nikon d3200

[cwphoto]

<p>Probably a fine camera from Nikon & some would say that 16mp is plenty for most. However the description indicates to me that specs are for marketing the camera as a Canon killer. Not complaining as I have a 800E on order, just an observation.</p>

[ronald_smith6]

<p>This is so ridiculous having 24MP on an APS-C sensor, especially on an entry-level camera. I guess the marketing forces are still riding the Megapixel wave.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>As others have said, I was expecting this sensor in a D300 replacement (since that's the price bracket the NEX-7 is in and the D300 is arguably the model most in need of refresh in Nikon's line). Maybe it can't be run fast enough to take the "mini-D4" market position. Likewise I'll be D800 shopping, so I don't have system envy, but it's a little embarrassing to have the cheapest model <i>double</i> the resolution of my D700. Mind you, I have lenses that can resolve 12MP; if the kit lens does the D3200 justice, I'll be astonished, especially since I've heard less than complimentary things about whether most of the NEX lens range can keep a NEX-7 honest.<br />

<br />

I wonder the extent to which Nikon are splitting their product lines into resolution (D3200/D3100, D5100, D7000, D800/D3x) and speed (D90, D300/s, D700, D3/3s/4). If that's really a distinction they're making, and I think it's a valid one, I'd be much less confused if they picked a naming convention to reflect that (like the old "h" and "x" suffixes, or Canon's "s" line for the 1D).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Up to last year, I thought Nikon had stopped participating in the pixel race, but apparently not. I continue to think 16MP is a lot for DX. Hopefully we get to test 24MP on DX and see its effect.</p>

<p>Nikon tends to upgrade its entry-level DSLRs about once every 12 to 18 months. The D3200 is actually a bit late, probably due to the flooding in Thailand last year. The introduction of the D3200 indicates the residual effects of that are over for now; I just hope that it won't repeat later on this year during the rainy season, but I am sure they are trying their best in Thailand to avoid a repeat, ever.</p>

<p>The fact that the D3200 is 24MP means the successor to the D300S will be at least that. Whether that is welcome news or not I am not sure.</p>

<p>An "affordable" 28mm/f1.8 AF-S is a welcome addition. For my occasional indoor use, I can't justify the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S and franktly I think 24mm is too wide for me indoors. A 35mm/f1.8 for FX or this 28mm/f1.8 probably works better anyway. However, there is still no sign of the leaked 18-300mm DX super zoom.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The extra super high MP selling mechanism was/is ludicrous for P&S cameras/phones etc because the glass/plastic lenses just make hi-resolution rubbish.</p>

<p>However, for FX & DX bodies with very expensive glass infront, 24/36 MP chips ARE truely useful, especially for small wildlife cropping.</p>

<p>If the lens can resolve the detail, I want a chip that can record it. NB. Photographic skills apart... :-)</p>

<p>What is the pixel count on 70line pairs on FX?</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Frank, the wireless sync connector is not for flash. Nikon already has the SU-800 or SB-series flashes for that. This wireless adapter is for sharing photos, so that you can immediately share your D3200 photos on Facebook, Twitter, etc.<br>

http://nikon.com/news/2012/0419_wireless_mobile_adapter_02.htm</p>

<p>Dieter, while the kit lens has many shortcomings, optical quality is not one of them. The 18-55 offers impressive sharpness across its range. Sony's newest APS sensor is the 24MP one found in the Sony NEX-7. It makes sense that Nikon would use it in their latest offerings. Besides, even in lenses that don't fully take advantage of the increased resolution, this same argument was made against the D800. For example, people were complaining that the 17-35mm doesn't fully take advantage of the D800's resolution. However, it still looks better on a D800 than a D700, even if it's not performing to its fullest! Yes, it makes sense that the next Nikon cameras could use this 24MP sensor, but it's not a foregone conclusion. The D4 has a lower megapixel count than the D800, but it's a higher class camera. Nikon could easily do the same for its APS cameras.</p>

[adamhorga]

