< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

First rumored Nikon D3200 specs are in

The first bits of information about the Nikon D3200 started to come in:

  • 24.2 MP
  • many new in-camera functions for editing and retouching photos
  • available in three colors: black, silver and red
  • release date: around April, 2012

[NR] probability rating: 40% (as usual, rumors so far out have lower probability rating).

The Nikon D3200 book is discussed here.

This entry was posted in Nikon D3200. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://deanpeters.net drpeters

    Now I’m -really- looking forward to the D7100!

    • timon

      d7100E!
      directly remove AA-filter! only hold IR cut .

      • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

        D7100 UV/IR!

        • Mr. Dy

          bleh ;o
          24mpx… Christ
          Hope Nikon will soon think about s-raw, cause for what the hell do some need so many mpx if only ~4mpx are needed to print 10x15in photo ;o
          Imho 16mpx in D7000 are really enough… better work about ISO than more mpx

  • http://www.tony-smith-photography.com Tony

    So… rumors this far out for the D3200, but not one for the D400?

    Hmmm.

    • 120-300 OS

      Waiting for D800 and D400 hopefully same idea with batterypack as with d700 d300 series than aím in for that combo.
      I´ll cross my fingers for that.

      • bp

        yeah, and that means hopefully same old battery too, EN-EL3e

        *cross fingers*

        • WoutK89

          You read his comment wrong. The MB-D10 is dead, but the MB-D12 should be interchangeable between D800 and D400 is what he says. Which means also the use of the EN-EL15

          • bp

            my bad..

    • Worminator

      NR should have a poll: when do you predict the D400 will be released-

      1. Stealth launch – released together with the D800 on Feb 7th.
      2. Fall 2012.
      3. Never!! It was made replaced by the D7000/D7100 model line.

      • WoutK89

        My prediction is announcement before summer/ before the D7100. So I guess my closed guess is 2.

  • Peter

    24mp on a body that will sell with a kit lens to people who probably do not understand the problem. Give the customer what they want not should have.

    • alex

      24 mp on an entry level dslr….I think it’s going to be a catastrophy…better with the d7000 sensor and just update the d5100-d7000 with a revised…more mp /better sensor…

    • Poch

      That’s just it. Most of the target audience of this product line do WANT more megapixels, even if it’s more than what they need. These are the people who just want a DSLR thinking that owning one will automatically give them better IQ right off the bat. Oh God, if I only get a dollar for every one I know that owns a D3100 and leave them in Auto :) One of my friends even told me that she was kind of disappointed with her purchase because the pictures she took with the D3100 was no better than the P&S she used to carry, and blamed it on the camera. I talked to a lot of beginners, and one thing they all have in common is the belief that more MPs is the only factor to having better IQ.

      And, yes, sad as it may seem, these are the target audiences of Nikon. It’s a beginner’s cam, a “bait” product, if you will. Someone buys it, and Nikon would hope that the person would get more interested in photography and graduate to higher-end models like the D7000. Where I live, it’s actually working. I’ve conducted a couple of basic photography seminars and those who got hooked tended to sell their entry level DSLRs for something that would give them more meat.

      • Norman Baits

        So you think everyone who buys a D3100 is a beginner? Maybe many of them but definitely not all. With your theory I must be also a beginner. But I must confess you I am taking photos since 20 years and I am definitely NOT in a beginner mode. If you know how to handle your tool right and know where the limits are in this camera you have in hands you can do great pictures with almost all cameras.
        My idea to buy the D3000 (sorry it hasn’t been the D3100 because in 2009 the cheapest one was called D3000) was to buy the cheapest Nikon body I could get and use my old prograde lenses I own since many many years with my film bodies and I am fine.
        With DSLRs it is similar as it once was with computers. There are big improvements every year or so. So when you don’t have to earn your living with the camera it is ridiculous to spend thousands of Dollars, Euros, Yen or what ever currency you use, for things who will be technically obsolete in 2 years. So just pick the cheapest model of today (so what will be wrong with 24MP in a cheap body) and use it untill it breaks down in 5-6 years or so. It will save you a big stack of money you can invest instead in funnier things.
        By the way this “cheap” camera survived 3 extended trips to the tropics with loads of sand, dirt and humidity without fancy weather sealing. And it survived a leaking water bottle in my bag even the water was flooding out of the camera. 2 days on the heating with removed battery and it worked again as if there hasn’t been any water inside. The best thing with such a camera is it is so lightweight that you will carry it all the time with you and will never feel a heavy burden of a more expensive camera built like a tank hanging around you neck.
        I think for many of the “I must own a really expensive camera” sofa photographers an entry level camera will be fine enough to take pictures of their boring neigbourhood

        • Poch

          “Most of the target audience of this product line”

          I think you misinterpreted this one. So to answer your question, NO. Not everyone who owns a D3100 are beginners, nor have I ever said that only beginners SHOULD buy the D3100 as you seem to imply I meant. But, you cannot deny the fact that the D3100 is meant as a “bait” product, i.e. entice consumers to buy something that’s much better than their P&S, and hope that their experience with a DSLR generates much interest enough for them to get into photography and upgrade their gear into something more capable.

