixel density means nothing :p

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

Unrelated to lens. Possibly some focus issue, but RAWs look good, actually better than the other cameras there.

1 upvote
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 30, 2012)

Thanks your reply
Yeah, I hope it's just focus issue.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Apr 28, 2012)

Still not better than Pentax K-r.

3 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Apr 28, 2012)

having the Nikon D90 and Nikon D40x..
I am liking this entry level cam..
if only it had the AF motor.. so I can use smaller older Nikon AF lenses like the 50mm f/1.8D..

if it is $599 body only-- I can have 5 of these than one D800 (body only) :-)

i am waiting if there will be a nikon D5200..or the rumored D600 FX ..or a D400..

it sucks that nikon removed the AF motor on their entry level cams..now i am forced to use the bulkier AFS lenses..

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HKR2010
By HKR2010 (Apr 28, 2012)

Poor JPEG Noise Performance, a bit better in RAW then the Sony. Not better than 600D or D3100. This Sensor shows no improvement at all except for the larger files.

3 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 28, 2012)

There is no "JPEG noise performance". There may be a hard NR setting in JPEG, or a low sharpening setting JPEG at work. The JPEG is a product of processing, noise is in the RAW file already, JPEG comes from that, not a separate processing path.

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

I am quite surprised by its RAW performance. I expected it to match the D3100 but it's actually worse than both the 600D and D3100. Much better than A65, but I had higher hopes for Nikon.

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

Those white dandruff-like speckles that appeared on old Canon cameras can now be found on the D3100. Never seen it on a Nikon camera. First time. Sigh...

2 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Apr 28, 2012)

Great output, great performance, fabulous price, awesome value. But I think that it will only appeal to students and IQ freaks on a budget who don't want used. I think I represent the entry level market pretty well and personally speaking, the trade off in size just isn't worth the extra quality. I mean, even this small dslr is a brick to lug around. I'm wondering when dpreview releases their final review, dSLRs are going to get docked hard in the ergonomics category because they're just so big compared to what fulfills their market's needs. I predict it will get a 72%. lol

0 upvotes
fire3000
By fire3000 (Apr 26, 2012)

I need a high zoom camera with high resolution at full zoom. If I were to put a Nikon 300 mm zoom lens on this camera how would the pics compare to a bridge superzoom such as Nikon P510 or Sony HX200V? If I were to test the two I would shoot a car license plate at 1,000 feet and compare the sharpness and brightness of the photos.

0 upvotes
BitFarmer
By BitFarmer (Apr 27, 2012)

In DSLR world it depends largely on the lens itself.

I used a D70 (6mpx) + sigma 28-300mm some 8 years ago, and it was not sharp at 300mm (min. f6.3), not at all, but now I use a D300s (12mpx) + nikon 80-200 f2.8D (a used one, 650 euros) and hey! every single pixel is clearly focused at 200mm f2.8, and if you stop it down to f8 then it is a dream in sharpness.

So it depends largely on the lens, but with a good lens, no bridge will ever dream on comparing to a dslr.

0 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 27, 2012)

I will disagree,
300mm zoom is not comparable to 1000mm zoom of Nikon P510 at all. Look at these pics made with Nikon:
http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af289/DIKHNFS/P510_zoom_0111.jpg

http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af289/DIKHNFS/P510_zoom_0622.jpg

Such zoom power is simply impossible on a DSLR without spending $20 000 for a 15 lbs zoom lens.

0 upvotes
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (Apr 26, 2012)

Its time for Nikon give us some small primes to use with this kind of camera...no reason to use such small camera with big zooms...give us 28 and 35mm (35EQ)...and a portrait prime too....

2 upvotes
ocir
By ocir (Apr 26, 2012)

where have you been? there is a nikon 35 1.8G and 1.4G. Also, 28 will be out soon.

1 upvote
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Apr 26, 2012)

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 .

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (Apr 26, 2012)

Thats right Thoughts....the 24mm FX for instance, is HUGE....there is a 24mm dx patent, but nothing about when the product will see the light of the day

0 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Apr 28, 2012)

Carols, would you believe that one of the reasons i gave up my Nikon DX camera was the lack of primes (in particular those wide ones 18mm 24mm). I found 35mm 1.8 nice but a bit long for my taste as a walkaround lens (28mm focal length is btw for me).