<p>Nice one! I'm a Canon fan, have the 60D, but recent Nikon releases keep making me greedy :P It's good to see, that Nikon started making some new cameras in this range. I mean that IMO Canon has more and newer cameras in this range (like 600D, 550D, 50D, 60D), I know that not all of these are at the same level, but it seems to me that Canon has more cameras to choose from. In opposition w/ some opinions here, I am happy, that entry level DSLRs come with good specs, detail,high iso and so on. You know, this is a very good thing, if you're at university. I am, and not all of us has the money to buy high end gear, so many of us are using entry level DSLRs. We're around 30 in the class, and there are two 600Ds, one D90, a 60D and some D3000s. We mostly use our cameras for making photos for posters and advertisings, and we want to use them after university as well. I think it's a good thing, that we can buy a camera that we can afford, and we can use those after university for professional work. And we don't have to give thousands of dollars for it...</p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree that the NIkon 18-55mm VR is no slouch. I carry it as a back up lens on major trips, and also family outings. Two years ago I had it along with me in Iceland. I was using my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 as primary lens when I lost my 77mm polarizer (Dettifoss swallowed it!) I had a 52mm polarizer for my 18-55mm VR, and switched to that lens. I honestly can't tell which image was shot with what when stopped down to f8. Nikon seems to be teasing us with the D300 replacement. It better be good when they finally get it out.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Holy cow, who cares. Press button, take pictures. Today's mindset about a natural pecking order in the line is a little insane. Maybe digital has arrived to the point where it's like film cameras were, ie. you buy the body that has the actual functionality you need as opposed to buying for "image quality" and ISO number specs. The camera should be just something to hang the lens on, and it's looking like the big makes are there, willingly or not.</p>

<p>P.S. It took a few years for the big cameras to get the functionality that was already in compacts, and the time has come for both compacts and big cameras to get the same functionality a phone has. Wireless file transfer is indispensable, and it should be built-in.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>Ah.., imagine me , as a pro , at a wedding, with my D3&D4..., and each and every guest with a 24MP camera... Frustrating !?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>interesting that no one here has mentioned video. the d3200 quietly does 1080p @24mp.</p>

<p>not sure if i'm exactly embarrassed/frustrated at the thought of an entry-level camera doubling the MP count of my pro bodies. but if anyone out there is, i'm sure there's a d800 waiting for you.</p>

<p>overall, i think this is a smart move by nikon, albeit a keep up with the Joneses type of move. they simply cant afford to lose market share to Sony who already have 24mp aps-c dslrs and mirrorless cameras. so from that perspective, it's a no-brainer. the specs have to look pretty sweet for whatever entry-level users are left,i.e. d3100 and Coolpix upgraders, and if 12/16mp users get nudged into an upgrade path they might not otherwise have travelled, so be it. thom hogan called this one awhile back, and in retrospect, it was easy to predict based on the available sensors. to be honest, if nikon returned to the 6mp sensor of the beloved d40, how many people would buy one now?</p>

<p>so, we can now with almost absolute surety say the d300 replacement will not use the d7000's 16mp sensor, which apparently will be retired after just one iteration. i do have to wonder about sensors that may outresolve kit lenses, but i think Ariel makes some good points on that subject.</p>

[szrimaging]

<blockquote>

<p>interesting that no one here has mentioned video. the d3200 quietly does 1080p @24mp</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

It doesn't do 1080p @24MP....That would be something upwards of 5k...<br>

<br /><br>

Do you mean 1080p 24FPS? Haven't looked at the specs yet to know what it's frame rates are.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Ah.., imagine me , as a pro , at a wedding, with my D3&D4..., and each and every guest with a 24MP camera... Frustrating !?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Back in 2003, I went to a friend's wedding as a guest. He had a pro with an assistant, both using Canon film SLRs. I decided to do something different and brought my Nikon D100 and Contax 645. The pro was clearly intimidated by my medium-format camera.</p>

<p>Today, even mobile phone cameras have over 30MP. Pixel count means nothing any more.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Do I detect a case of sensor envy?</p>

[Mike D]

<p>The smart phones with high MP sensors are taking over the lower end P&S market and are rapidly gaining popularity in the mid range P&S market. Nikon has to move quickly with higher MP entry level DSLRs or be overtaken by smart phones. I have 2 20-something children and they won't take my older Nikon DSLRs even for free. Some of the images they are able to get from their 8 MP I-Phones are pretty astonishing, even when 8x10 prints are made. The I-Phone has created the rebirth of street photography, but that's another subject.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The I-Phone has created the rebirth of street photography,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's not an insignificant point. but it leads to the question, what can you do with more pixels in a still compact package? or more precisely, why get a dslr at all in 2012? i havent seen 30mp phones yet but 8 is pretty good. if you're losing as far as compactness and convenience to a smart phone, how do you add value for consumers? having 2/3rds moreresolution is a good start,perhaps -- as long as you can convince joe consumer to spend some in time post-production. but the reality is, if you're just uploading to Facebook, 8mp is plenty.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric - <a href="http://europe.nokia.com/find-products/devices/nokia-808-pureview">here</a> is a phone with a 41 megapixel camera. It has quite a large sensor (for a phone) and a fast lens, otherwise I suspect it would do a worse job of resolving them than it does. I doubt the DSLR manufacturers are all that scared - there have been cell phones in the 12-14MP range for a while, and they're not going to compete with a DSLR on speed or low-light performance even before you start switching lenses. The compact camera market (especially the fixed lens portion) is under a lot of pressure, though; I suspect those that aren't surviving due to big sensors are surviving because of big zoom lenses.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Wow! This is very welcome news. Now, if Canon will only catch up. Amazing to see how the tide has turned in a year. Well, Canon???</p>

[jim_wilson18]

There's an interview with a Nikon rep out there where he states the D3200 isn't the replacement for the D3100 and that

the D3100 will continue to exist in the product lineup. So, it's like the D3200 is Nikon's entry-level "plus" camera..

