Just Posted: Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery

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

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

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

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

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

@Kananga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon troll.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

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

If only Sony could report some profits too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Rubenski

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

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