Nikon D3200 SAMPLES

Started Apr 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
Tbolt47 Senior Member • Posts: 1,859
Re: OK, I gave it a go

lemon_juice wrote:

Tbolt47 wrote:

Out of your samples I would say the top shot has more detail in.

I tried it with this picture. I did what you said and used the hairs on the stem of the flower as my sample and the 12MP shot looks very similar to the 24MP shot, however the different becomes more obvious when you then add the same amount of sharpening to both shots - the 24MP shot has more finer detail. It's not a massive difference but it's there.

Did you use Lanczos for resizing? Photoshop's resizing algorithm isn't that good and will blur a little more. I tried the same image with Lanczos and the difference was smaller, the original definitely had more detail but I had to view it at 200% to see the differnce clearly.

This proves that D3200 can resolve more detail than a 12MP camera but the difference is very very small. Certainly not what should be expected from a good 24MP camera. I'd say 16MP is the real capability of this camera. I'm sure Nikon used good lenses and good shooting techniques so that their samples are as goog as possible but still they are not detailed enough.

Considering the pixels are even smaller than on the D800 sensor you need to use about the same techniques to really get the resolution benefit: very stable tripod, very good lenses, using only certain apertures, etc. As we can see, even if those criteria are met the result is mediocre and no one would really see the difference between this and, say, a 12MP image from another camera.

People say even the kit lens can resolve the detail because the tests prove that - but that is only theory because real life samples from D3200 show it's not really true.

Some say more pixels is always better and won't harm - I agree they won't harm but how much better is that? If I get 1% or 2% more detail by going from 12 to 24MP then I don't really care. This is good for professionals who always want to squeeze as much as possible from their sensors even if that is barely noticeable. They can affort to upgrade computers whenever needed. But for an amateur who uses an entry level camera with the kit lens? A bit absurd.

I am an amateur who likes DSLRs. But I'm not going to spend a lot of money on gear because that is not my profession. I use D60 with the kit lens and probably I'm not going to buy another lens. I don't have a tripod and I always shoot hand held. How is that going to help me take advantage of 24MP? Even if it did I just have absolutely no need for it. Why would I want to spend money to upgrade my computer just to be able to process RAWs equally efficiently because of the pixel bloat my camera will be writing to my cards?

-- hide signature --


No I didn't use Lanczos, but I'll take your word for it that PS isn't quite as good.

I see the point your making and the problem is that doubling the number of pixels is giving us a large file size for only a small amount more detail. Nikon have probably used the 24mp sensor in the entry level camera because because one it will help sales and two it's cheaper using the same sensors in all it's APS-C cameras.

I expect I will be buying either the D7100 or D400 as I'm after a second body so it will be interesting to compare it against my D7000.

 Tbolt47's gear list:Tbolt47's gear list
Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus E-620 Nikon D7000 Nikon D7100 Nikon D7500 +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow