Just Posted: Nikon D3200 in-depth Review

The raw files from this very site are sized as fallows.
D5100 (16 megapixels) 16.5 MB
D7000 (16 megapixels) 19.3 MB
D3200 (24 Megapixels) 20.2 MB

I fail to see how the D3200 files will be bogging anything down more than a 16 megapixel camera. If such a small differnce in file size causes your laptop trouble, it was time to upgrade it a couple years ago.

Actually I have the best small laptop available. They have stagnated over the last couple years since everyone is moving to tablets which I don't want.

4 fps may be enough for you but not for me.

Sure, IQ of this may be equivalent to the 16 MP sensor of a couple years ago but then they could have gone the other way and maintained the 16 MP with way better high ISO noise.

If you have the best laptop available then it will have no trouble with 24 megapixel files. The belief that the same sensor with less megapixels will produce less noise is simply false. No matter how many people on the internet think it's true.

As far as fps goes, until a small DSLR is released that isn't a cheap entry level model, you will never get one that has more than the minimum fps as that is a key incentive used to get people to move up to the next highest model.

Obviously the same sensor with less megapixels will produce the same amount of noise. The point is that they could have used the area available on the sensor to make a different sensor altogether with larger pixels that produces less noise. Sensor advances can go both ways -- more MP or better high ISO noise. The laws of physics dictate that if you reduce one the other can go up. I'd much prefer movements towards high ISO noise capabilities.

If scores are relative, and I agree that's a good idea, I find a percentage puzzling, as this suggest an absolute score, with 100% representing the ideal camera, whatever the category.

Well yes it's the same low end/low featured body kicking around for years. Bar some gimmicks and video bits added not much has changed bar the sensor.
Shockingly the T3 actually has a DOF preview (have to menu dive to assign it though), can do HSS with a dedicated flash, and exposure bracketing. believe it or not it's actually better featured than the Nikon

I have film bodies over a decade old that out gun this new Nikon

How did DP review come to the conclusion that the D3200 competes with the Canon T3?

Because they don't know what they are talking about.

The T3 is a 12 mp DLSR, bargain basement $499 kit, with a 230 K LCD and ISO that can only be set in whole stops and 720p video. Does that sound competitive with the D3200?

Compare the specs side-by-side and you tell me.

Another example of the hidden agenda or bias of the reviewer. Sorry to be harsh but if a review is going to write things that don't jibe with reality, expect people point it out.

I handled the D3200 the other day at B&H and it's actually a nice upgrade from the D3100 body wise. Nice rubberized grip, beautiful LCD, paired with a 35 1.8 it would make a small, killer combo.

I think the problem is that Nikon releases have been breaking new ground while Canon just keeps releasing conservative updates. So in an effort to not appear biased to Nikon DPR is down playing Nikon's recent efforts and talking up Canon to make them appear equal. But all they have ended up doing with that is strategy is appearing biased toward Canon.

Is seems DPR may have made the mistake many members on the site have, thinking saying everything is just as good is an unbiased approach when what really is unbiased is just telling the truth.

DPR didn't come up with the idea that D3200 and T3 are competing cameras, so you should stop accusing the reviewer of making that up. All manufacturers have clearly differentiated models in their line-ups, and these two cameras occupy the entry-level spot in their respective manufacturers' line-up. They market the cameras as beginner models, which they certainly are, feature-wise. Just because one camera isn't competitive with respect to some specs, that doesn't mean they aren't competing for the same buyers in the market place.
It is the features, performance (speed, AF etc.), build quality and ergonomics that determines a camera's position in the market (entry-level, mid level, enthusiast, semi-pro, pro), not its image quality. A pro body with bad IQ is still a pro body.
I agree that the T3 isn't competitive, but it's still competing with D3200 and all other entry-level models out there. Don't accuse DPR of misinformation, blame Nikon for marketing D3200 as an entry-level model.

Well, even with a Nikon-biased attitude this is just wishfull thinking.

Have you even bothered to select the canon cams in the DPR-tool? :-)

Yes I have as well as downloaded full size raws from both cameras. The only one with wishful thinking is you.

What about DR, color depth? Less noice doesn't mean better sensor...

I don't really call going up in megapixels a "revolution". All camera-makers have been doing that since the dawn of digital.

Now say, when AutoFocus came into cameras in the late 80's and early 90's, THAT is a revolution. It changed the way cameras work.

Megapixels DON'T.