0 upvotes
carlos roncatti
By carlos roncatti (Apr 29, 2012)

Thoughts, these are exactly my thoughts (lol)...but i see a problem here...Nikon seems to only care for FX primes...you can see that even the 1 system that is supposed to be compact has only one prime....too bad...

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 26, 2012)

Comparing in a preliminary way to my D7000, I'd say pretty close for 1600-3200, the most useful range for available light shooting like concerts, indoor sports, etc.

Decent low ISO as well, so the non-Sony 24MP sensor is coming better than I'd expect from the D3100's experience.

0 upvotes
Zilvinas K
By Zilvinas K (Apr 26, 2012)

Why all the low light images are ISO 12800? ("impressive"?, c'mon people) Also, Nikon, what's up with a plasticky body and relatively advanced features in one? All 4 entry level DSLRs more of the same. Come up with one that would be nice to take into hands. A rangefinder then...

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 26, 2012)

ISO 12800 is completely unusable for enything
except for low-reso web-postings or for 6X4 prints.

Where are all those 24 MP
when pictures are only semi-good downsized to at least 1.6 MP (1600X1024)???

It is not DSLR, it is camera-phone quality.

I mean, I do not have anything against D3200,
but, honestly, ISO 12800 is an overkill for this camera.

1 upvote
Hide Takahashi
By Hide Takahashi (Apr 26, 2012)

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?

3 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Apr 26, 2012)

You missed my point, Takahashi.
I was not talking about D3200 being less capable than current cell phone cameras.

I was talking about the fact, that pictures taken with the cell phones in ANY settings are of inferior quality and not suitable for enything except being posted on Facebook/Twitter.
Same is true for the ISO 12800 shots made with D3200.

However, there is no doubt that low light performance of the new Nikon camera is much better than of predcessors.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ogiartphoto
By ogiartphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

Nikon forever the best cameras.

3 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Apr 26, 2012)

The first photo w/ singer at stage is impressive: 38mm, f6.3 at ISO12,800!
But my 12MP Oly EP2 with 17mm f2.8 pan lens ($700 total) can get that shot at ISO3200 with similar result.

1 upvote
Mugundhan
By Mugundhan (Apr 26, 2012)

I am sure Nikkor 35mmF1.8 (< $200) can do the same. Point is look at what is possible with fast lens and high ISO
Personally I carry on with K10D (5 years behind ep2) with Sigma 30mmF1.4 but still its fascinating to see how much progress in high ISO shooting

1 upvote
percyF
By percyF (Apr 26, 2012)

The point is that *any* faster lens will give you better results and require lower ISO.

7 upvotes
williejr
By williejr (Apr 26, 2012)

Yep... right on par with the Canon T3I... Wait till the Canon T4i, it will be about the same. This camera is noisy at 800. Don't kid yourself.

1 upvote
williejr
By williejr (Apr 26, 2012)

Look at the picture of the kid with chocolate on his face. At ISO 100 and its noisy

1 upvote
injeklitio
By injeklitio (Apr 26, 2012)

D5100 kicks the D3200?

0 upvotes
mukeshk
By mukeshk (Apr 26, 2012)

I can't see any noise. Is it the burr on the fabric surface you are referring to?

1 upvote
pgphoto_ca
By pgphoto_ca (Apr 26, 2012)

hummm....pretty good...for an entry body!

Just need raw now :)

What about intervalometer for TimeLapse? the minimum interval time and maximum number of picture? Any user manual available for the values?

It can be a very good body for timelapse...for that price...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
intruder61
By intruder61 (Apr 26, 2012)

considering the kit lens is on this, the images are more than good.
took the 12,800 ISO into PS and it cleaned up very well.
nice little unit Nikon have got here.

