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
thx1138
By thx1138 (Apr 25, 2012)

Where to next for Nikon. Will Sony soon have a 30MP DX sensor that Nikon will use in the D300s replacement? Can't see the point at all in an entry level camera. Will these people seriously be making A2+ prints on a regular basis. The 16MP was more than adequate. Should have focused on better AF and CDAF for LV.

1 upvote
Campbell 700
By Campbell 700 (Apr 25, 2012)

Why deny people on a budget the chance to make a decent A2 print? Not every one can afford the top flight cameras and there are people who still want to print and enjoy their pictures, even up to A2 or even 20" by 40".

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Apr 25, 2012)

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

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Robert Hoffman
By Robert Hoffman (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (Apr 25, 2012)

Where to next for Nikon would be to start shipping cameras that they've already announced like the D800e that I've had on order since Jacob was a pup.

2 upvotes
lera ion
By lera ion (Apr 25, 2012)

Canon Mark V

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 25, 2012)

Now suddenly all kinds of cameras produce fine pictures 'up to ISO 6400'. Hey, maybe I better buy this camera as a back up instead of the 5D mark III or D800, why waist my money?

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Apr 25, 2012)

Or just maybe cmos sensors have matured, and so no longer define a camera.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Apr 25, 2012)

Not only ISO differs when comparing full-frame vs crop sensors.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Apr 25, 2012)

Not bad, as long as you don't use the hi setting. So up to iso 6400 it probably performs very well.

1 upvote
adrian mctiernan
By adrian mctiernan (Apr 25, 2012)

My view on the more pixels debate is that as a keen amateur photographer mainly of scenic views, with not a lot of money - ( I have used Canon 400D's for the last few years, and can't afford to improve my equipment in all that time), I have gone for secondhand Zeiss lenses, which give me much better results than the kit lenses. However, when 24 to 36 megapixels are sold secondhand, I will buy this 'entry level' type of camera, as more pixels give more + finer information. I just have to be careful over choice of lens. Presently, I use the camera portrait way, and take up to 13 shots, which I then piece together to form a big print - four feet or so at native resolution gives me a 300dpi print with fine resolution enough to sell. But if Canon make an 'entry level' 24 meg, I'll be after it like a shot. More power to the pixels, I say, and more of them, and cheaper excellent fine detail lenses and built-in anti CA is my personal goal. Top lens tests on this camera needed now ... Please!!

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

For an entry dSLR the JPG images, even teh high ISO, look pretty good to me. I just hope buyers notice the file sizes and budget for a higher spec processor, RAM and disc space. Should be good for AMD & Intel. The 24MP is bound to attract many buyers. It'll be interesting to see what Canon do but I'll be sticking with the 600D :)

1 upvote
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

24MP pictures (and even higher!!!) have been around for many years. I don't understand why people are now thinking 24MP sensors will all of a sudden require upgrades, when older PCs work with them just fine...

2 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Apr 25, 2012)

bigger files are slower to edit even with new PC.

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

Large files are harder to process in a 500 image slide show or video, especially if the editing includes pans, zooms, Ken Burns stuff, and overlays. You get more hangs or render errors.

1 upvote
Crac1
By Crac1 (Apr 25, 2012)

Hello, I confess that I no longer understand the recent political Nikon ... Why 24 million pixels in an entry level DSLR? And what will they do to the replacement for the Nikon D300s if the little camera has 24 million pixels ??
Looks like they have "flipped" and abandoned quality imagen general, and especially high sensitivity for the benefit of the size of the image ... What does an amateur with 24 megapixels honestly?
Nikon suddenly recedes. I am worried and disappointed.
But despite this, I remain faithful to the yellow mark ... for some time.
Best regards.