The revolution is that previously you had to pay 7 grand to get this kind of resolution and now the cheapest camera in the lineup has it. Further the D3200 indicates that the rest of Nikon's crop camera's will have 24 megapixels as well. Changing your entire line except one highly specialized camera to high res sensors and setting a new standard for the minimum IQ in DSLRs seems pretty revolutionary to me.

...the point I am trying to make is that NO one is forcing the consumer to chose a certain brand over another. After all the decision everyone makes when choosing a camera is based on the cameras capabilities or the system behind that brand. Cameras like D3200 does not inspire much confidence with a very poor basket of features and relying on cheap tricks. The modern consumer is smarter those days Nikon ..take note of that !

MARIKE, the guys must be very much ashamed by now. Yes it was a very much unfounded statement, what you exaggerated too much by now. Oh yes and you are right. you may add the whole conlusion section as not at all unbiased. Nice piece of propaganda. Folks, get your own conclusion from other sites.

Dxomark scores are not the only criteria to judge a camera. Dxomark site itself says you shouldn't buy a cameras based on their scores. Most entry-level consumers don't even shoot RAW, so Dxomark for them is pretty irrelevant. AF, white-balance, lens, and metering might make far bigger difference to p&s upgraders than Dxomark RAW scores. What if they shoot in liveview mode? D3200 would be a bad camera for them then, regardless of dxomark scores. You have been told this now a few times, but for some reason it doesn't seem to get into your head.

@ThePhilips

Someone has to point out the things that the review doesn't say. Where I live people have the right to express themselves and debate topics. If that bothers you, oh well.

@ET2
DxOMark give a general idea of the IQ performance of a camera. The individual scores are not as useful, but their analysis of IQ parameters (High ISO, DR and Color Depth) can be a rough guide for sensor capabilities and image quality attributes of a given camera. And RAW performance directly affects JPEGs.

If you're shooting a DSLR outstretched arms handheld in LiveView mode, you're doing it wrong.

I'm by no means an expert and am following developments from my armchair along with almost everyone else, but isn't going from 16mp to 24mp a rather large jump? I'm not sure sensor technology has advanced quite THAT rapidly, and that's one of the major concerns I have over the D3200 (and perhaps other models that are soon to be released).

Are you kidding me? The D800 is 36 megapixels. That is triple the D700 and 12 more than the D3X. It has noise preformance that rivals the D4 and over all the best IQ of any DSLR. The sensor in the D800 is literally the best full frame sensor currently on the market not only for resolution but for dynamic range and noise preformance as well. Going from 16 megapixels to 24 is only 8 more. Have you even seen images made with the D3200? If you had you would have posted such nonsense. The D3200 has equal noise performance to the D7000 up to ISO 3200 and captures noticeably more details at all ISOs.

I don't think people hate more megapixels, I just think they know you can't really capitalize on those additional MP unless you are blowing up an image to a huge size. For 99% of the people out there, 16MP is plenty.

re: "I don't think people hate more megapixels, I just think they know you can't really capitalize on those additional MP unless you are blowing up an image to a huge size. For 99% of the people out there, 16MP is plenty."

That's not actually true bro. Even looking at images on screen, I can instantly tell the difference between what I shot with my D90 and what I shot with the D3200. The 24mp files have much more sharpness, much more detail.

This is going to become even more of a factor when retina and similar displays take over.

But you also shot those pics with different cameras, so there might be something else going on besides the difference in MP count.

Of course it was with a different camera otherwise it would have the same megapixels. What test would be acceptable to you?

Would one have to have a camera custom made with two different sensors but everything else the same before you will believe that you can see the difference in resolution on screen?

@Josh152

Totally agree. The D800 is a revolutionary DSLR and the performance of it doesn't get nearly enough credit by the so-called experts on DPR.

D800

2835 ISO (Low-Light) score
14.4 EVs DR score
25.3 bits Color Depth score

D4
2965 ISO (Low-Light) score
13.1 EVs DR score
24.7 bits Color Depth score

5D Mk III

2239 ISO (Low-Light) score
11.7 EVs DR score
24 bits color depth score

The better high ISO performance, and nearly 3 EV better DR than the 5D Mk III is one reason people objected so vociferously to DPRs equivalent rating of the D800 and 5D3.

As far as the D3200, I've downloaded countless full-sized samples and the IQ is impressive. People look at the poorly shot images in the D3200 review and think that is representative of the D3200s capabilities. It is not.