1 upvote
misspiggy01
By misspiggy01 (Apr 25, 2012)

first post, please be gentle...

but i am surprised that nobody commented the false color in human hair that show in all the portrait shots. also shows up in the chip.de review (in the wig). http://tinyurl.com/c7uxtvp

anybody else seeing this? or am i looking too close?
compare the 5100. the wig is absolutely clean. http://tinyurl.com/cftxjgb

i know it´s slight in the chip.de wig, but pretty obvious in the dpr portraits. i really dont like it. and i so want to love this camera.

i really hope they use a not so good sensor in this, so there will be a reason to get a 5xxx/7xxx/xxx with something that has resolution without moiree.

maybe that´s why they didn´t just use the 16mp sensor they have, because it is just too good for entry level in their view.

ps: i check this site and the forums a lot and it usually makes my day!

0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 25, 2012)

Images until ISO3200 are very good. Images at ISO12800 are terrible. Obviously, when Sony came out with 16MP sensor that became NEX5n, Nikon D7000 and 5100 and Pentax, it was amazing. When Sony announced NEX7 with 24MP sensor, I told myself, that means all the new Nikons in DX will come out with the same 24MP. The problem is of course, NEX7 low light noise is worth than NEX5n, and NEX5n is a better low light camera than NEX7. 24MP proven to be too mcuh for Sony to crample in this little sensor. When Nikon announced D3200 (and I am sure 7100 and 5200 will all have the same sensor this year) I was concerned that same thing would happen to Nikon. At the same time, I was hoping that Nikon would prove me wrong, that they will do some tweaking and their 24MP images will be better than Sony NEX7. Judging from the first pre production photos of D3200, the magic did not happen. But I do feel that it is at least better than Sony NEX7/A77

1 upvote
simon65
By simon65 (Apr 25, 2012)

I hear what DPR are saying about most users sticking with the kit lens, most probably will, but a significant number would also opt for the 16-80 mm or other upgraded lens. And many would also have a 50 mm in their bag.

The problem with this review sample is that apart from the high ISO shots its only really showing us how good Nikon's kit 18-55 lens is, for which the answer is of course not really that good, and definitely not up to doing justice to a 24 mp sensor.

I think weaving in some 50 mm or 85 mm shots would have been a good idea, and of course we all know by now that you have copies in the DPR lens cupboard! Other than that thanks for the swift samples.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2012)

I'd not been too sure about 'significant' numbers, personally. But, as I said in the post further down, we'll include more lenses in the review gallery.

7 upvotes
Shield3
By Shield3 (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanks again for all the hard work you guys do here listing all the specs, the detailed reviews, and the sample images. This is quickly becoming my favorite camera site!
Shawn

2 upvotes
Yod
By Yod (Apr 25, 2012)

Is there a black body available or just the red one? Best wishes.Yod

0 upvotes
Feud
By Feud (Apr 25, 2012)

Yes, the standard black is available, Yod, though I must say I like the red finish (I already have standard issue Nikon D40, 5000 and 7000, it's a bit different...)

Cheers

0 upvotes
xfoto
By xfoto (Apr 25, 2012)

Yes the same old boring black is available

1 upvote
Feud
By Feud (Apr 25, 2012)

Excellent images - it's amazing how technology has moved on. Four short years ago I bought my 6Mp Nikon D40 and now an equivalent ENTRY LEVEL camera has a spec that not even the top of the range cameras of the time got near. Amazing.

5 upvotes
eivissa1
By eivissa1 (Apr 26, 2012)

My D40 still performs well, without the useless MP's!!
So I don't need this stupid upgrade.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (May 1, 2012)

How has technology moved ahead when you continue year after year to get such blurry jpegs? They look horrible.

0 upvotes
bebopberg
By bebopberg (Apr 25, 2012)

Well I guess you're in no rush to post the Samsung NX20 samples. Priorities, priorities...

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 25, 2012)

Yes a new entry level DSLR from Nikon (One of the two biggest and most popular camera brands) which will have huge demand and probably be their best selling DSLR, has priority over a mirror-less camera from Samsung (not one of the two biggest and most popular camera brands) that will have far less demand. As should be the case.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
bebopberg
By bebopberg (Apr 25, 2012)

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

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2012)

We do tend to prioritise cameras that we actually have.

16 upvotes
bebopberg
By bebopberg (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 25, 2012)

"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.

7 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2012)

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

5 upvotes
citrontokyo
By citrontokyo (Apr 25, 2012)

zing!

3 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
bebopberg
By bebopberg (Apr 26, 2012)

OK, my bad. However, the NX200 review took forever. I would just like to see things done on a FIFO basis and that doesn't always seem to be the case around here. Perhaps Samsung and others just suck at marketing compared to the bigger players. Who knows.

0 upvotes
Mugundhan
By Mugundhan (Apr 26, 2012)

In some sense true, Pentax K-01 has been out for a while... Has not DPReview alone not received it?

0 upvotes
marbo uk
By marbo uk (Apr 25, 2012)

Nikon are just punching canon while their down now.
An entry level camera with more pixels than any canon camera in their range and the image quality to back it up. Comparing noise to the 5dm3, it`s not far behind at all. The D400 is going to be an animal :)

6 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Apr 25, 2012)

The moment you wrote "more pixels" I stopped reading, because it showed you have missed the point. That said, Canon seem to be focusing their efforts in other directions at the moment (video), but I am sure a successor to the 60D - or even the 7D - is not far away.

1 upvote
tonywong
By tonywong (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
williejr
By williejr (Apr 26, 2012)

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

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (May 1, 2012)

Is this the new generation of photographers? Is a lack of noise all you people care about? What is the point of having a noise free image if resolution is destroyed in the process? Those sample jpgs have very poor resolution.

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Apr 25, 2012)

Now this is what Canon should have been doing. Creating no nonsense cameras like this. It looks impressive indeed. It gives a legitimate reason for people to dive into the wonderful world of Nikon lenses without having to sell the dog to pay for the camera.

A review well done DPR. Very clever test photos where every photo shows some piece of important info about the camera and its specific capabilities.

This is a good subject good review combination !

6 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Apr 25, 2012)

Canon's bottom-of-the-line DSLR, the T3/1100D, sure could use an update. As it was, it was generally outspeced by the Nikon D3100.

3 upvotes
Filthy McNasty
By Filthy McNasty (Apr 25, 2012)

Is it too late to get my dogs back???

1 upvote
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Apr 25, 2012)

It was D40, D3100 and now D3200. Nikon seems to offer very good value for money at the entry level.

If you are on a budget, get the body and few prime lenses (28, 40, 85) a flash, and you are sorted for a few years.

Nikon still owes APSC shooters a wide lens (18mm would be very nice) though...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Dan DeLion
By Dan DeLion (Apr 25, 2012)

I'd like to see a comparison between the D7000 and the D3200 with a high quality lens at f8.

4 upvotes
9himage
By 9himage (Apr 25, 2012)

No reason just to test the camera with the kit zoom. With this performance, I will use this camera for serious work.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2012)

We'll use other lenses as part of our testing but, as the vast majority of buyers will buy (and, in many cases, only ever use) the kit lens, we wanted a gallery showing what it does with it.

7 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (Apr 25, 2012)

Indeed.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

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?

1 upvote
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
costinul_ala
By costinul_ala (Apr 25, 2012)

a prime lens will do the camera some justice :)

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

"We'll use other lenses as part of our testing but, as the vast majority of buyers will buy (and, in many cases, only ever use) the kit lens, we wanted a gallery showing what it does with it."

Why not show what the camera can do with a top notch lens? At least that way you can see how good the camera really is, otherwise it is much less of a"Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery" and more of a cheap kit lens set of sample pictures.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Apr 25, 2012)

When DPR does their review, it would be interesting to compare D3200 photos to D5100 photos, since both cameras currently cost exactly the same, on AmazonUSA. (The D5100 has more features, including Automatic Exposure Bracketing.)

1 upvote
injeklitio
By injeklitio (Apr 25, 2012)

ok so looking these images what do you prefer the d5100 or d3200? only looking for photograpy i dont care the video. thanks.

1 upvote
Nuerburgringer
By Nuerburgringer (Apr 25, 2012)

nice that this will do 720p vid at 60fps, but no 120fps+ is a downer. Guess I'll be waiting another couple years more for that...

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

Got $3k to spend? Try Casio. Got >$10k to spend? Try the NEX-FS700U.

The Nikon D3xxx series won't offer high speed video any sooner than the high end Nikons or any other DSLR brands.

1 upvote
Azfar
By Azfar (Apr 25, 2012)

I find nothing special here. Images are what you would expect from a contemporary DSLR. High noise performance is OK. What I'm really interested in is how will the Canon respond.

1 upvote
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (Apr 25, 2012)

I find something very special here. Entry level cheap camera working way better than 3-years old D-300s. And what I am not interesting in is Canon business.

16 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
tampadave
By tampadave (Apr 25, 2012)

Me too, nothing special. Was looking at this for the wife but the dreary low ISO shots will have me giving her my old T1i instead.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 25, 2012)

Amazing output from an entry level DSLR. High ISO performance is a lot better than I would have expected.

3 upvotes
Geopaf
By Geopaf (Apr 25, 2012)

I dont think that anyone has noticed that the noise reduction and active d-lighting has been on in all the images. The only way to really know how this sensor performs is when we see a raw image at ISO 12800 and I'm telling you based on the jpgs on this site we will be dissapointed! So dont make up your minds yet until a full review comes along.

2 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Apr 25, 2012)

"The only way to really know how this sensor performs is when we see a raw image at ISO 12800."
Isn't that a bit like saying that the only way to judge a meal or recipe or restaurant is by eating the food raw? The final product, including the processing offered by the camera, is definitely part of the product, especially for an entry level SLR like this. If the noise in low light conditions is controlled by sacrificing some of the abundant resolution, that effect on end results for both noise and resolution can be seen and evaluated in the final product.

P. S. And why is ISO 12800 the only relevant value?

10 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
hiro_pro
By hiro_pro (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

4 upvotes
evangelos k
By evangelos k (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
harry
By harry (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Apr 25, 2012)

Based on these and the Nikon samples, the D7000 takes a smoother and more detailed picture.

0 upvotes
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (Apr 25, 2012)

"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.

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

Where are people taking all those ISO 12,500 pictures? Anything shot with low incandescent or sodium vapor illumination will look very red or yellow tinged anyway. WB adjustment won't help much if the ambient light is starved of blue or cyan frequences in the first place. In the bat cave, sound is more efficient than sight.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

So the benchmark for an entry-level DSLR is ISO 12,800 performance? Read back what you wrote and think how ridiculous that sounds. If it doesn't have super clean ISO 12,800 it can't be a good beginner or soccer-mom camera? Absurd.

4 upvotes
geru
By geru (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm not a Nikon user but I am impressed with with what Nikon has done with controlling noise in a 24mp entry level.

After downloading several of the high ISO shots I found removing the noise @ 3200 and 6400 ISO very easy to do even in the shadows. At 1600 ISO noise was very negligible.

One problem I see is that many of the photos look rather mushy, for lack of a better term. It could be the lens but I suspect that users will be able to make in camera adjustments to fix that problem. My photo processing program on auto adjustment worked flawlessly and made the photo pop.

Colors aren't bad and even the skin tones look decent.

There is no doubt as is with most cameras, shooting in RAW can only improve the final result.

As far as noise control I think Nikon hit it out of the park. I for one am anxious to see what the D7000 replacement is capable of doing at that resolution.

6 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Apr 25, 2012)

I think the mushiness will be a lot less shooting raw with a high end lens. I also agree that it is impressive what Nikon has achieved with this camera.

1 upvote
barry_west
By barry_west (Apr 25, 2012)

Nice timing on this coming out as I'm finally going to replace my aging D70 this summer (originally purchased in 2005). Man, the 12800 shots look way better than the grainy images my D70 produces at ISO 1600. Apparently things have improved in the last 7 years.
Perhaps I should also replace my record player with one of those newfangled CD player machines.

4 upvotes
Filthy McNasty
By Filthy McNasty (Apr 25, 2012)

Naw, CD's are just a passing fad. Keep the Vinyl and your polyester leisure suit!!!!!!

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 25, 2012)

Why do people need 24mp? Because it is now extremely inexpensive to make very large color prints. Here in the US we have the Costco warehouse chain where you can get a very nice 20x30-inch print for $9.