          I know of equally capable professional photographers of your caliber who bought a D3000 and D3100 for their travel and street photography. I went on a different path, opting for a M43 camera instead (currently, it’s my GX1 “Penny”).

          And, I’ve also meant budding enthusiasts who bought a D3100 for the sole purpose of getting their feet wet in photography and have now upgraded to the D7000, and a few to D700.

          But there are also those that buy the D3100 solely to take family pictures and gatherings. And, bar none, whenever I ask them why they bought a DSLR (it’s my first question during seminars), it’s because they thought that they would automatically get better pictures. At the end of the seminar, they usually could, but sadly, not all of them would want to delve into “pro” work. They’re just happy that they can take better portraits of their kids, husband, wife, maybe both, etc.

          I think you also misinterpreted my post to think that I’m belittling the D3100. Far from it. When my friend consulted me about her disappointment with her D3100, I was so enamored to help her maximize her DSLR that the mini tutorial evolved into a full blown Basic Photography Seminar in our company (which is now on our second run).

          This fact is also undeniable: The D3100 is NOT meant for pro work. It’s capable, yes, but pro cameras give you more controls, a more robust body, ability to AF on older, thus cheaper, lenses, particularly the primes, higher ISO performance. I am QUITE sure you know that. Personally, I can work with the D3100 for events, but why go through the hassle of compromises when I know that my D7000 can perform much better, and make my work faster and much less of a hassle? And imagine how much better a D700 performs, especially for portraits and fashion? And the list goes on.

          • Norman Baits

            Sorry if I have misinterpreted your comment.

            But in your second paragraph it was very easy to misinterpret, when you were talking about the entry level courses you performed and some of the participants tended to sell their equipment they have just bought to buy more expensive equipment. Maybe it would be wise to encourage the more interested ones just to use the body they have bought and instead of selling the whole equipment first to learn how to use it in the right way, to get more routine and the feeling for finding their own style of composing pictures. For the beginning the normal kit lens (18-55VR) is not that bad as it seems when you read the price tag. And if they really want to invest more they can buy maybe the 35mm AF-S prime and use this instead. So I think the D3100 will give them enough “meat” for some years.

            Of course I agree that a D700 will get you for certain occasions far better images especially in high ISO and much more lens posiblities to choose from. And of course the D7000 will be far more convenient for events WHEN YOU ALREADY OWN IT. But if somebody has just bought a cheaper body to start a new hobby they will not own non AF-S lenses at all, so why should they be encouraged to buy another body costing two times as much as the one they have just bought.

            Yes a s a Pro you will invest in the better tool because you will need it as a work horse to earn money. But for amateurs it is absolutely not necessary to pay much for a body.

            • Poch

              No problem :) reading back, I agree that my comment does get easily misinterpreted, so it’s more of my bad :(

              And I also agree with your point about maximizing the equipment before upgrading, unless they see something that they absolutely must have in the new body. I have another seminar next week and I would incorporate your suggestion :) Actually, when someone asks me what to upgrade, I’d advise them to buy a prime lens first.

        • R.

          Norman,

          You make some good points. It is a mistake for anyone to make sweeping generalizations on the “lower-end” bodies. I still do a lot of my work on film. I have six or seven film bodies (F, F2, F3) and for digital needs I switched from a D2H to a D90. Four or five years ago I gave my daughter a D40 and just a few months ago I upgraded her camera to a D5100. She is fifteen years old. I then thought of getting something smaller than the D90 for myself and I looked at the D3100 closely. Unfortunately, I did not find the lower resolution LCD suitable for the kind of work I do. Should the new D3200 include a higher resolution LCD I will look at it closely.

          • Norman Baits

            @Poch :)

            @R.
            I also still use my film bodies extensively (F90, F6) . Together with a D3000, I have a nice hybrid workflow. I switch the lenses between these bodies too, even the D3000 feels a little bit front-loaded attaching something like my 17-35 :)
            The D3000 is so light that even my 4 years old son can use it with surprisingly good results :)

      • Lt

        I think the point of Poch was MP are not IQ. It is in fact, for an entry level camera, quite the contrary. Who needs more than 12MP except working pro who will buy the expensive gear anyway.

        We all know that Nikon will not sell cameras if they don’t get into the Mp race for their entry line… quite sad indeed.

        • Poch

          Exactly!

          And yes I agree, Nikon does have to get into the MP race if they want to compete in the consumer market. That is, unless they’re willing to offer a basic seminar every time someone wants to buy a DSLR for the first time.

          It’s a sad fact, but quite understandable. When I started out, I also thought that More MP = Better IQ. It’s only when I bought my first DSLR and began taking photography seriously that became more knowledgeable about this myth. Most beginners are no different.

      • AXV

        It’s like complaining people who drive BMW’s don’t know how to race them, of course they don’t, they don’t use the paddles to change gear, they use them in automatic, not everyone uses stuff as they were intended or up to their full capabilities.