@marike6

I still can't believe how low of a score the D800 got or that it tied with the 5DIII. It was obviously just an attempt to mitigate how mediocre of an update the 5DIII really is.

All the complaining about the D3200s megapixels is nothing more then people feeling insecure that an entry level camera has better resolution then the more expensive models.

@Josh: Let's take an 8x10 photo for example. The human eye cannot discern ANY difference between 16mp and 24mp. NONE, ZERO. Both pictures will produce 350+ dpi. The 3200 is far and away a better camera than the D90(MP count notwithstanding). Maybe it's the 'placebo effect'...you WANT the picture to look sharper based on MP count alone, so you convince yourself that it is.

Double blind test it's the only way to know for sure if it makes a difference or not.

@emmanuelstarchild

First we were talking about on a screen not prints and the fact remains that I can tell a differnce between a 24 megapixel image and a 16 megapixel image even when viewing it at a lot less than 100% on my 19 inch monitor. I am not the only one.

But lets get real for a second, whether you can see a differnce at a set size in a print or on a screen depends heavily on the subject matter photographed. You can't say you always can't tell a differnce or you always can tell a difference. Many factors are at play. In the end it doesn't' even matter at all. Even if you never see a differnce, you are not loosing anything having those megapixels available. Technology never advances if you just hold it to an arbitrary standard of what people "need" out of some kind of misguided elitism.

I am still relatively young but I can remember many things nobody "needed". Like Computers, The internet, E-mail,Cellphones, HD, monitors, Digital cameras, smart phones, camera phones.

Also some people who buy this camera will, without a doubt, use and see the benefit from the full resolution of the camera. Why limit them just because some people or even most people don't need it? What benefit can that possibly have other then making owners of higher end previous generation cameras feel better?

In a head to head comparison of my older 10MPX to my new 18MPX Canons. with camera noise suppression shut off, the 18MPX camera exhibited less noise at ISO 1600 than the 10MPX does at 800.

In post production noise reduction using Photoshop and Topaz Denoise, of images of the same scene same crop, the high MPX images required a lesser degree of filtration to supress noise than the 10 MPX image.

Finally, in post production sharpening , the 18MPX image required less sharpening to achieve optimal sharpness resulting in less enchancement of noise and fewer sharpening artifacts. In higher resolution images ,sharpening has a greater effect on details in proportion to its effect on noise in smooth low contrast areas. Conversely, in higher resolution images more sharpening can be applied before noise becomes objectionable.

When scaled down to match the 10 MPX print output, 8X12 @300PPI, the 18MPX prints are distinctly crisper and cleaner than those from the 10MPX.

Higher MPX does matter.

Oh, one more thing:

Since the beginning of digital photography one of the most important commandments was ;"Thou shalt not waste pixels.". In other words, frame the image as close to the final cropping as possible, so as to avoid having to crop any pixels out.

With high MPX images, we can go ahead and crop the image and still make 8x10 prints or larger, without having to uprez.

Who needs a $12,000, 600mm lens when for less money you can get a 36MPX camera and a couple of great lenses and just crop the image on the rare occasions that 300mm just isn't enough.

Many photographers have gotten so used to cropping in camera and saving pixels that they have forgotten that once, long ago in a galaxy far far away, photographers shot film and cropped their images in the darkroom.

With more pixels we can throw away the "Thall shalt not waste pixels" commandment.

True cropping is one thing that those saying people don't need high megapixel cameras seem to ignore.

You can only crop your high MP image if the lens is able to resolve that detail. And to the above commenter who says they can discern between a 24 and 12 MP image, there is no way you can tell the difference. How big is your monitor? Are you sure you aren't just noticing differences in the cameras' settings? They are from different generations, years apart, they are obviously not going to produce the same kind of image.

I find this attitude silly considering the 5DII became the camera of choice among the majority of pro wedding, portrait, and event photographers even though except for resolution the D700 is better than the 5DII in every way. Especially in important areas like AF and dynamic range. It seems the majority of consumers at all levels want more, not less megapixels. Nikon has obvious learned this lesson even if they had to do it the hard way.

Interestingly Canon seems to have, perhaps erroneously, attributed the success of the 5DII to it's video feature which would explain the focus on video instead of sensor improvement their recent releases have had.

Only someone who doesn't understand the relationship between sensor size, focal length, perspective, angle of view, depth of field and optical resolution, digital noise and dynamic range would think that a camera phone with a 24mpx is equivelent to a DSLR.

