DSLRUsers.com

I didn't see this one coming. This is directly from Nikon PRZ's email ...


Nikon launches new 24.2mp D3200 DSLR
Entry-level DSLR with enhanced Guide Mode enables effortless capture of stunning images

SYDNEY - Nikon Australia is pleased to announce the release of the Nikon D3200, an entry-level DSLR camera with big features. Equipped with a new CMOS image sensor, 24.2-million pixels and the same EXPEED 3 image-processing engine built into Nikon’s flagship D4 and D800, the D3200 enables the capture of beautiful, high-quality images.

Succeeding the ultra-popular D3100, the D3200 offers a refined Guide Mode that is even easier than ever to use. Guide Mode displays instructions for shooting according to the situation, scene or subject and also offers options for playing back and retouching images.

Using the Wireless Mobile Adapter WU-1a also announced today, images can be transferred to smartphones, tablets and other smart devices via a wireless connection. Also, a smart device can act as a remote control for shooting with camera settings, shooting information and live view display appearing on the
device’s screen (remote movie recording is not supported).

*Nikon today also announces the 28-mm f/1.8 lens, a fast wide-angle fixed focal length lens compatible with the Nikon FX format.

And according to the official press release, it offers "Support for an eternal stereo microphone (ME-1)".

This camera must be expected to have a very long life ...

wow left field...

gstark wrote:*Nikon today also announces the 28-mm f/1.8 lens, a fast wide-angle fixed focal length lens compatible with the Nikon FX format.

now we are talking, that is a good focal for DX

Interesting... between this and the 800/800E leaves a few exciting gaps(updates) to be filled with future releases.

gstark wrote:Using the Wireless Mobile Adapter WU-1a also announced today, images can be transferred to smartphones, tablets and other smart devices via a wireless connection. Also, a smart device can act as a remote control for shooting with camera settings, shooting information and live view display appearing on the
device’s screen (remote movie recording is not supported).

That looks interesting, too. I wonder how big it is and whether it would fit in an underwater housing. Probably be too expensive.

Reported US price of $699.95

ATJ wrote:I wonder how big it is and whether it would fit in an underwater housing.

http://nikon.com/news/2012/0419_wireles ... ter_02.htm
It doesn't look too big, but it looks like a bad position.

Daniel

Nikon is really sticking it to Canon now!

Canon has only delivered 1 camera since the announcements they made last October.
Nikon has now announced 3 camera much more recently and already delivered 2 of them.

this has been discussed at nikonrumors for some time and the most popular rumored config was 24mp. 28/1.8 was also rumored there for a while. they are super reliable in their predictions/ leaks.

i have to admit, i thought the d3200 was going to be more like a 16mp jobby which would be a refinement of the d7000/5100. that would leave them room to make a 24mp body for the d400. now what ? is the d3200/5200/7100/400 all gonna have the same sensor ? that would be a bold move indeed. or,if they did increase the resolution for say the d7100 and d400, whats it gonna be given the d800 is already 36mp ? very strange indeed.

biggerry wrote:wow left field...

gstark wrote:*Nikon today also announces the 28-mm f/1.8 lens, a fast wide-angle fixed focal length lens compatible with the Nikon FX format.

now we are talking, that is a good focal for DX

Agreed - I was thinking of the cheapie 35/1.8 but it's DX only - now this... mmm tasty - quite a bit more expensive than the 35/1.8 tho (about 2-3x)...

DanielA wrote:

ATJ wrote:I wonder how big it is and whether it would fit in an underwater housing.

http://nikon.com/news/2012/0419_wireles ... ter_02.htm
It doesn't look too big, but it looks like a bad position.

And only for the D3200 at the moment. It will be interesting if future firmware upgrades will make it work on other cameras.

Just a wee thought on this camera. Due to the high megapixel CMOS this camera will only shine with really, really good glass on the front and that, IMHO, is the problem with high megapixels on non-FF bodies.

sirhc55 wrote:...and that, IMHO, is the problem with high megapixels on non-FF bodies.

And also high megapixel FF bodies.

Of course, now you can get 24MP from a DX camera, DX mode on the D800 is low res. at 15MP.

sirhc55 wrote:Just a wee thought on this camera. Due to the high megapixel CMOS this camera will only shine with really, really good glass on the front and that, IMHO, is the problem with high megapixels on non-FF bodies.

not to mention the diffraction issues.

If the sensor is better than your lens, you can always compensate by downsizing in Photoshop to 16MP or 12MP, which should give better results than shooting directly at those resolutions.