[johne37179]

<p>I'm waiting for the 100 MP iPhone next year.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>There's a good chance the D300s replacement will contain a D4 sensor, full frame, to satisfy the entry level full frame market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, but in my book it wouldnt be an official replacement then, since the d300s is a pro-spec DX camera, not entry-level FX, which is what the D700 was (at a price point around $3k).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mark my words, this is the route Nikon will take.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no one can be sure of that.</p>

<p>where this gets confusing is, we're basically looking at an accelerated roadmap, thanks to the delays and thailand floods, with some missing parts, like true d700/d300 replacements. IMO an entry-level FX camera with a D4 sensor should be called the d800, not the d400.except it cant be, since we already have a d800.</p>

<p>not everyone will be happy if nikon phases out the pro-spec DX body, especially long lens shooters with less than unlimited budget. remember, nikon needs to guard its flank against the 5dIII, which it does with the d800, but also the 7d and/or 7d replacement, which right now is an awkward juxtaposition of the prosumer but newer d7000 and the pro-spec but venerable d300s.</p>

<p>expecting long-lens shooters who rely on the DX 1.5x crop to soldier through with a less-balanced d7000 or an older body doesnt look like all that smart of a move, since it leaves a huge gap in price points between the $1100 d7000 and the discounted $2100 d700, which is on its way out.</p>

<p>hypothetically speaking, an FX D400 at a d300s price of $1600, which may not be likely given the initial price of the d700, still leaves a gap at the top of the DX food chain, although i'm sure many would welcome a sub-$2000 nikon FX DSLR.</p>

<p>in the meantime, the entry-level FX market still has the d700 at the reduced price of $2100 or so. again, this is confusing, because the d800 sounds like the d700 replacement in terms of number sequence, but in terms of specs, it's more like the d3x replacement with some d4 DNA.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A D300s replacement with a full frame 16MP sensor would be perfect for those who don't need 36MP, and for those who don't need a big bulky 11 frames per second $6000 dollar D4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i agree that's an ideal scenario. but is it a realistic one? not all those current D300s users who have DX lenses will be able to go FX with glass, i.e. replace the 17-55 with the 24-70, which costs more than a $1600 16mp FX body. and as i pointed out earlier, wildlife shooters who currently use a the 70-200 or 300mm lens on a DX body to take advantage of the crop now have to pony up for expensive primes costing several thousand dollars apiece. that may be more than the market will bear. so why, exactly, is that a good marketing strategy?</p>

<p>my .02: i think you plug the DX pro-spec hole first, then maybe add a entry-level FX with the D4 sensor. there's also the 24mp FX sensor used on the D3x. if nikon could goose it to a respectable 7-8 fps, we could see that in an entry-level FX body.</p>

 

[Stephen L]

<p>@Eric</p>

<p>I couldn't agree more. You stated very well the details behind the "frustrated" comment in my earlier post. I have a D90 for almost 3 years. I spent money on quality DX glass - 17-55 f/2.8, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 (not DX, but you now what I mean here). In other words, I'm happily invested in DX.<br>

What I need for an upgrade is:</p>

<p>DX<br>

Better AF than the D7000.<br>

Weather sealed body.<br>

Focus fine tuning.<br>

Clean ISO 1600.</p>

<p>I have some FX glass; Nikon 85mm f/1.4D, Nikon 70-300, Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, the before mentioned 70-200 VR1 (my subject matter does not require sharp corners from this lens).<br>

The D300 is not enough upgrade for the money.<br>

The D7000 is not enough upgrade for the money.<br>

The D800 is too much money and to much camera for what I shoot, but is looking like the only option.<br>

The D700 is a nice camera, but if I'm spending over $2000, I want newer tech. Never mind that the damn thing is nowhere to be found.</p>

<p>If the next best upgrade is an FX, I still need a DX at some point or $3000 dollars worth of DX glass gathers dust (the D90 will die eventually, while my glass will live on) - and no one else will need it either because they will be in the same boat as me.</p>

<p>So - frustrated is the word.</p>

<p>Nikon continues to ignore the DX enthusiast photographer.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>By definition, at least my definition, the successor to the D300/D300S cannot be FX. For wildlife photography, I prefer to have a DX body with AF better than that on the D7000 but a sensor in the same league or better than those on the D7000 and D800, and at least I don't need more than 16MP. Therefore, some 24MP "D400" in the DX format is not good news to me.</p>