        • Poch

          You do have a point there :)

      • Mike

        When I got my D5000, I shot in auto for the first couple of months and thought the results were phenomenal compared to any P&S. I don’t see the problem with shooting in auto…

        • Poch

          Shooting in auto wouldn’t make as much creative shots than shooting in manual, or even in just Ap or Sp. I think they were underwhelmed because they see stunning photographs produced by our camera club in the office and thought that buying themselves a DSLR and shooting away will automatically produce similar results. They didn’t factor the discipline and the art. Oh, and the lenses. Actually, the pics they were most in awe were those pics where prime lenses were used, especially the 85mm.

      • IndyGeoff

        One of the first questions my non photo friends ask is how many MP is it. When non photo people are shopping for a camera MP is king. If it helps Nikon sell more cameras, more power to them.

        I will admit my magic number is 18MP. ;->

  • http://photo.plantae.sk miso

    40% seems to be too much…

  • Lester Kamstra

    I hope they improve the video function with manual video settings. Just one simple thing. Hahaha

  • PeterT

    Could be an indication for the upcoming D400 sensor but I would rather see an improved version of the 16MP sensor they use with the D7000…

    • PeterO

      Agreed. As much as the 24MP sensor has garned some praise, I’m not convinced that Nikon can tame the noise inherent in that sensor. As for the 16MP version that the D7000 uses, I’m sure that after a year and a bit, they could tweak that up to a cleanish ISO 6400.

      • erik

        the sad thing is, nikon doesn’t care what we want. only what the people actually buying a low end dslr want.

        • PeterO

          My memory is a little fuzzy but didn’t Thom write an essay about what Nikon’s marketing research turned up – more MP for the lower consumer models? Maybe this is the first iteration of that?

        • Poch

          You have to remember. Nikon is a corporation. They have to turn up a profit. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do so. And what demographic do you think would give them the most profit: professional photographers, or everyday consumers?

          I also don’t think that Nikon doesn’t care about the professional crowd either. Look at the D4 and the D800. Ok, the latter is 36MP. But, that is a specialized camera, especially the non-AA version. Who’s the target audience of that camera? Photographers who work in controlled environments. Studio, fashion, architecture, food, etc. We’d want to have that 36MP without having to buy a medium format camera for our work (I can’t afford one, not the digital ones, anyway). It’s a boon for us to have that AA out since we rarely, if at all, shoot anything other than RAW (actually, I only shoot RAW even when I just do street photography on my D7000). The way I see it, Nikon seems to be making cameras that are “jack-of-all-trades but master of one” instead of simple “jack-of-all-trades” which is, quite frankly, a good thing.

  • Camaman

    There is no D400. They merged D300 and D90 lines into one.
    Next year 24MP D700o brother…

    Oh, and welcome tho the MP race Nikon, we’ve missed you…

    • http://jessenash.com Jesse Nash

      I think it’s time the DSLR marketing teams find a way to make people as excited about high iso/low noise as they are about MP. Give us a race were both the manufactures and consumers win. With the D800 spec we’re starting to see a new generation of cameras that come up short (in some ways) to their predecessors. Hopefully it doesn’t shake out that way.

      • XLRT

        Amen. But that wouldn’t be that easy to explain to both Marketing and end customers ;-). With MP these people just think the more you have the better. But with ISO? All consumer grade dslrs will support iso 100-6400 at least. So how to explain to them that iso 6400 on nikon is better than iso 6400 elsewhere?

        For my part, i’m waiting for the D800 and the fujifilm x-pro1. If the D800 high iso performance is not at least as good as the D700 and the x-pro1 is as good, as fujifilm claims it to be. I’ll sell all my nikon gear and go for the x-pro1.

        • St.

          And good luck with the only three prime lenses for it.

          • XLRT

            the three fujinon lenses to be released initially (18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4) are just perfect for me as I’m using a nikkor 35/1.4 and macro-nikkor 60/2.8 on a D7000 for my (night) street photography most of the time right now. I wanted to move to full frame because of better high iso performance (1-1.5 more f-stopps on D700) but I have to wait and see if the rumored 36MP D800 can deliver that (D4 is just too big for street). I thought about buying a D700 but the prices for it are actually increasing here in Germany since the announcement of the D4.

            Fujifilm claims, that the x-pro1 (APS-C sensor) will outperform a canon 5D MII (Full frame) due to new sensor that do not rely on the Bayer-Pattern and the removal of the AA-Filter. So I’m really eager to see real-life shots of this camera.

            • St.

              I’m totally with you on this! I think the same way, but kind of don’t want to switch from Nikon to something else.
              As good as D7000 is it’s just not enough for low light shots. Many times I felt it’s limits and that was the reason to look for upgrade.
              Same like you I wanted D700, but since a replacement was coming I decided to wait. Now it seems it’s not a replacement but a many MPx camera.
              D4 (as you think) is just too big for a hobbyist, walking around. So we’ll see…
              I truly believe Nikon will offer a good camera, although I still think the jump from 12/16 to 36 is just too much. But it seems all new cameras after D4 will offer many MPx. May Nikon they find the key. We shall see, we shall see…

        • Anonymous

          Why are you waiting? Go ahead and get your Fuji gear. Why waste time when you can be making images?