If maximising resolution is an issue, then full-frame lenses may help because you're just using the centre. For that matter, if you choose astutely, you can pick up cheap AI primes with good resolution, though not many users of this camera are likely to think of that.

Yes, it will increase diffraction, though only if you stop down below about f5.6. This will most affect people with cheap zooms that aren't very fast and may not be that good wide open.

Of course most people are never going to print larger than A3 and probably don't really need any more than 10MP, at least if they don't crop.

Murray Foote wrote:Yes, it will increase diffraction, though only if you stop down below about f5.6. This will most affect people with cheap zooms that aren't very fast and may not be that good wide open.

Don't forget landscapes. They will/might need higher F numbers.

Why buy a sensor that your lenses (or even any available lenses - future sensors will probably get here) can't make the most of. I for one would not buy a 24MP DX camera knowing I have to downsize to 16MP...why not buy a 16MP camera that performs better in low light? Keep in mine the handling care that needs to be taken with the high res cameras (ie D800 requiring faster shutter speeds to get sharp images)

The way I see it this is a tool for marketing as opposed a tool for photography.

All of the millions of idiots that believe a higher megapixel gives a better photo are just tools for the markete(e)rs - shame Nikon, shame.

sirhc55 wrote:The way I see it this is a tool for marketing as opposed a tool for photography.

All of the millions of idiots that believe a higher megapixel gives a better photo are just tools for the markete(e)rs - shame Nikon, shame.

surenj wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:Yes, it will increase diffraction, though only if you stop down below about f5.6. This will most affect people with cheap zooms that aren't very fast and may not be that good wide open.

Don't forget landscapes. They will/might need higher F numbers.

Nothing wrong with shooting past the point where diffraction sets in, it's just a trade-off that could still be compatible with good image quality, provided you make appropriate choices in other ways. I think all reduced-crop cameras would be affected by diffraction by f8.

Murray Foote wrote:I think all reduced-crop cameras would be affected by diffraction by f8.

Actually Cambridge in Colour has a handy calculator that should give a rough estimate
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

A 12MP DX sensor is estimated to be diffraction limited at f/10.5 and a 16MP DX at F/9.1....a 24.2MP DX is f/7.4

aim54x wrote:Why buy a sensor that your lenses (or even any available lenses - future sensors will probably get here) can't make the most of. I for one would not buy a 24MP DX camera knowing I have to downsize to 16MP...why not buy a 16MP camera that performs better in low light? Keep in mine the handling care that needs to be taken with the high res cameras (ie D800 requiring faster shutter speeds to get sharp images)

I think you can overstate this, after all it's only a 22% increase in effective resolution from 16MP to 24MP. I would think that good zooms and any primes will do fine.

The same handling care is really required to optimise image quality for any camera and I suspect most people don't appreciate what their camera is capable of. For that matter, most people probably do no post-processing and a 24MP camera might be a way to sometimes (but only sometimes) approach the quality of say a 12MP camera with astute post-processing.

We don't know how compromised it may be for low light yet. After all, it has the same image processor as the D4 and the 16MP D4 is as good as the 12MP D3s in low light - so it could be as good in low light as last year's 16MP Nikon DSLR.

As I said, most people don't need more than 10MP and if they shoot only for the web, probably no more than 6MP. Many non-landscape images don't need particularly high resolution anyway. But I don't see why a 24MP camera couldn't be viable even for the relatively inexperienced though many will be surprised how quickly their hard drive space disappears. Of course, their images may or may not be any better because resolution is only one factor amongst many in image quality.

Murray Foote wrote:I think you can overstate this, after all it's only a 22% increase in effective resolution from 16MP to 24MP. I would think that good zooms and any primes will do fine.

The same handling care is really required to optimise image quality for any camera and I suspect most people don't appreciate what their camera is capable of. For that matter, most people probably do no post-processing and a 24MP camera might be a way to sometimes (but only sometimes) approach the quality of say a 12MP camera with astute post-processing.

We don't know how compromised it may be for low light yet. After all, it has the same image processor as the D4 and the 16MP D4 is as good as the 12MP D3s in low light - so it could be as good in low light as last year's 16MP Nikon DSLR.

As I said, most people don't need more than 10MP and if they shoot only for the web, probably no more than 6MP. Many non-landscape images don't need particularly high resolution anyway. But I don't see why a 24MP camera couldn't be viable even for the relatively inexperienced though many will be surprised how quickly their hard drive space disappears. Of course, their images may or may not be any better because resolution is only one factor amongst many in image quality.