3 upvotes
rich12
By rich12 (Apr 25, 2012)

Most people's images aren't worth printing, especially for $9.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 25, 2012)

@ rich12

Oh my God! People print images of their wives and kids and dogs and stuff!

The photography cabal is horrified.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Apr 25, 2012)

ISO12800 is about as noisy as ISO1600 of my old 10mp CCD Pentax K10D - without banding too! Skin tones are also superb. A nice surprise also is the 18-55 lens performance. I was expecting worse. Well done Nikon.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 25, 2012)

The 18-55 Nikkor is a very surprising lens, Nikon has done well with their kit lenses.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Apr 25, 2012)

It does an excellent job indeed at f8 at 35mm.

1 upvote
Noogy
By Noogy (Apr 25, 2012)

It never fails - when a new camera with high MP count is released, the board is loaded with complaints on why higher MP is not needed. My practical take is - if Nikon and Canon make their business decisions on the basis of what they read in this thread, they would not be the global digital imaging giants that they are today (: So go ahead Canon and Nikon - spoil us!

9 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

Perhaps the extra megapixels are added so that the DSLRs stay in league (from the consumer perspective) with P&S models with ever-higher pixel counts. A Joe or Jane may be tempted to buy a DSLR, because they look "seriouos," but not want to be ashamed to use one at a party if it has fewer megapixels than the P&S of rival Jim or Jessie. Ditto for preferring a phone with more GPS gimmicks or 4G than that of the next person. "Everyone is doing it," or "go with the flow" are pretty sound rules of the herd.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 25, 2012)

I think the problem is the consumers are impressed with the MP count and not the values of better DR. Through the years, the DR performance of sensors was almost the same but the MP count kept getting higher.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

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."

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 25, 2012)

@zodiacfml - not true. Dynamic range increases with time. Just look at my K-5. MP adds real image quality. 30 is better than 15 is better than 8, in almost all respects. Low MP benefits in speed, storage size, cost and very high ISO performance. But when it comes to IQ, more MP is an advantage, at least for low and reasonable high ISO. Then - of course - its a matter of how much you need. But, if you dont need so much - then all cameras have lower resolution modes.

1 upvote
simon65
By simon65 (Apr 25, 2012)

Does anyone know if this is the same 24 mp sensor Sony is using in the NEX-7?

Thanks

0 upvotes
goosel
By goosel (Apr 25, 2012)

Probably NOT.
see:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=41267286

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

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

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

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)

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
graphic_chris
By graphic_chris (Apr 25, 2012)

DPReview has the Sony sensor listed as being 23.5 x 15.6 mm, and the Nikon as 23.2 x 15.4 mm.
If this is correct, and there were any difference in size at all, how could they still be the same sensor?

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Apr 25, 2012)

@goosel: the photo comparison you link to is bogus, as the poster bobn2 acknowledges later in the thread: what he claims there to be the 24MP sensor of the A77/NEX-7 is in fact an older 12MP Sony sensor.

My guess is that the D3200 sensor is "built on the same chassis" but maybe with some Nikon additions and refinements, since Nikon often contributes some of its technology to sensors are designed and produced in Sony-Nikon partnership; Nikon is not simply a passive customer for whatever Sony proposes.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 25, 2012)

"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.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

Mercury uses Nissan engines. McDonalds and BK use USDA beef. Nikon and Oly use Sony sensors, branded differently, and using different firmware, of course.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

And Nikon uses Aptina and Renesas sensors and Olympus uses Panasonic sensors aswell.

0 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Apr 25, 2012)

"Probably not [the same sensor]. 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."

...and...

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

Agreed, no objections. My point is, what's the point? So what?

There are several sensor manufacturers and they have customers in the imaging industry. Even Canon before it introduced their line of small sensors, it was using Sony ones.

As for the higher read noise, they might've "ordered" the sensor with lighter on-chip NR, which Sony's short of abusing on their systems. But again, so what?

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

The on chip NR as you call it is noise cancelation of electrical components, not to be confused with image NR as it has zero detremental effect on the images (see for example double sampling), as opposed to the latter.