          • Poch

            Because it’s only available for preorder at the moment?

        • david distefano

          I have great glass for my trusty f5 but i don’t have a digital dslr. so to complete my gear for low lite and walking the town i will pick up a d3s (fits exactly like the f5) now that prices are coming down. I don’t need 36mp. but i do want fast fps for wildlife as well as the low lite. my hasselblad cfv-39 or 4×5 or 8×10 for landscapes. all will fit in largest osprey backpack. it seems that people want one camera to do everything and that is just not possible. there is always a trade off. you can’t beat the detail and information of an 8×10 film that is drum scanned, but you lose out in speed so it is not good for wild life or sports. pick the camera that is the very best for the type of photography you do, not what the manufactures tell you.

          • komalkumar

            +1

      • AXV

        I think people should learn that cameras are not only about MP and ISO… there’s dynamic range, color depth and a lot more that you probably wouldn’t understand.

    • JED

      If they did that then they are idiots. The D7000 does not have the control setup, or buffer depth to be a D300 replacement.

      • Psycho McCrazy

        +10000

        • http://deanpeters.net drpeters

          +10000000

    • Broken

      I would agree with that theory, except that Nikon has a HUGE price hole between the D7000 and D800. Not filling every (reasonable) market price-point is leaving money on the table.

      There will be a D400 (or 9000). What the fuck it is I have no idea, but it will cost ~$2250

      • QQMoar

        buy a D700? It’s still around…

      • D400 = FX

        Let me help you here
        Remember what D7000 did to D300s?? That’s the same D400 is going to do with D700. Affordable, 16 MP FF, with video, only 95% coverage and comparable/less than high ISO performance of D700.
        And that will be announced sometime in Aug/Sept 2012.

        • jorg

          don´t forget: D300 killed D2x/s for half the price!
          new models kill the older highend-models pretty fast, but not at once, see D3>D700 1 year later. nikon has given the cool tech faster to low-end customers than e.g. canon (see 5Dmk2 AF)

          there will be a camera for all the people complaining right now and it will surely come within a year.
          yes, there is a gap in the lineup right now, that noone could foresee (tsunami, flood). but that is NOT a problem for people already owing D3/700 etc. those cameras stay good tools.

          for everybody without a decent camera right now: yes. tough luck. you should have gotten a D700 a year ago. and if you really waited for more than a year for a camera… -sorry, but obviously you do not really need it

      • enesunkie

        I also believe that this is the biggest reason why Nikon will have a body in this price range. The D7000 competes well up against the 60D , but without a D400, the 7D would really have no competion. There are a lot of advanced amateurs in that market segment that they would stand to lose.

    • PeterO

      I don’t agree for many reasons – all of which have been discussed at length.

      • PeterO

        Previous comment was aimed at Camaman

  • photo-Jack

    If 24 MP are true, we can go from there that the D400 (if still DX) also comes with this sensor.
    As Nikon seems to pursue the high MP route, probability is, that they have twisted something in order to still achieve good results – otherwise they’d fall flat on their face.
    However, the Kit-Lens argument makes much sense. I still can’t imagine how that pixeldensity with cheap glass. On the other hand, in the Coolpix league Nikon is doing it all the time.

    Maybe the entire program changed and we gonna see a D400 as kinda DX version of the D4. That would be great. But probability below 20% I guess.

    • Anonymous

      How many entry level dslr owners using kit lens will be printing their photos 24″x36″ to see those differences? Even in shorter side 12″ enlargements, the lens defects won’t be visible enough to worry about. Don’t worry about the gear so much, instead start using whatever you have.

    • RC

      The Sony NEX-7 looks like it’s doing fine with its kit lens. I’m really hoping for a D400 using that sensor.

      • Poch

        Personally, I’m hoping the D400 will be a more affordable FX camera. As much as I want the D800E because it suits my needs to a tee, I somply can’t afford it :(

  • hyui

    So the crap sony sensors are going to grow in mp… nikon will die same as sony… going to canon soon!

    • http://www.afengaged.blogspot.com/ Captain Elmo

      Bye Bye

    • Poch

      You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

    • QQMoar

      So Canon was dead when they had 21mp while Nikon was winning with 12MP? Great logic!

  • EnPassant

    24 MP even for the entry level camera. Now that is surprising! I did expect 24 MP for D7100 but was thinking D3200 would simply get a modest upgrade to the 16 MP sensor which is more than good enough.

    I wounder if this choice of sensor (if it is true!) was originally planned or it is a result of the flooding in Thailand? Maybe Sony when restarting their sensor production decided concentrating on their latest 24 MP sensor? To lower the cost of production Sony need more buyers of the sensor and may offer it for a good price to avoid Nikon will choose another provider as they did for D3100.

    This will certainly make the rumors about D400 and D7100 even more interesting!

    • enesunkie

      One possible scenario ?
      D400 16 MP
      D7100 16MP
      D5200 24 MP
      D3200 24 MP

  • sealion

    The problem before with adding megapixels was it added noise. If newer sensors offer more megapixels at a decent noise performance, it would be gladly welcomed.