You also forget that the 36MP D800 (FX) has a pixel pitch that is marginally larger than that of the 16mp D7000...so the 24MP D3200 will have a finer pitch, stressing lenses further and increasing the need for handling care. As for the 24MP sensor, if it is the Sony sensor (seen in A65/A77/NEX7) then we can only expect marginal increases in ISO performance....ignore what is written and have a look at side by side sample (without downsizing) and you will quickly see that the ISO performance of this chip is far short of the 16MP unit in the D7000/D5100 (Pentax K5, Sony NEX 5N).

I own a Sony A65 and have tested a large number of Zeiss lenses on this camera, and they really dont shine as much as they do on lower resolution Alphas...including the A33/A55 (also SLT so they have the same translucent mirrors). The NEX7 fairs better, but inherently the native E-Mount Zeiss lens (and Leica M glass) has the design advantage of having a rear element that is much closer to the sensor plane and no needing to compensate for the "mirror". In terms of ISO performance the A65 is barely better than my 4yr old D300.

In the hands of an "inexperienced" photographer (AKA beginner) this camera's issues will not be seen, but for an experienced photographer most of these issues will be noticed (hopefully). The D800 has surprised us with it's ISO abilities, but if this 24MP DX is the Sony core then I would expect it to have more ISO depth than the Sony's but I dont think it will push the envelope like the D7000 did.

Being a beginners camera, how many beginners will have "good" zooms and primes? The 18-55VR is a decent lens, but it will be interesting to see how it goes on this 24mp chip.

I have found the SAL1855 to be rather lacklustre and the SAL1680Z (this is considered a good zoom) to be not much better. The 16-80 Zeiss is stunning in terms of rendition and colour, but it lacks the bite that it has on the A700/A350 that I have used this lens on previously.

aim54x wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:I think all reduced-crop cameras would be affected by diffraction by f8.

Actually Cambridge in Colour has a handy calculator that should give a rough estimate
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
A 12MP DX sensor is estimated to be diffraction limited at f/10.5 and a 16MP DX at F/9.1....a 24.2MP DX is f/7.4

That's an interesting page which I hadn't seen before. I've seen figures for where diffraction sets in at much wider apertures somewhere from Lloyd Chambers. From memory, say at 12MP, it becomes noticeable after something like f5.6 for DX and f8 for FX. This probably depends on assumptions for the circle of confusion, particularly since diffraction sets in gradually. Anti-aliasing filters may have some effect, too. However I did find an interesting graph from Clarkvision (third graph from the bottom on the page) on relative diffraction for different cameras that also suggests that the apertures at which diffraction becomes noticeable are much wider than Cambridge in Colour suggests.

Nikon sensors have produced much better low light capabilities than the same Sony sensors in Sony bodies and I presume the main difference is in the processing engine.

It's true that the pixel pitch will be finer than the D7000 and the D800 but it has a newer generation processing engine than the D7000 so I still think we will have to await the tests to see how good the low light capabilities may be.

Murray Foote wrote:I've seen figures for where diffraction sets in at much wider apertures somewhere from Lloyd Chambers. From memory, say at 12MP, it becomes noticeable after something like f5.6 for DX and f8 for FX. This probably depends on assumptions for the circle of confusion, particularly since diffraction sets in gradually. Anti-aliasing filters may have some effect, too. However I did find an interesting graph from Clarkvision (third graph from the bottom on the page) on relative diffraction for different cameras that also suggests that the apertures at which diffraction becomes noticeable are much wider than Cambridge in Colour suggests.

That looks like a heavy read and analyse...too much for me to look at in depth whilst at work. However, the same basis of the argument remains true...smaller pixel pitch (and consequently pixel size) results in diffraction limiting faster.

It is true that Nikon's variants of a Sony sensor core usually outperforms the Sony variant. This is due to the difference in the way the sensor is finished (Nikon finishes their own sensors hence the difference in the on chip circuitry in the 12MP CMOS in the D300/A700) as well as the differences later in the processing pipeline. However, the gap seems to be narrowing (look at the NEX 5N vs D7000). I am interested to see if the D3200's 24MP sensor will have more ISO depth than the sensor in my A65...but I still cannot see it being on par to the 16MP sensor in the D7000 as the comparative superiority in the (15MP DX) D800 is debatable in terms of ISO depth.

I also cannot see the D3200 having gained much in terms of processing over the D4/D800.....Expeed is the generic name for Nikon's processing engine, as with Core i7 there are many variants the Expeed3 in the D4 will be different from that of the D800 and different again from that of the D3200.