Well does actually hurt anything to have those extra megapixels?

And don't say that image quality suffers, because that's not actually true. As someone who has owned D70, D90 & D3200, I can honestly say that image quality has increased drastically each time I have upgraded.

If the D3200 produced bad images, I would be the first one to be trashing this camera. But it seems like the main people trolling this camera are just butt hurt about megapixel count

I hardly call exposure bracketing "advanced"
I would not expect all of that list maybe the CLS thing can be left off in this price.
MLU in a 24mp DSLR is really a very basic requirement though.
HSS is again bog standard from every maker bar Nikon

This is a 24mp marketing mission, and not a lot of camera

@Tap0

The Pentax K-x of 2009 had those features... and yes it was entry-level. in-camera focus motor, DOF preview, exposure bracketing, wireless flash and HSS sync with an external flash.

But if Nikon put that in the D3100 then it'll eat up into the Nikon D5000. So they left it out. And they left it out again for the D3200, because a D5100 may be coming out. Too many bodies, if you ask me.

There is no need for a D3200 and D5100 both are crippleware the D5100 only adds a few bits like bracketing and nothing else on the must have list.

One model would do just fine, not 2 stripped down ones.
The K-x was quite a good camera, shame about the mirror slap/SR issue and poor customer support from Pentax.

Aside from that it made for a far better starter camera than this. In fact just about every camera out there is a better choice, it's just the 24mp that will suck in some folks.

@Tap0

The E-PL1 has all these. I know it's not a DSLR but entry level none the less. There are other ones, but the E-PL1 is perhaps the cheapest.

It has +/-3 ev bracketing, wireless flash, high speed flash sync,, obviously better liveview and DoF preview.

These features can help a beginner learn more about photography, more pixels do not.

Most review sites make comparisons between DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs, especially when reviewing entry-level models. This is simply because both kinds of camera are among the alternatives that a P&S upgrader is looking at. Many beginners don't even understand the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless cam, or even know what a viewfinder is.
You're looking at this from the point of view of an enthusiast, but the D3200 is (primarily) aimed at beginners, just as the E-PL3, GF5, NEX-C3, NX1000 etc. Why not compare them in a review, when most prospective buyers surely are choosing between them?

Also, a review is supposed to be someone's personal opinion about a product, based on user experience and tests. That's why reviewers sometimes reach different conclusions and make different recommendations. You shouldn't for a minute think that your own personal preferences are anything other than that. :)

The thing that is being missed is that regardless of how some people may use it, a DSLR is designed to be primarily used with the OVF and PDAF. The through the lens viewfinder is the whole point of the SLR design. That is why the Live view and CDAF isn't as good as it is on a mirrorless ILC and it's also why it doesn't matter that it is not as good and should not be considered a negative even when comparing the camera to a mirrorless ILCs. The DSLR simply is not designed to be used the same way they are.

Even raw beginners pick up a DSLR for the first time and look though the view finder. It never even occurs to them to use the LCD at first. I would say most people moving from a compact camera don't even realize a DSLR has live view unless they are told and don't assume or expect to use the lcd to shoot on a DSLR.

A more fair comparison would be to compare the DSLR's focusing using the PDAF to a mirrorless ILCs CDAF as that is how the two camera's are designed to be used.

Criticizing a DSLR because it's live view focusing is not as good as a Mirrorless ILCs live view focusing is like criticizing a corvette for not being as good at hauling cargo as a pickup truck. Sure they both could technically do it but one is designed for that purpose and one isn't.

A good music teacher would tell parents to rent used instruments, at least until it's clear whether the student really aspires to learn and practices regularly. Think of the musicians who started with battered pianos or third-hand stuff. Even then, there's no point in spending a lot if talent is modest. A student who mastered "soft" instruments and programs like Sibelius might develop more in-demand skills and have better employment prospects too.

@Josh152 +1. Exactly. Those are crucial points which seems to have eluded staff.

@Cy Cheze I don't teach beginner level but people who have already reached a certain level of competence.

I think it's a good point that someone upgrading from a point and shoot may wish to be aware of the options i.e. DSLR or mirrorless, the pros and cons of each.

I once bought a DSLR from a person who'd bought it without realising it was too complicated for what he needed.

Such comparisons are therefore helpful.