<p>If Nikon puts the D4's sensor on a cheaper body, that would be the D3/D700 relationship. In that case I would argue that such D4-junior is actually the successor to the D700. And the D800 is actually the successor to the D3X, which is officially discontinued shortly after the D800 was introduced. The D800 now replaces the D3X as the pixel-count champion in the Nikon lineup but without the D3X's bulk and high prices.</p>

<p>BTW, with the 36MP D800, I now delete those bad frames quickly after I get home. Those huge RAW files from the D800 take up too much space. I no longer have extra space for the many bad images I capture. I replicate all of my images to 3, 4 different hard drives so that the space requirement multiples. It'll be interesting how D3200 users store their image files; maybe a lot of them only shoot JPEG normal.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>@Steve L: IMO the ONLY thing wrong with the d300s is high-ISO performance. i have no need for more megapixels, it does everything else i need it to do, and i like being able to get 50% more reach on my 70-200 and 70-300 teles when i need it. however, the chances that nikon will listen to people like us and give us exactly what we want and nothing we dont need are slim. the unlooked-for d800 instead of proper d300/d700 replacements should make that perfectly clear. and if it doesnt, well then a 24mp d3200 will. i think the price vs. specs ratio of the 3200 is pretty good, but it throws the rest of the current lineup out of whack, when the entry-level body has more resolution than the top of the line FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D300 is not enough upgrade for the money.<br /> The D7000 is not enough upgrade for the money.<br /> The D800 is too much money and to much camera for what I shoot, but is looking like the only option.<br /> The D700 is a nice camera, but if I'm spending over $2000, I want newer tech. Never mind that the damn thing is nowhere to be found.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this sums it up nicely for a lot of folks (although i think the d7000 is a pretty good upgrade from the d90 as you have improvements in just about every significant shooting parameter). we'll just have to continue to be patient, i guess.<br>

it's pretty much a given that if i shell out $2000+ for a new d700, the next day the d400 will be released.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>By definition, at least my definition, the successor to the D300/D300S <strong>cannot</strong> be FX. For wildlife photography, I prefer to have a DX body with AF better than that on the D7000 but a sensor in the same league or better than those on the D7000 and D800, and at least I don't need more than 16MP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO a 16mp DX d400 makes more sense than a 24mp DX d400 to me, but i'm not sure nikon sees it that way. the d7000 sensor may prove to be an orphan, which would be too bad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It'll be interesting how D3200 users store their image files; maybe a lot of them only shoot JPEG normal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yeah, RAW is going to be unmanageable for some. but that's is another way of saying, hmmm...maybe 24mp APS-C is overkill. i think the thinking is that if Sony is doing it, Nikon cant afford to lose ground to them, especially with the NEX cameras already gaining. ironic that Nikon is taking on Sony with Sony's own sensors, but that's been the case ever since Sony entered the DSLR market.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>...not everyone will be happy if nikon phases out the pro-spec DX body...<br>

...not all those current D300s users who have DX lenses will be able to go FX with glass...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well argued Eric. I'm with you here. I have a lot of DX glass and I am also one of those wildlife shooters without an unlimited budget. I didn't buy the D7000 because I can deal with the way it handles and NOT fit my hands - unlike the D200 and D300. Before I purchased the D300 a few years ago, I considered the "FX upgrade" - and it wasn't the cost of the body that kept me from going that route - it was the $6K I would have had to spend on upgrading lenses (or add another 10K for "converting" a 300/4 AF-S into a 500/4 AF-S). <br>

Quite frankly, the only FX advantage I see for myself is the higher ISO performance and better dynamic range - I couldn't care less about the narrower DOF (I was never a friend of portraits were the DOF starts at the middle of the nose and ends before the ears - and I can easily get that if I wanted it with a 85/1.8 on a DX camera). Corner performance of most FX lenses on an FX body is no better than that of DX lenses on a DX body - the only sweet spot is using FX lenses on DX - but usually the focal length range is less than ideal then. </p>

<p>For what I shoot, the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon's 17-55 are doing just fine - the FX-equivalent of 14-24 and 24-70 cost about twice as much. If the D300/D300S successor really is an FX camera, then I am going to face a dilemma. Either hoping that the D7K successor will have better ergonomics and a feature set that works for me - or sell a lot of my lenses and "upgrade". But when I am forced to take that substantial financial hit - then just out of spite the system I will be buying into then might not be Nikon. I have been patiently waiting for Nikon to update the 300/4 AF-S with VR and/or the 80-400 with AF-S and the updated VR or come up with a 400/5.6 AF-S VR lens - year after year - nothing. I have a 80-200/2.8 that mostly stays at home - it's just too bulky and heavy to carry it around all the time. Where is that 70/80-200/4 AF-S VR? Where is a DX 16-70/85 f/4 AF-S VR lens? </p>