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Apr 25, 2012)

it´s simple, Sony (or other nikon sensor sources) dosent make a low MP cheap sensor anymore,and there is nothing wrong with those high MP sensors nikon is using nowadays, it´s better in IQ -low and high iso and DR than any of the previous nikon entry level sensors, so i dont see any problems there.specially if you print at the same size as with the previous 12 MP cams nikon had, i´bet you´ll see much better quality prints.

an amateur mostly shoots Jpeg , and there are few image sizes to choose from, set it at M-fine jpeg and you are getting better quality pics at the same price and you have an option to get high res pics when you wish.
by the way, those pics at default settings looks way soft ,but hell, they just popped up by pushing the sharpness and contrast just a tiny bit.

4 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Apr 25, 2012)

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…

1 upvote
Breogan
By Breogan (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
smnin
By smnin (Apr 25, 2012)

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

1 upvote
ARTASHES
By ARTASHES (Apr 25, 2012)

Ivanaker
D3/D700/D3s/D4-not Sony
D800, D3X, D7000, D5100, D90, D5000, D300(s), D3000- Sony,
D3100, D3200 don't know :)
Just my opinion (no sources, based on some deductions)

0 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Apr 25, 2012)

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).

2 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Apr 25, 2012)

@Rashkae
Can you point me to a Nikon or Sony site were i can read about that?
D800 is the best sensor in the world, why do we see it only in that camera?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 25, 2012)

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!).

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 25, 2012)

Any one who thinks Nikon isn't heavily involved in the design of the sensors going in their camera's, especially models like the D800, is kidding themselves.

0 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (Apr 25, 2012)

I think the camera will do very well in the marketplace against its rivals in the entry level DSLR space. Nice to see Nikon stepping up its game at both ends of the traditional DSLR market. Still I hope Canon continues to resist the urge to bump up the pixel count and stays focused on making better pixels instead.

1 upvote
kanaddict
By kanaddict (Apr 25, 2012)

"Still I hope Canon continues to resist the urge to bump up the pixel count and stays focused on making better pixels instead"

Funny, When looking to Canon offering, Nikon fan's were saying the same.....3 years ago !

1 upvote
Malema
By Malema (Apr 25, 2012)

When you say there is no RAW support you mean from Adobe ! FastStone Image viewer opens RAW files from the D3200 just fine.

0 upvotes
pdcm
By pdcm (Apr 25, 2012)

Another preview of a Nikon camera. I wonder whether we will every get a finished review of this one? We never got one for the D800. Others have done their reviews of it. As said before (others and myself) dpreview is gong downhill

3 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Apr 25, 2012)

It is only because the world of photography is tilted about 270 degrees that DPR seems like it is going downhill. If you correct for that, it is actually going uphill. It is nearly vertical.

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

A D800 review is being worked on (as is a 5D III review, and a couple of others), but it's a complex camera that takes a lot of work to get the best out of it. Barney shooting a gallery of images in his own time didn't impact in any way on that.

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Apr 25, 2012)

Really I would like to see some images with a 50mm 1.8 D/G, to keep the kit cheaper for test proposes.

7 upvotes
adrian mctiernan
By adrian mctiernan (Apr 25, 2012)

Amen to that, brother - We need to see the upper quality limits for each camera - or at least, I do - that's the main reason to buy an new camera for me - what do others think?

1 upvote
panteraaa
By panteraaa (Apr 25, 2012)

seeing reviews of 18-55 and 18-105 kit lenses, it seems 18-105 would do more justice to that 24mp sensor.

0 upvotes
BobYIL
By BobYIL (Apr 25, 2012)

A camera with the resolution of many top pro cameras, a hi-ISO to match many top cameras, a compact body enabling the use of all pro Nikon lenses, and all these for $700 with zoom lens! while there's not one other camera with the same features... and some of us still whine...
Holy Stromboli!

12 upvotes
schufosi777
By schufosi777 (Apr 25, 2012)

The higher ISO is amazin It is so much better than Sonys performance with the quivalent sensor, more than two stops better. Images are great just a little flat and muted nothing pressing a few button on the PC wouldnt fix. Cant wait to see what Pentax can do with this sensor if tthey use it.