@Markie6,
The advice you give is to someone with a certain level of competence in the subject while the reviewer is giving info which may be relevant to a beginner and I can't see anything wrong with that.
The reviewer has the choice of comparing IQ or budget when comparing systems. He could have chosen the EM5 for IQ comparison but I have the feeling he was comparing prices.

It certainly seems an odd combination of features. Surely 24MP would be of more use to a pro than an amateur, yet it's missing exposure bracketing? More of a marketing exercise I think.

Having compared many files from the D3200 and the D7000 I can say they had identical noise preformance up to ISO 3200 with the D7000 taking a very slight lead a 6400. This is clear even using the compare tool in this very review. Also compare the D3200 to the D3100 and you will see they have the SAME amount of noise at a given ISO. In any event regardless of noise the D3200 is resolving more fine details than either camera at all ISOs. I had really hoped the D800 would finally put the ridiculous belief that more pixels=more noise to rest.

As for fps, do you really think any camera manufacture will have their entry level camera doing more then the minimum fps? FPS is one of the major incentives used to get people to move up a model or two in the line. Remember too that FPS is also limited by the physical design of the camera and not just the data processing speed. The 5D mark II sales vs the sales of the D700 proved that most people would rather have resolution vs more fps.

Why not bang out your own 1000% platinum review of this (or any other) camera and share it with everyone? Odd how some people obtain pleasure by kicking over their neighbors' huts.

"Odd how some people obtain pleasure by kicking over their neighbors' huts."

Do you mean like how this unbalance review kicked the heck out of Nikon's hut?

What I don't like?
people like you how joined June 25., 2012 questioning people on this open forum which they are expressing their opinions instead of justify them you.

Professor999's recent activity

Commented on Just Posted: Nikon D3200 in-depth Review news story

@markie6,
question,
Is there an inaccuracy with the review?
Is your only problem with the comparison with other cameras?
Also,
if you don't like the reviews written here you could always choose not...

Also:
I find interesting that you just join this forum and are questioning people on this forum about their contributions - really?

No ET2, just for the sake of creditability of dpreview.

They have plenty of credibility with this review as it is. They will lose credibility if they change it to make the fanboys happy.

@ET2

You missed the point ashwins brought up. You sound like a Nikon hater.

His points are really irrelevant. He is quoting other sites and making claims about a lens tested on a different camera with a different sensor (like photozone), but DPR had the cameras for 3 months. They took hundreds maybe thousands of photos. There is no need to change the conclusion, which is just an opinion anyway, to make fanboys happy.

Disagree. People compare between these camera's. So what are the pro's and what are the cons? Not different from comparing DSLRs IQ with mirrorless ones and say that CDAF is still not as good for wildlife etc. So people know what to buy or are helped a bit in the right direction.

@ashwins: DPR don't place DSLRs and mirrorless cameras in different categories. The categories are based on the level of user the cameras are aimed at, not on their viewfinder technology.
The category where you find D3200 is "Entry Level Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR", where you'll also find the likes of Sony NEX-C3 and Panasonic GF3.

ET2 is just getting his Sony fanboy rage out. He lost faith when the wheels fell off of the Sony HX20V Review.

Real question is should every MILC be docked points because it has smaller sensor than d800, it has no OVF and it is not as fast focusing as the best dslrs (when they are using ovf). I would say DPR should do so if they are highly bent on criticizing a dslr for being a dslr.

A DSLR compared to an ILC like the G3 is irrelevant, and to a EPL-3 even more so.

But of course the K-30 is an entry level camera. It's a definite step up from the D3200 and T3i in features, i.e. 100% Pentaprism VF, weather sealing, 6 fps, etc. But Pentax is billing it as their lower end model. It has big performance at it's price point. I have a K-30 as a backup and love it almost as much as my main body.

I disagree with your statement. Even if it may be apples to oranges to some, it's not to others. I think DPR is taking the right approach, as mirrorless cameras gain momentum.

Reviews are generally made to help people choose a product. And when it comes to choosing a product past the point and shoot level, a mirrorless ILC camera is just as viable as a DSLR.

What really differentiates an entry-level SLR from any other ILC other than an optical viewfinder? You ultimately upgrade to an SLR for image quality and the ability to take a greater variety of shots, and MILC cameras are equally viable for this.

Besides, ePhotozine does review MILC cameras and compare them to SLRs. Check their conclusion in the NX1000 review, for example.

