Have you seen these red ones yet?
Have you seen these red ones yet?
Yup, and don't take this the wrong way, but, it's not on my to-get list. I think it's a bit gimmicky of Nikon to cram 24 MP onto the size of the sensor in this camera.
It looks good though.
Why do you bring up the D800?Funny, that's what some people are saying about the 36MP D800 too.
Let them say it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The D3200 is a budget entry level camera regardless of how many MP is carries. I, however, would take full advantage of a D800, as I typically print my images at 36 x 24 and larger. The D800 has a full frame sensor to take advantage of 36MP whereas the sensor on the 3200 is small at 23.2 x 15.4mm... smaller than my entry level D5100 16.2MP sensor.
I have looked at a lot of full resolution D800 examples and I am completely blown away with the performance.
So, let them say it.
It may be an entry level camera, but technology has progressed to a point where Nikon, in conjunction with it's fab partner can produce a high pixel count sensor. Their market research has obviously identified this as a feature people will pay for, so they have put it in. As is usally the case, the bottom end camera does much of what the higher end ones do, for a fraction of the cost.
I personally don't get super wound up about the high pixel count storage requirements. There are 4 TB hard drives on the market, and they will be able to store a lot of data. I popped one into my main computer to crank up my storage capacity; my (almost) 2K video camera and D800 (whenever it arrives) are going to used storage like crazy.
One could ask the same question about the D5100; it has the same sized sensor as the D7000, and is a massive upgrade from the D5000, which has a 12.3 MP sensor, the same as my D90.
The D3200 has the same Expeed 3 image processor as the D800 and D4, so I would expect some stunning images out of that camera, even though they appear to have crippled it a bit (12-bit raw).
It's interesting that peoples perception always seems to be that "more is better" when it comes to pixels - but how many to we need? Assuming that cropping doesn't enter the equasion (in reality it does of course, but it shouldn't have a big effect if the composition is relatively appropriate) than if we look at the two "usual" applications of a finished image (online display and physical print) then - for a typical (and generously sized) image on the web (say 1200px x 800px) we need only 960,000 pixels (or less than 1 MP). If we print an image that's at a typical size for competition entry / judging (12 x 8) and we do it at 300ppi - we end up needing 8.6MP - still only 1/3 to 1/4 of what these sensors are producing. But what if we want to go bigger? My typical print size is 44 x 22 inches - and on my gallery walls I have images printed from an 8MP 20D all the way up to a 21MP 1Ds3 ... and they really don't look any different. Sure - one could probably see a difference if they got upclose and personal with a magnifying glass, but that's just not the way the public general looks at large images (they always look at them from a distance).
Personally, I'd rather have something in the 8 to 12MP range, but with - say - a 15 stop dynamic range instead of the current models offering around 12.
Interestingly, Canon have seen fit to go backwards in the MP race on a couple of occasions - dropping the Powershot G10 from 15MP to 10MP in the G11 (and G12), and from 21MP in the 1Ds3 to 18MP in the 1Dx (albeit probably only for technical reasons -- the 5D3 is 22MP, but the 1Dx probably couldn't move that much data at 12/14FPS -- and this IS a sports oriented camera (in addition to other roles of course).
Last edited by Colin Southern; 29th April 2012 at 07:44 AM.
Think yourselves lucky, I have to sell these things and have this conversation nearly every day.
I loved it when pretty much everything Nikon sold was 12mp as I could easily show that the customer didn't need huge pixel counts in their £300 Dxxxx body if a £4k Dx body had the same number of pixels. I thought the pixel race had settled down and at least one brand had the balls to give the customer what they needed and not what they (thought) they wanted. Now, now the brands have given into their marketing departments and just pile the pixels in as it's easy to sell a number.
Personally I think the D3200 is a lazy and frankly pointless camera. It will sell and it will sell in good numbers as electronic retail giants, catalogue shops and e-retailers will bang on about 24 this, 24 that and the customers will cough up the extra cash having been brainwashed into thinking it is absolutely what the need. The same customers who won't pay for a top end card for their entry level camera as it is expensive so will cripple the performance. The same customers who will put the said card into a basic laptop which is going to struggle with a 24mp file and run out of hard drive in a few months. The same customers who will put the card in a digital picture frame that will have a heart attack when it tries to cope with 24mp - the same can be said of their HDTV that can only show 2.1 million pixels, a number they will never have worked out just assumed that this Full HD monster must have loads of them if it cost so much. 90% of them will never print a picture bigger than A4 and even then it will be on cheap paper and ink as the proper stuff is a rip off, the remaining 10% will go into a photography store and be sold on the idea of getting a canvas print done for their wall and get one of those about 24x16.........but canvas ain't that sharp so guess what - yep - all those pixels will still be wasted.
As I've said it will sell by the bucket load and yes I know that technology is improving so the sensors are at a point where a big pixel number isn't a problem but that fact remains that in an entry level body and an entry level body doesn't need 24mp.
Colin, most of the better brands dropped their pixels from 14 to 12 in their better models like Canon did with the G series cameras. This was partially to do with the sensors being put in them all being a Sony unit and them all buying the same set of sensors for a particular years product range and partially because the 14mp sensors of the previous generation were pretty horrid and had been getting poor reviews.