1 upvote
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

"more than 2 stops better"? Really? Based on your unscientific eyeballing?

Take of the pink fanboi glasses.

12 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Apr 25, 2012)

To bad the kit lens doesn't (apparently) do the sensor justice. Just okay.

4 upvotes
K_Photo_Teach
By K_Photo_Teach (Apr 25, 2012)

I want in body Image Stabilization PLEASE!

6 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Apr 25, 2012)

Yeah. But I doubt Nikon is ever going to do that for their amateur segment.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 25, 2012)

There are plenty of brands that offer it. Glad we have options and I don't think every brand has to offer the same thing.

0 upvotes
Andreas Berglund
By Andreas Berglund (Apr 25, 2012)

Since this is a site for enthusiasts maybe DPReview could consider posting some shots with a better lens? Maybe the 35 F1.8, 40mm Micro, 50mm F1.8g or the 85mm F1.8G to keep it to the lower price ranges? After all it is clear an obvious to all that the kit lens cant handle the resolution, the listed lenses would be a lot more suitable to show what this little magical looking camera can really do? And when Nikon allows maybe a few RAW's to download?

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Apr 25, 2012)

And the truth is that Sony is making a lot better cameras than Nikon with the same sensors. The latter are cheaper, of course, otherwise why would anybody buy them.

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 25, 2012)

Matter of opinion, not truth.

17 upvotes
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Apr 25, 2012)

Actually looking at the samples I would opt for the Nikon. It does not have the same features as some of the Sony's but those have to be added to add value. The Nikon engine looks like it’s doing a better job than the Sony one. This camera is targeted at entry level and it’s capabilities are way over what some of the pro cameras had a few years a ago. And it these are with a kit lens well that bodes even better for the unit. I don’t shoot Nikon.

4 upvotes
goosel
By goosel (Apr 25, 2012)

It is most likely that the D3200 sensor is not from Sony

0 upvotes
chyll2
By chyll2 (Apr 25, 2012)

it is just that Nikon have better jpeg engine, not an issue to the RAW user, but at this market segment, I think more than 70% will just shoot jpeg

0 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Apr 25, 2012)

@ forpetessake
lot better in terms of what ? IQ ? functions? ergonomy? lenses?service? FLASHES ????. i wonder !!!

if cheaper is the only thing which makes people buy Nikon stuff, then Holga would be the most sold camera on the planet :-))

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
washcoll2004
By washcoll2004 (Apr 25, 2012)

Wait... what's a Holga? Does it come in metalic red with a 18-105mm lens?

0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Apr 25, 2012)

What I would like to know if why anybody thought it would be a good idea to make a camera like this in red???

3 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Apr 25, 2012)

Red cameras are great! Red-black as well as red-yellow are high contrast classy color combinations.

3 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Apr 25, 2012)

My wife likes red. She has a new red Canon.

1 upvote
Amateur Hour
By Amateur Hour (Apr 25, 2012)

Easy - the same reason an entry level camera has a 24Mp sensor - impress the natives. Not that they'd know what to do with it...

2 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Apr 25, 2012)

I'd love to have one in electric blue!

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Apr 25, 2012)

If you ever see a river of cameras washing past you, I bet you reach for the red one in there.

Nikon is paying a price ( some not liking it) to try and stand out from the crowd ( a big crowd in this segment ).

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 25, 2012)

Nikon is not paying any price and brightly colored electonics are quite popular in Japan. I remmember on my first visit to Akihabara in 1975, I was surprised to see dishwashers in turquoise. Pink, too.

0 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Apr 25, 2012)

Jeez, come one DP, I think my 12 year old could have setup better shots than that !!

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

The concert pics were taken at an over 21 show so no, he/she couldn't. Oh! Sorry, now I see you were just being rude - sorry, I took you literally for a moment there.