  • F

    Why do these rumors always come out of France first?? Same with the D4 & D800..
    Are they that well-connected? Or are they just really good at speculation?

    I understand that most electronics rumors/leaks come from the overseas factories that make the components (China, Korea, etc.) I just don’t get the French connection :D

    • WoutK89

      Where does it say the source for this rumor is from france?
      The picture is from an older rumor.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      those rumored specs may or may not be from France, the picture however is from France

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      because french give up always all battles and secrets

      • IndyGeoff

        Harold: ROFLMAO

  • denz

    Please provide an update to the D700 with the D4 sensor.

    • http://www.malphotography.net Michael Laing

      I would probably prefer a D800 body with the D4 sensor, that would give it video ability which you wouldn’t have otherwise, though purest who just want a camera without video wouldn’t agree
      .

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      I am afraid this won’t happen in the next two years, 1 year if we are lucky (D700 came 1 year after the D3, but now we also have the D800)

  • Image

    No way will the D3200 be 24mp. It’s an entry level camera and the file size alone would make “consumers” think “these pictures go slow on my computer and I can’t take very many pictures before my awesome 4gb card is full”. The D3200 will likely be 16-18mp and no more.

    • lolly

      You reasoning is sound and I agree with you but who knows what Nikon marketing has in mind.

    • WoutK89

      How many consumers shoot anything but JPEG with these cameras? I dont think many even know what they have to do with RAW. They just want a better looking/sounding camera for taking pictures.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      let’s wait and see, few months ago nobody believed that the D800 will have 36Mp either

      • lappola

        i dont belive at 36 mp until i see them :-) D800 will have 16 mp

  • Douglas Adams

    I don’t like where this is going…
    BTW, with 24.2 MP and amateur skills (in average for D3200 users), there will be a lot of blurry images out there.

    • JED

      When viewed at normal sizes they will be no more blurry than they would be 12MP.

      • Douglas Adams

        If you wanted to say that viewed at cropped size they would appear the same as those from 12 MP, I would agree. But if viewed at normal size (100%), images from 24 MP sensor will more likely be blurred if any motion has happened during exposure, which in the same time wouldn’t be visible on 12 MP sensor to the equal degree.
        The same effect has happened, and it was very well documented, with shooters that upgraded from 6MP cameras such is D70 or D50 to 16MP D7K. They complained of blurry images.

        • WoutK89

          Cropped? That means you look at less pixels (like when zoomed in). While what you mean is zoomed out I assume? The full picture on the screen, and not just the middle part.

          So viewed on your screen, they (12MP and 24MP) probably wont look much different, until looking at them at 100% pixel level.

          • NoFunBen

            d3100 users dont know how to crop or to view at 100%
            they will upload to facebook
            take there memory card to Walmart
            they will be happy with 24MP and brag to there friends at parties.

            • Alfred E. Neuman

              LOL
              Do you REALLY think, that D3100 owners are twits who don’t even know which button they have to press to make a picture? Or do YOU think an owner of an more expensive camera = a good photographer?

            • Poch

              @ Alfred:

              Unfortunately, there is some grain of truth to NoFunBen’s statement. While it’s true that not all of the D3100 users are like that, many of the people whom I know own one do. In our office alone, more than half of the D3100 owners are like that. And in that percentage, majority admitted to buying the DSLR thinking that they’d automatically produce pro-like pictures.

              But, yeah, there are some that, while the D3100 is their first DSLR, do admit that they’re just using the camera as a “trainer” cam with the intention of upgrading to something more pro once they’ve had their feet wet enough in photography.

          • Douglas Adams

            exactly!
            What I meant was if you would look at it on your screen zoomed to the size of it…not cropped…

        • Broken

          Who gives a rat’s ass about pixel-level softness / blur.

          I hang PICTURES on my walls, not PIXELS. A 24MP camera is no more susceptible to picture-level softness than a 12MP camera, only pixel-level softness / propensity to blur increases.

        • El Aura

          Viewing at 100% is NOT normal size. Fullscreen on a 24-27″ monitors might be normal size.

          • amien

            WRONG Douglas is right,

            and I can attest that a 18MP APS sensor needs about 2X the same shutter speed as a 10MP APS . Besides, shooting bellow 1/60th will provide blurry images on a 18MP APS, no matter what : you can try to downsample but this will not help, it is relational to the smaller pixels + mirror shake and unsteadyness of handheld.

            • JED

              WRONG…
              If you shoot the with the same parameters on 10MP or 18MP the amount of blur at the image level will be the same. You might waste some of the resolving ability of the 18MP but that is not the fault of the sensor – it just means you need to improve or change your technique.

            • Poch

              I agree with Jed on this one. But then again, there are different kinds of blur, but the one you’re indicating seems to be motion blur. One of the factors for blurriness is anti-aliasing, and if you’re talking about that kind of blur, then I do have to agree with you. The amount of work that an AA will do depends on the MP count, too. More MP mean more work to remove the moire effect, thus, more blur.