The decrease in pixels gave quite a significant increase in quality but it was very, very, very difficult to sell in anything other than the very top end kit like a G Series where the customer knew a bit more about the reason why. Last year neary all the IXUX models had the same 12mp HS sensor along with the better PowerShot models and they were fantastic - but - I had a hell of a job some days trying to convince a customer that a camera that cost more than a Casio/Samsung/Kodak etc with 16mp was going to give them a better picture if it 'only' had 12mp. This year Canon, and the rest, have given into the marketing departments again and the new HS sensors have 16mp and they just aren't as good.
You have my sympaties ... I have these conversations too, but thankfully only 1 a month on average!
Perhaps you need some samples to get the message across?
A good case-in-point ... My daughter is doing a school project on remembering those who fought in the great wars. I took a photo of the local monument on my iPhone (8MP), and in Photoshop changed it to 22 x 40" and converted it to sepia - and printed it out that size. I'm sure that anyone just looking at it casually wouldn't have a clue that it wasn't "professionally shot".
Last edited by Colin Southern; 29th April 2012 at 07:16 AM.
I think Robin has hit the nail on the head. Megapixels sell. When you go look at cameras how does the average punter differentiate ? Probably Size, Colour, Zoom Range and MEGAPIXELS. 12 is better than 10 obviously Unfortunately most people don't buy from good shops that can tell you why you don't need 24mp and explain the trade offs in ISO performance. Hey ho.
And Darren its not gimicky I guess as soon as Sony started pushing 24mp Nikon were bound to respond and I suppose Canon and Pentax will.
It's a shame because most folk won't have the lenses on for that matter the technique to take advantage of it.
The thing that really irks me is when review sites waffle on about the extended ISO range of a new camera. Just because a compact camera can go to ISO6400 doesn't make it should as in most/all cases the pics are rubbish!
the 1DX reduction in MP was interesting to see though.
There is of course a difference between a 36MP full frame camera and a 24mp apsc one. the pixel density on a 36mp is less than 16mp I believe when cropped to apsc size which shows how extreme 24mp is.
personally I wish they'd both stop faffing around with new bodies every five minutes and flesh out the lenses. There are number of lenses that users of both Canon and Nikon would like to see and have been waiting for.
My guess with the 1Dx is it's just a bandwidth thing ... I think I read somewhere that Canon have already prototyped a 35mm sensor with over 100MP, but in the case of the 1Dx, if they'd made it a 36MP sensor then it would probably only be capable of 6 or 7 FPS instead of 12/14 - at which point the sports boys would boycott the camera.
To the uneducated buyer, a typical snapshot taken at 24MP is twice as good as the same picture taken at 12MP so they are happier with the result.
Am I better off spending my hours earning the money to buy a wildly expensive kit? Or should I invest that time and effort in learning how to take and process great images with a more moderate kit? There are many folks on both sides of the question, sometimes depending on whether they have more money than available time.
The D3200 will sell, but not everybody will have the same reasons for purchase.
Would I have bought the D3200 if it was available when I got my D3100? Yep!
Would I sell my D3100 just to get the D3200? Nope!
But your mileage may vary!
Camera manufacturers make what they think people will buy. I agree with Colin, cropping aside, I could live with a 12MP camera about 99% of the time, but that is not how we buy cameras, or for that matter anything else. We buy for what we consider to be our "highest demand" piece; be that cars or cameras. Their are an awful lot of people driving SUVs that never leave the road and pickup trucks where the largest cargo is bags of groceries. Most people buy what they want, not what they need. A person buying an entry level camera won't know what he or she needs and will be directed by someone else's opinion.
Give me a full-frame 18MP camera with a 14 stop dynamic range and I would be happy for most shots; there will probably be up to 5% that I wished that the camera had 24MP. I rarely, shoot in burst mode (too many years of shooting film) and will likely never use the video on the camera (I shoot video on a higher end video camera; where I get the bandwidth to get the image quality I want). In other words, no manufacturer makes the camera I would want to buy, so I am stuck with their offerings and make the appropriate tradeoffs.
It really doesn't cost the sensor manufacturer any more or less to make a 36MP sensor (assuming yield is not an issue). Why would they tie up fab capacity to make something that sells for less money, after all, they are trying to maximize their profits as well.
I personally don't buy the hard disk capacity argument or the processor speed argument. A reasonable 2 or 3 year old machine is more than capable processing large files, and 1 or 2 TB external drives are quite inexpensive. Yes we might have to wait a second or two longer for some fancy filter; but not for most editing operations.
Way more complicated than megapixels. You have to divide the megapixels by the number of buttons on the back of your camera, then ADD the total spread of millimeters in the kit lens (ex: an 18-270mm lens is about 5x better than a 17-55).
After you get that number, you consider other relevant factors, such as which one Ashton Kutcher says is cool, and you make your decision.
gim·mick (gmk)And Darren its not gimicky I guess as soon as Sony started pushing 24mp Nikon were bound to respond and I suppose Canon and Pentax will.
a. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
b. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
a. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
b. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
3. A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.
tr.v. gim·micked, gim·mick·ing, gim·micks
1. To add gimmicks to; clutter with gadgets or attention-getting details. Often used with up.
2. To change or affect by means of a gimmick.
I'm going with definition 2a.
I believe this is the same sensor as used by Sony in the A77 / A65 and Nex 7.
the size of the sensor in the d3200 is virtually the same size as the d5200! 23.2 x 15.4 mm as opposed to 23.6 x 15.7 mm. The Canon sensor in use in their APS-C's is 22.3 x 14.9 mm