26 upvotes
Model Mike
By Model Mike (Apr 25, 2012)

OK so they're not the best, but they do show up the capabilities of the camera.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Pixel Judge
By Pixel Judge (Apr 25, 2012)

The 16MP Panasonic G3 with a fixed pen lense may produce better results then this baby Nikon for nearly the same price.

4 upvotes
wmac
By wmac (Apr 25, 2012)

No, it could not. Post a ISO 12800 of your GirlFriend 3rd for us to see.

6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 25, 2012)

I don't think it will. THe newer 4/3 sensors are getting really good, but it's still a stop behind APS-C at best.

0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Apr 25, 2012)

not even close

0 upvotes
Photographically Speaking
By Photographically Speaking (Apr 25, 2012)

I imagine the Nikon models up the line that are awaiting a refresh will benefit from inclusion of this sensor to go along with still better processing.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 25, 2012)

Pretty great time we live in when even the $600 cameras do pretty good ISO 6400-12800 and have enough resolution for monster prints. Add the 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8 for $200 and you have an $800 kit that can shoot places you wouldn't have dreamed of 3-4 years ago.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
Cha Chief
By Cha Chief (Apr 25, 2012)

Amen to that one. That is exactly how I feel.

1 upvote
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Apr 25, 2012)

Back in the day you would buy a Nikon and it was good for many years. Today, one or two years. It is all relative.

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Apr 25, 2012)

Yes, it is relative. You've just explicitly stated that your definition of "good" has changed over time, as for what other reason could a good camera yesterday not be a good camera today?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

DPR, where is the image of the singer from the article teaser on the front page?
It looks really good. Looks like Barney's saving a few more of his keepers for a rainy day. :-) Nice job on these samples.

0 upvotes
Demmos
By Demmos (Apr 25, 2012)

I believe that ISO 12,800 on the D3200 is considered as Hi 1, and many would say that it should only be used as a last case scenario. As a concert shooter, I find these images excessively noisy and would be uncomfortable putting them in front of any artist. I think if the ISO was reduced to 6400 and the lens was opened to f5.6 the resulting images would be improved. Better still, use a lens like the 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, stop it down to f2.8 and drop the ISO to 1600 or 3200 the resulting images would probably be fantastic!

1 upvote
ccm
By ccm (Apr 25, 2012)

Of course it would. Why stop there, why not slap on a F1.0 lens and drop the ISO even more? It's much more useful to see what the camera limits are than to shoot it in the comfort zone. I'm glad they shot up in the 12k range.

1 upvote
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Apr 25, 2012)

But the pictures do offer an excellent comparison and frame of reference. I still can't believe the features/price point on this camera and a part of me keeps waiting for a shoe to drop.

1 upvote
wmac
By wmac (Apr 25, 2012)

While at it, can you also suggest me a F1.8 medium range zoom lens for something under $500?

While you are suggesting me, I'll use my F3.5 kit lens zoom with ISO 6400 to get what I need.

0 upvotes
JasonQR
By JasonQR (Apr 25, 2012)

I don't know how these images were processed, but I was actually impressed at how not-bad the ISO 12800 shots were. It's fine for web viewing, which is what most D3200 users are going to use it for.

As others have pointed out, there was no way to take those shots with an entry-level camera a couple years ago. Shot always beats no shot.

2 upvotes
Demmos
By Demmos (Apr 25, 2012)

Some of you have missed my point... Hi ISO settings on Nikon cameras are not standard and should be used sparingly. They turn up the gain on the sensor to a value that beyond even what Nikon would consider normally acceptable, and are there as an last resort setting. A true and valid test of the camera's capabilities would be to keep everything within the normal shooting parameters (unless you are looking for a grainy result).

I'm interested in this camera as a small (stealthy), light, and hopefully quiet backup to my larger rig for concert shooting, which could give me nice high resolution prints or good cropping flexibility for web. At this price point, its almost a done deal!