  • David

    Seems logical, these 24MP Sony chips, after they’ve used them for over a year in A77 and NEX7, are probably dirt cheap, Nikon will buy them for almost nothing and use their own software (like they did on D7000) and place these chips on all the DX cameras – economical way of doing it.

    Now my prediction: Sony will up the 24MP chip to a new high level this summer for their new generation of cameras. Could be 32MP or more. And that new chip from this summer is the one we will see in D7100 this Xmas.

    • BornOptimist

      The D3100 dosn’t use a Sony sensor, so I’m not so sure D3200 will have a Sony sensor eigther.

  • kiollo

    why why nikon is goig with sony sensors?????? change the sensor producer or the new cameras will going to be all crap! Canon learnt the lesson…

    • Joe

      What are you talking about?

      The Sony aps-c and larger sensors have been ahead of Canon for quite some time. The Nikon D90 had far better IQ than the comparable Canon products and had a Sony sensor. In fact, it could be argued that the D90′s IQ is still better than anything Canon is offering today, three years later. Canon just keeps reissuing the same 18 megapixel sensor that doesn’t have the dynamic range or quality that the Sony-built sensors have.

      That’s not to mention the Sony-sourced chip in the D3X that beats anything else 35mm-based on the market nearly two years after its release.

    • jodjac

      Not long ago many people were raving about the NEx – 7 and talking about how Sony nailed it and why doesn’t Nikon do what Sony does, 12 mp (or 10) is way to few and why can’t we have more than enough pixels to crop with and on and on. Now that there is a faint rumor that Nikon might use a 24 mp sensor everybody is up in arms an talking about a mp race. This is a tough crowd to please! What do you suppose Canon will be putting in their entry level cameras, old 18 mp sensors? Got to keep up with the Jones!
      I imagine that we’ll be seeing this sensor in a few other Nikon cameras. I hope it’s as good as the sensor in the D7k or better. Better even.

  • getanalogue

    it’s matching nikon’s marketing philosophy for DX: 16MP for (semi)pro’s (D7000/D4) and lots of pixels for amateurs (D3200/24M) and D800/36MP) – simple. D300 line will be abolished.

    • WoutK89

      Haha, D800 is amateur, because it has too much pixels in your eyes. So the D3x was amateur as well?

      • http://www.deaddrift.org Sarunas

        Haha haaa!
        getanalogue- that’s really funny! :D

      • getanalogue

        gyus, this is not my idea, it is Nikon’s expressed marketing strategy. The market for MF cameras is 7000 units worldwide, for press cameras signifcantly larger.
        and the guys buying D800′s and being no pro’s at all is maybe 100 times higher than real pro’s using it.

    • Bintang

      I don’t think D800 would be an amateur camera. It’s FX, it will have a weather sealed body and I’m sure it would not have as much program automatic modes as the D5100 or D3100. Or do you think, that low pixel density defines the Pro series and high pixel density the Amateur? I can answer it easily: NO!
      D800 is for different purposes than D4. While D4 is probably the best repotage and low light camera, D800 will be among the best studio and landscape photography cameras.
      Of course many people are whining who can’t afford the D4, but would they like to have all features in a 50% cheaper body. I’m sure they will get what they are asking for, but now Nikon would like to harvest the Pro market first and the prosumer with less margin/body later. There will be many used/refurbushed D3s’s for a good price, if they can’t afford the D4.
      -Sorry if I made any grammar mistakes. English is not my mother tongue.-

      • XLRT

        It’s not only a matter of the price. It’s the huge size of the D4 that bothers me. If nikon manages to put the D4 sensor and low light capabilities in a body not bigger as the D700, I’ll order one tomorrow (Leica actually puts full frame sensors into much smaller bodies). For night street photography you can’t take a D4 with you because with that huge body you’ll get noticed kilometers away and will ruin the scene. Who told nikon that a pro body has to have an integrated vertical grip anyway?

        • St.

          For me the only reason to not get a d4 is the big size. I’m not saying the grip is not needed for many pros, but for me it’s really just extra weight and uncomfortable shooting.
          Do I have to buy d700 (if I find it) now, after I waited so long for it’s replacement, just because this is my ONLY choice to have a low light camera with relatively small size.

          • Bintang

            Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to get a car which will win all races, good for rough terrain, has 7 seats for passengers, looks tempting and not bigger than a BMW M3.
            After many years, I arrived to step forward to FX from DX. D700 is a fantastic camera, but I’m waiting for the D800 because extreme high iso over 1600 is not so important for my work. I would like to suggest a quick calculation to everybody according to her/his habits in photography. If you are a reporter where high iso capabilites are must, because using the flash is forbidden or can be dangerous, or you do night street photography all the time, than D800 is probably not your camera.
            If you do these activities occasionally or you can use your flash and you understand, that carefully resampling of the 36 Mpixel photo to 24/12 Mpixel will give you an additional 1-1,5 f-stop advantage in noise/sign ratio, than the D800 might be the camera of your choice.
            I would choose D700 without any hesitation over the D4 or D800 if i would like to have a smaller body with the best possible iso capabilities.

            • St.