Agree with panilopez: this is about OVF vs EVF mainly. A bit about phase detect AF vs contrast detect AF as well. But from the point of view of a user looking at improving the quality of his/her pictures vault, both architectures offer a viable path. I find it therefore perfectly ok to compare the 3200 to the MiLCs from the IQ and performance point of views, as they provide very similar services.

Personally, after genuinely trying to move to an EVF-based system (nex7), I am now completely convinced I am an OVF guy. EVF causes me too much grief, due to my vision, the complex corrections I require, and the type of glasses and sunglasses i wear, which interfere with sensors and reduce ability to see the scene on sunny days.

Based on that fundamentalI design preference, if I was restarting this costly journey from scratch now, the 3200 would certainly be in my short list even after reading the DPR review. It is a pretty fair review.

Fanboys are a dangerous lot. They will defend their brand til the end.

The D3200 sensor puts up nearly identical numbers to the NEX-7 sensor on DxOMark so it seems likely that it's a Nikon modified Sony Exmor chip.

The DXOMark scores are practically the same in dynamic range and colour depth. In the DXOMark article as well they have written that its a Sony sensor but tweaked to Nikon's specifications.

I have strong doubts that two sensors can have such similar performance from two different senor manufacturers and I would put more faith in what a professional site like DXOMark says rather than some user tests.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D3200-Review/Comparisons

In any case its completely irrelevant nor worth discussing who made the sensor. The final performance is what counts and it seems the D3200 can deliver quite well. Whether Samsung, Sony or Nikon made the sensor doesn't matter as much as the camera wearing a Nikon badge in the end.

Nikon cant make sensors, they dont have fabs. They would need to hire some company to make it for them. As far as I know, probably only Aptina could do similar sensor, but I strongly doubt, cause you cant just go and say "we want 24 mpix APS-C sensor with this specs". And considering amount of sensors needed (Im pretty sure D3200 will sell like hot cakes) I dont think they would be able to do it and satisfy that needed amount.

I think its Sony sensor which was tweaked to Nikon specs and they make special batches only for them. Its not first and neither last sensor thats re-designed or designed by Nikon and made by Sony.

lol. Canon can't build a decent wide angle. The 1.2 lenses are painfully slow and near impossible to focus. And people go on about the quality of a single f/4 zoom. In the DPReview forums on here, the first lenses to get recommended in the Canon forums are Sigma and Zeiss - says it all really.

"Canon can't build a decent wide angle".

That's it? Then you acknowledge Canon's lens superiority in all other aspects, I assume. Canon does have weaknesses, but overall they are the best. BTW, the 16-35 is a damn fine lens. If that's Canon's one weakness, then it's a very minor one.

not trolling here, but I always felt the opposite. I think that Nikon makes better lenses, but canon seems to be slightly ahead of nikon in terms of technology.

@russbarnes: you mention having difficulty with the 1.2 lens, I understand your frustration. 1.2 lenses have INCREDIBLY shallow depth of field, and focus can be difficult if you are shooting wide open. I think any but the very best Zeiss lenses will exhibit this problem with such a wide aperture.

@intensity: I gave Nikon the edge in sensor technology in part because they have a larger megapixel count. Unfortunately their lenses are not up to par just yet. I believe Canon lenses could take advantage of that technology, but there are no APS-C camera sensors with that just yet. Maybe if you paired a Canon lens with a Nikon body...

Actually canon is behind in all aspects on nikon, in my opinion. They are beating a dead horse with that 18 Mp sensor, which is inferior to the sony/nikon tweaked sensors, the 5D3 is not up to the D800 in IQ, their latest lenses are much more expensive than the nikon ones in my countrry (24-70,70-200), and the only lenses canon users still brag about over the nikon lenses are the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and 70-200 f4. Yes, canon also makes a 17 mm TS which nikon does not, and the tele lenses in canon mount have been superb over the years, and still are, but nikon have some new superb tele lenses as well. Choosing between canon and nikon these days is not what it used to be when you had to choose between the 5D and the D200, or the 1Ds mk2 and the D2x, which was a walkover for canon. Now they are evenly matched in the body area, with a plus for nikon IMHO, as far as the lenses go, the holy trinity from nikon is outstanding and their latest 1.4 primes are stellar stuff.

Thanks Lars - I saw the samples and checked quite a few in original size. I agree results from 18-55 kit aren't impressive across the board and are very (very) soft. But the only portrait with 17-55/2.8 was shot at ISO 12800, hardly comparable to others detail-wise....