To Tee1up and JasonQR, I'm with you... we could have only dreamed of such performance and resolution at this price just a short time back!

1 upvote
ccm
By ccm (Apr 26, 2012)

I shoot expanded ISO setting all the time with lenses in the F1.4-F2.0 range for aperture. I have not missed your point, I just do not find it valid.

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

I've come to the conclusion that many people who post here are some seriously picky, wanna be professional photographers. I wonder how many real professionals there really are that post here? I know there are some but the vast majority are not. I read statement after statement where people are slamming the image quality of the D3200 but good grief. For starters it's a $600 camera that far outshines the D40, D50, D60, D70 and D80 in ISO performance. Not too many years ago, you couldn't get anywhere near this kind of ISO performance out of those cameras I mentioned. It appears to have the same auto focus as the D90 which camera folks have praised for years especially when it was new. Too many people are spoiled as they will always find some way to nitpick every camera that comes out. Yes I'm interested in improvements but you get what you pay for in this DSLR world. If you want everything all in one bundle, go buy a D4 and spend thousands but don't expect a D4 for $600.

34 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Apr 25, 2012)

Spot on, But this is what DPR is all about. Lots of know-it-alls pontificating about toys.

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

Ain't that the truth.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
OneThird
By OneThird (Apr 25, 2012)

Nice pics! After owning a D3100 awhile back before I sold mine, the low light images are much improved, thanks to Expeed3 and the new 24MP sensor (from Sony of course).

Now, if Nikon can include these features, it would be a sweeter deal, IMHO.

-more than one custom white balance.
-Kelvin temperature scale.
-shoot with flash while dragging the shutter.
-Off, Low, or High NR at ISO 800 and above.

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

So you want something between 5200 and 7200. Me too.

0 upvotes
sotirius
By sotirius (Apr 25, 2012)

This is a Nikon developed sensor. Not Sony's!

0 upvotes
Roman Stedronsky
By Roman Stedronsky (Apr 25, 2012)

Sony sensor with some Nikon tweaking I guess. As ussual.

2 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Apr 25, 2012)

I think this is a Nikon exclusive sensor just like the one used in the D3100... for starters the dimensions are noticeably smaller than Sony's equivalent...

0 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

sotirius, lensberg: stop smoking the Nikon marketing brochures. This is the Sony 24MP APS-C sensor, just tweaked (slightly different size since it does not need to be placed in an IS frame) and with Nikon's usual tweaks to the AA filter. There is nothing "exclusive" about it.

And the D3100 sensor was also not an "exclusive". It was the same Sony sensor used in the A560 and A33.

3 upvotes
pwilly
By pwilly (Apr 25, 2012)

Rashkae,
Many of us will not smoke the Nikon, or Sony, or anyone else’s brochures. This is not an Exmor unless Sony re-engineered their package, not an easy thing to do with Sony’s lovely column ADC. If you actually stopped being a Sony fanboy for a minute you would discover, 1. Sony uses Nikon Precision Lithography to make their sensors. 2. Nikon goes back and forth between the biggest and second biggest supplier of Lithography worldwide, which means most sensors are Nikon. 3. Because of their connections with other Fabs Nikon forces Sony Semi to compete with Aptina and Nikon’s own sensor design group.
Looking at the packaging of this sensor here http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d3200/img/features01/img_01.png
It is not Exmor, it does not resemble Aptina therefore it, like the sensor in the D3100 may be another win by their internal design group, fabbed by the IBM fab club.

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 25, 2012)

Really nice camera for current Nikon users.

Very tempting camera for current Canon users.

(protesters and violent dissenters expected)

.

7 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Apr 25, 2012)

Is it just me, or is the noise in the ISO 12800 concert photos actually kind of pretty, adding atmosphere?

(I'm not qualified as a pixel peeper.)

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 25, 2012)

You have brought shame upon your family!