The lower read noise at low ISO as found on Sony sensors is a direct result of the Exmor ADC design and the main reason these sensors score so well in the DR department at lower ISO's.

If you don't care for what I said, and which sensors and technologies are used, don't read it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Apr 25, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, no offense meant.

Yes, I'm talking about the ADC design as you said, which DOES have detrimental effect on IQ. You can see, for example, K5 vs D7000. Both (among others) use the same Sony sensor but they have slightly different IQ. Pentax exhibits lower noise even in RAW, regardless of the tool used for conversion. Which is a direct effect of the level of use of this technology by each manufacturer.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

Again you're confusing noise cancelation and image NR. Pentax uses RAW NR at a large range of higher ISO settings to achieve lower noise. You can seevisually when opening the RAW files in a good converter. It has nothing to do with the ADC's and on chip noise cancelation and everything with the firmware of the camera.
At lower ISO's the K-5 sensor is within measuring error of the D7000 and A580 sensors regarding noise. Image NR can almost always be detected by correlation in the RAW data. The other differences are mostly a result of different CFA's and AA filters, all layered on top of the sensor plus the use (or not) of the 14bit read out options.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mellieha
By mellieha (Apr 25, 2012)

Whilst all of this hard work is greatly appreciated and many thanks for the photos efforts etc, however as I said before about the EOS 5D MK 111 photos, Would it not be better that the team puts their time, energy and efforts into a full review of the NikonD3200? I am sure there are a few people out there waiting to read the full review rather than seeing the photos, simply because the quality of the photos will be part of the review?

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 25, 2012)

The camera was just announced, and DPR probably haven't had the camera for long. Also, there is no RAW support yet, so how can they do a full review? I'm sure they are working on it though, and surely actually using the camera out in the field is an essential part of the review process, don't you think? So the fact that we have these sample images probably means that they do put their time, energy and efforts into reviewing the camera.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 25, 2012)

The gallery was shot over a weekend and posted less than a week after we took delivery of the camera. Sorry - that's not enough time to do a review - I wish it was!

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
uw69
By uw69 (Apr 25, 2012)

Really wish full reviews for this camera were available. DPR is so slow!

2 upvotes
Cha Chief
By Cha Chief (Apr 25, 2012)

dpreview isn't doing this all for just you and me. It's a business. Sure we benefit from it but dpreview has adds here. Companies recognize that this site draws customers, point blank, plain and simple and dpreview gets paid for it, generously!!! Folks are so spoiled around here it's actually unbelievable. People would cry if the D3200 had a lower mp sensor, they cry because it has a higher mp sensor. We live in a world of a bunch of spoiled brats.

7 upvotes
FeedMe
By FeedMe (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

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?

5 upvotes
leno
By leno (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
rich12
By rich12 (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 25, 2012)

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).

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

Why not just buy a D3100 at bargain prices?

0 upvotes
Oveerik
By Oveerik (Apr 25, 2012)

This is WAY better than SONY A77 which i sold as not usable over 1600 ISO. I rather have this as companion to D700 (later D800) than A77 with A900.

And - if I do not need 24mpx there is a possibility to shoot at lower resolution.

1 upvote
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

Wait for the actual side by side pics...

And I find it sad that your only criteria is ISO noise. I really wonder what happened to the actual photographers on this forum?

4 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

5 upvotes
schufosi777
By schufosi777 (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
redeye47
By redeye47 (Apr 25, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

High ISO not important? Dracula, Batman, Wolfman, and thousands of nocturnal marsupials and crickets will beg to disagree!

1 upvote
aryking
By aryking (Apr 25, 2012)

From a Canon boy - for an entry level camera with a kit lens these images are very good. What are people looking for? Anything higher than ISO 800 would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

3 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 25, 2012)

But is the D3200 any better than a (now discounted) D3100 with the same kit lenses?

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 25, 2012)

I would say: not really. They even cut away some features from D3100. And still it costs as much as Sony A57 which is obviously much better option for the price (when we speak about value per buck). That's just a box with Nikon mark on it that barely have anything inside. Good that at least they left viewfinder in it, lol.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 495
1234