              Yes, that’s the logical choice, plus D700 is truly amazing performer.
              But I shoot mostly landscape/cityscape. At night I use long exposures more than high ISO, BUT from time to time I do shoot concerts, sports, etc. and then I really need a good low ISO performance.
              You’re probably right that in this case you simply go with second body, but it’s a little hard to me to justify all these money, without making anything back from it.
              I hope D400 will have better low iso performance and I can use it as a second body for D800. Plus the 1/5 crop for tele-zooms.

          • Poch

            what??? The D4 is SO MUCH MORE than a big camera. Look at the specs again, it’s meant for pro work. So is the D800, but if you look at their specs you can see that both cameras are targeted for different photography professions.

        • Bintang

          I understand your point, but what’s the problem with the D700 in night street photography? I guess it’s iso capabilities are better than Leica M9 and you can get great pictures even at iso 3200/6400. If D700 is too big and you feel, you can’t be the fly on the wall with that, than even the D4′s smaller brother in D800 body won’t meet with your requirements. In this case, there is Leica M9 for the same wallet as D4, or Fuji X-pro 1 in the near future for a fragment of the D4 price.

          • St.

            Nothing wrong with d700. It’s awesome camera, but if you have to spend $3k today, you woulda like to have something newer, like the new expeed Iii, 100% viewfinder, better video, etc.

            • Bintang

              Clear! Just keep in mind, good pictures depends on you in 80% (where you are, how you see, how exerienced you are) and in 20% on you equipment.
              I know I’m lazy to fine tune my skills, that’s the reason why I would like to get that FX D800. :)

            • St.

              that’s true, that it is more you and less the camera, but still – for some situations you just need a good performer.
              I do think that before you know at full your camera and learn how to get the maximum from it you probably shouldn’t switch.
              My general point is not to complain, but that it would be good if we have a little more choice – sizewise, pricewise and functionwise.
              Instead P&S cameras are in crazy quantities and variations, without having that much of a difference in what they do.

        • david distefano

          i love that large size. fits my hands perfectly, just like my f5. i hold my wifes d300 and i feel like i am holding a toy.

    • Alfred E. Neuman

      LOL :) really funny

  • Merv

    If this D3200 improves on the video capability of the D3100/D5100, and has “good enough” dynamic range and high ISO with 24 MP, it probably would do very well.

    This won’t excite the semi-pros and amateurs though, but most important would be how well the D3200 sells.

    • K. Presleywell

      Garbage.
      The target market for the D3200 will not care about dynamic range, and will only care a little bit about video capabilities. All they will be thinking is “24 megapixels! 24 megapixels! 24 megapixels!”

  • Jay

    Im starting to get a little confused, the D4 has a 16MP sensor, D800, who knows, D400……what and when will it replace D300s??? now the D3200 with a 24.5MP sensor……….what the hell do i go for on my upgrade?? Im aware things suit budgets, all i want is good camera in low light, high iso setting, low noise, high MP rate, more focus points 51 would be good! HELP!

    • WoutK89

      Low light, high ISO, low noise –> D700/D3(s)/D4
      High MP –> D800/D3x

      Good luck with your decision.

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      there are people throwing tens of thousands of dollars in cars every few years and hundrets of thousands for house. if photography is important for you, just go and buy what fits you or both (and get a backup in process). difference of 2-5000$ between entry and fully pro body is invisible.
      cameras hold values more then cars.

  • http://jaysonknight.com Jayson Knight

    24mp for an entry level camera is overkill and doesn’t seem very cost efficient. But it seems plausible given the 3100 is 14mp. That being said, anyone who knows anything about digital knows it isn’t about the mp’s. The 24mp number is just to make consumers drool. The in camera editing features seem appealing though…my wife would be a prime market segment!

  • http://www.vuphotography.com.au vudie

    Totally unrelated topic, My brother work colleague is a camera reviewer for CBS here in Sydney, he told last week his work colleague (the reviewer) when to check out the supposedly call D800. So it does exist, finger cross that it will be announce soon. The work colleague could not disclose any more info except that she had a good play around with the camera and she does not know what the name is for it yet.

    • WoutK89

      Announcement is tomorrow.

  • john

    Economic damages due to Thailand floods,Nikon has to overcome the crisis and hence the new line of products will be of higher MP’S (probably their R&D)so that they will be selling like hot cakes .So these years I suspect Nikon not to stand up their product quality but put up their effort on marketing though.

  • NoFunBen

    the sony 24MP sensor is taking great photos right now.
    if nikon uses it they will also take great photos.

    Too many people think they need to upgrade there camera every 2 years.

    Buy better lenses. Better yet learn how to use the camera you have. Learn more about photo editing.

    If you are not getting great photos with any of the cameras sold today, the problem is not with the camera.

    • Alfred E. Neuman

      HERE I fully agree with you! But wasn’t it you who posted, this:

      —-d3100 users dont know how to crop or to view at 100%
      they will upload to facebook
      take there memory card to Walmart
      they will be happy with 24MP and brag to there friends at parties.—

      So don’t you agree with me that you can also make great pictures with a D3100 or then D3200?
      By the way I use a D3000 with some good glass attached when I don’t want to carry too much weight with me. And what a surprise the pictures are brilliant with it, too.