4 upvotes
Gasman66
By Gasman66 (Apr 25, 2012)

Very good low light performance, and the lens shows minimal distortion. That's about as positive as it gets. Sharpness, contrast and colour saturation are nowhere near as good as a top level compact.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Apr 25, 2012)

This camera deserves better lenses than comes with the kit. Good examples indeed.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

The 18-55 VR, not great build quality, but a good performer which these sample images confirm. No problems with sharpness. I'd still say buy a 35 1.8 just because it's so good, and so inexpensive.

2 upvotes
wmac
By wmac (Apr 25, 2012)

The kit lens is very good at 35mm F5.6-8 (much better than Sony and even Canon kit lenses at any focal point).

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 25, 2012)

But at the $600 price point, many of its buyers will only shoot with the kit lens. They could have tried a 35mm f1.8, I guess.

1 upvote
Digitall
By Digitall (Apr 25, 2012)

Sure, a 35mm 1.8 is a nice second lens for this kit. Or a 50mm 1.8 (great lens and cheap) but 75mm on DX crop, but worth every penny.

2 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (Apr 25, 2012)

Good for an entry-level DSLR. The ISO 3200 capability is impressive. But the lens isn't particularly sharp, more on a P&S quality level. Anyone moving up from a small-sensor camera would probably want something a good deal better than this, since you are sacrificing the portability of, say, an Olympus XZ-1.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

P&S quality? Actually it one of the better kit lenses.

The picture at the harbor. How much sharper do you think it could possibly be?

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1909162/dsc_0064?inalbum=nikon-d3200-preview-samples

1 upvote
wmac
By wmac (Apr 25, 2012)

Have you ever used the lens?

That kit lens is as sharp as 35mm-F.18 at 35mm F5.6.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Apr 25, 2012)

That harbor shot was fuzzy... too.

0 upvotes
Jikester
By Jikester (Apr 25, 2012)

I thought the shots looked quite good until I saw one and said to myself, "Well, that ISO 1600 or 3200 is just so-so..." only to do a double-take when I saw it was actually 12800.

I'm impressed to say the least.

7 upvotes
pepelegal
By pepelegal (Apr 25, 2012)

My thoughts too.
I guess we all expected bad ISO performance when we see that number of pixels in an APS-C sensor.
But I have the impression that Nikon's NR algorithms are becoming more and more sophisticated.
It's all down to artificial vision technology in the end. When the processors learn to distinguish the sky from the rock, people's clothes from a car bodywork, then they apply different types of NR.
Panasonic already advertises something along those lines, but compared to P&S, DSLR makers had so far neglected the brains department of their cameras IMHO.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Apr 25, 2012)

LOL! That was exactly my first impression of the singer photo.

1 upvote
Ace Disgrace
By Ace Disgrace (Apr 25, 2012)

If the Sensor is from SONY [Most people say] and Nikon made a few tweaks on it, they failed on this one. I love my D3100 and my D7000 but in reality all i see is megapixels in D3200 nothing special at all.

The Sony Nex-5n have better image quality and its 8mpxl less...

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

ISO performance is exceptional. The ISO 3200 pictures exhibit no distinguishable graininess whatsoever. Look at the pic of the black guy sitting in a chair. ISO 3200 and it looks great. I've looked as close as I care to and I can't find any image noise in that picture. This camera does quite well with a non-VR 18-55. Wow what a bargain. There is quite a bit of noise in the ISO 12800 but not as much as I'd expect. Good lighting is becoming less and less of an issue. I hope they stick this sensor on the D400 because if they do I'm in. I'd be in if they put the 16mp sensor on the D400. If they can make this 24mp sensor kick out 8fps on a D400 with a good focusing system, I don't know if I'd ever buy another DSLR in my life as long as it didn't wear out. I'm still content with my D70 and D5100.

When this camera gets to $500 or less for body only, (which it will) I'll purchase one and stick my 85mm f1.8G on it and leave it there for portraits.

1 upvote
jc52e53
By jc52e53 (Apr 25, 2012)

Nice sharp good color but when you really enlarge I can see some aliasing.
Weird as it has an AA filter.
A little noisy in some shots too.
But great for $699.
$1000 less than the A77.
Photos from the Fuji X Pro 1 are far superior.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

Last time I checked it was $700 less.

3 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 25, 2012)

And it is only $2300 less than the D800. I am not seeing your point comparing it to the A77. The A77 is a much better camera in terms of features.

4 upvotes
Rashkae
By Rashkae (Apr 25, 2012)

Nikons traditionally use a weaker AA filter than Sony on the same sensor. While this results in finer grain at high ISO, it also results in more moire/aliasing. It's the trade-off.

0 upvotes
Chuck Fralick
By Chuck Fralick (Apr 25, 2012)

I don't like plasticky, cheap cameras. That said, and contrary to what photo nuts posted, I think the high iso quality is exceptional for a camera at this price. If you're a photographer younger than 30 years old, you can't possibly understand how much better even the lowliest DSLR today is compared to the best 35mm cameras of only 10 years or so ago. I remember arguments back then about how long it would take digital to equal film. That was rubbish. As soon as the D2X, 1DS and later models came out it was game over. Add to that the HUGE advantages in modern digital workflow over film and it's ludicrous that we (me included) are so critical of some digital models today. I mean come on, ISO 12,800!! I remember when ASA 800 film didn't look that good. I wouldn't trade any film camera today (and I still own an F4, FM2 and Leica M6) for even my Canon G12. We're so lucky and so spoiled. I can't wait to see what comes out in another 10 years (if I'm not broke from buying new toys).

15 upvotes
pepelegal
By pepelegal (Apr 25, 2012)

Totally agree, except for the dislike of "cheap" cameras.
After overcoming prejudices about digital, perhaps we can also get rid of that one too.
It is about the pics, not the camera, right?
No need to get broke in the process ;)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
adrian mctiernan
By adrian mctiernan (Apr 25, 2012)

True, but I like to be able to drop my cameras on stone floors in churches, and still be able to pick up just one piece of gear - (I don't actually do that often, but I did once with a Bronica film camera, and it separated into it's three separate parts, with breaks around the viewfinder mount (plastic) - luckily, I had a spare body, but the lens and back(metal) were fine. Even the costly Hassleblad (sic), tends to break easily when dropped on a hard place. A review mentioned two pros complaining that all the Hassy's they had had, broke in a year or two. So, a solid piece of gear is my main want, then image quality, pixel count, fineness of detail, and so forth come after. I do like the red one - would like blue and green, and maybe white and gold - the lens too - not keen on all black - they are not Ford's first car, "any colour as long as it' s black".

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
hiro_pro
By hiro_pro (Apr 25, 2012)

Chuck- well said. i remember processing iso 1000 film and thinking, wow it cant get worse than this. Now we blow right past the iso 3200, 5000 and 6400 images because they all look fine. we have to go to 12,800 to find something to complain about. seriously, iso 12,800. when was the first consumer camera with iso 12,800 produced? last year or the year before?

0 upvotes
ir Bob
By ir Bob (Apr 26, 2012)

I, age below 30, can remember developing Tri-X exposed as 3200 ISO in Diafine to get a nice big grain. Grain is still one aspect in which film out performs digital, both in positive and negative ways ;-)

0 upvotes
iBuzz
By iBuzz (Apr 25, 2012)

I think Nikon have another winner!

3 upvotes
3enson
By 3enson (Apr 25, 2012)

hope IQ, Image Quality & Color Rendition will be better this time before we waste money in a super specs but color blind products :)

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Apr 25, 2012)

these look great. look at 025.. its iso3200, jpg and a cheapo kit lens. with RAW and a good lens, it would be amasing.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Apr 25, 2012)

ISO 12,800 is still garbage. Should I be surprised? :)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

The very first image at 12,800 is far from "garbage". It's more than useable and it's ISO 12,800!!! Is that an ISO that you use frequently?

11 upvotes
cfh25
By cfh25 (Apr 25, 2012)

Revised NX2 & NEF Codec released today:

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/52170

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

Besides obvious differences in the look of the sensors themselves, the relatively high shadow noise (push a couple yourself) at base ISO, seems to be the clear give away that we're not looking at a Sony Exmor 24MP sensor. Especially given the fact that these are jpegs, with NR.

1 upvote
1singur
By 1singur (Apr 25, 2012)

so basically i have no ideea if you side with nikon or with sony in this comment :/

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm not siding. Just stating what I see. The future will tell which sensor has the better overall package for those interested, since read noise isn't the only factor to determine that. But I have a feeling low ISO DR (read: pushing RAW files and especially shadows) doesn't appear to be its strongest forte. I'll gladly stand corrected when the above prediction is wrong though.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
mbot
By mbot (Apr 25, 2012)

Now listen here Nikon and you people! Realize and understand this! defraction at this pixel density on this APS/C sensor kicks in at F6.3 and believe me defraction is extremely detrimental to Image-Quality. Why would anyone bother to buy a so-called "pin-sharp" expensive lens if its sharpness is completely destroyed by defraction at F6.3 upwards. Simply look at real world 100% magnification shots and do the comparsions; Basically only F5.6 is gonna give you the sharp images you want, any smaller aperture beyond that F8 or F11 and the shots will be near useless for serious pgotographers and even enthusiasts who want decent quality sharp shots, no matter how expensive your lens is. Defraction is a very real problem to this whole situation; so to sum up, at APS/C sensor size combined with this pixel density, an aperture of F8 and beyond is basically useless. Now is that what you really want? And why isn't Nikon and Canon openly admitting such a thing? Think about that! Its a sad reality.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 25, 2012)

You seem a bit confused about what diffraction really is. It's an optical phenomenon, so it comes with that lens, not the sensor. The sensor might be able to show it more as pixel densities go up, but only if you display larger too. In other words, a higher pixel density will not limit you. Only the EXTRA gains at smaller apertures will diminish. But in practise, the usable resolution will still be higher at almost every F stop. Proven by tons of lens tests over the years.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Danel
By Danel (Apr 25, 2012)

These look great through ISO 3200. After that they are still okay. Overall, a good showing IMHO. Will be interesting when we can see some direct comparisons with the Sony cameras using this sensor.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 25, 2012)

ISO 3200 looks terrific, and even ISO 12,800 from the concert images looks useable. The sharpness of the sailboat image is excellent. Impressive camera, and some of the best samples in awhile.

0 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (Apr 25, 2012)

One more thing I forgot to mention , remember this is a 25 MP sensor with an inexpensive lens .

0 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (Apr 25, 2012)

We have to consider these in light of the price . I admit at the price with a 25 mp sensor plus a good autofocusing system of 11 points with the high iso ability displayed on these samples this Nikon will be a very good camera . With all the goodies this camera will give entusiast it will be a well sold camera by Nikon.

0 upvotes
El Profe
By El Profe (Apr 25, 2012)

Really impresive resolution and detail for a $699 camera (with lens).

2 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Apr 25, 2012)

Nice gallery. One the best. Varied photos. Plenty of people pix. I think this camera will be a huge success. Looks sharp. Excellent image quality.

1 upvote
webrunner5
By webrunner5 (Apr 25, 2012)

Yeah, I must admit. I see no image that just pops off the screen. Hmmm.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 25, 2012)

These are test shots, they aren't meant to be fine art shots.

3 upvotes
tampadave
By tampadave (Apr 25, 2012)

The high ISO shots are good. The low ISO shots that I expected to pop were simply dreary. ISO 100, what happened? Yuck!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 495
1234