      And when I have time and don’t need to see the result within a second I still use very often my “old fashioned” F6 with some Velvia inside as I did it 15 years ago with my F90, and I always know before I get them processed that the pictures I get will be great ;)

      And it is really relaxing NOT to take part in the high MP or high ISO craziness.

      So finally I agree with you. If someone will spend money in something for a camera it is better invested in good lenses or just make the best of the things you already own.

  • Dimitrii1130

    I hope d400 has 24mp, but d3200?! I think they will use the same sensor again, because otherwise they developed it for one cheap cam..

  • T.I.M

    That will make a nice backup body for the D800 ! (and also a good x1.5 converter with no light lost).
    :o

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/anuwintschalek Anu L

    Mh????? D3200? & who said that the megapixel race was over?

  • Toecutter

    Can’t help but wonder if Nikon sees this high mp camera as a way of distinguishing itself from the ever increasing mp camera phones

  • broxibear

    Seems really early to replace the D3100 as it only came out in late 2010 ?
    Anyway… GO PATRIOTS !…I’m away to watch sum futball !

    • jodjac

      Dang!

    • enesunkie

      Before the flood, the entry level bodies were updated every year:
      D40- 2006, D40X -2007, D60- 2008, D3000-2009, D3100-2010. Canon is willing to update it’s Rebel line to keep it “current”. Nikon has to also.

  • Bill

    OK, 24.2MP? Somehow, that just does not make sense. D5100 at 16MP, D7000 At 16MP,
    I guess the only logical thing for Nikon to do next would be to make the D7100 36MP and the D400 a full frame less expensive than D800 36MP. I can see them making the D3200 16MP, but not 24.2 in a plastic camera . Maybe Nikon is ramping up to give all Canon models a big run for their money.

  • Bill

    Ok….Most importantly…..K I C K O F F…..

  • R!

    I think they got something wrong with the numbers….

  • Steve Starr

    Anything less than 24MP is best left for the cellphone, tablet, and the P&S crowd in 2012-2013. It’s very old tech now much as a 640 x 480 CRT monitor.

    Pros will move onto the 40+ megapixel crowd which I expect to come into being very soon. Sort of a Instamatic 126 vs. a Hasselblad 120 thing. Sensors will always improve, just like the transistor did with better tech specs too with each generation.

    Sony needs to sell the 500 GB XQD card thing to support it too.

    • D900

      yea and we all will have mediu, format sensor…. nikon will bring MX for 10 $ and a sensor made of film with 129381 Mp … hoho

  • Trevor

    We know the 14mp D3100 chip is a Nikon design used for only that body, so maybe it’s in short supply. Instead of cannibalizing the 16mp supply, they go for what they can get their hands on, which is a lot of 24mp chips. Or, maybe since the 14mp chip is used in only 1 body, the 24mp chip is cheaper.

    Still, how do you convince consumers that the D5100 with 8 fewer mp is better than the D3200 which is now newer? Do we have to do a full refresh from 3100 up? If so, why not start with the 300s? I officially don’t get it.

  • Dave

    Seeing all the rumours of stupidly high mega pixel Nikon camera’s are scaring me. I love Nikon because they haven’t been competing in the MP race because everyone knows Nikon for their sensible sensor sizes which beat the competition in High ISO/Low Light performance, consistently proving they give cleaner images than the competition.

    I can understand there being a need for very high MP studio camera’s for giant posters but in the current times where the significant majority of photos are no longer printed and most are displayed only on the web just seams pointless. Event photographers will always want the low light ISO performance (where flash isn’t permitted) and sports photographers need the higher FPS burst rate and buffer size for more photos which having a lower MP sensor offers.

    24MP for an entry level camera is just plain crazy (particularly with mentioned kit glass quality, you really need flawless pro glass for that resolution). D700 replacement which doesn’t offer improved ISO performance but over kills on MP and reduces FPS is again crazy. I really hope that when the D400 eventually comes out that its no more than 16MP with at least 7FPS (expandable with grip and pro battery) with a buffer that can handle at least 20 12-bit compressed RAWs and normal ISO range of 100-12,800 (or a cleaner 6,400 than D7000) extending to H2 (51,200) and -2EV AF capability.

    • QQMoar

      24MP is the new 12MP, its 2012 now, wake up and don’t live in 2008

      • D800image

        yea and 36 mp is the new 1 mp Medium format… but we are Fx not mx so noise is ugly!!

    • JED

      You are missing the point. Nikons sensors are now comfortably better than Canons so Nikon (and Sony) can up the mega pixel game and Canon will not be able to keep up. Some years ago Canon kept upping the MP knowing they had the best sensors – the tables have now turned which is why Canon is now trying the ‘less MP is better’ game..

      • ghfgfd

        say this and wait the 1dx kiking the d4 in the legs ;-) nikon is going to sink with sony in dslr

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    Does 24mp DX really make sense? Other than allowing more cropping, and more noise at high ISO, what is really gained?

    • Zeke

      More resolution.

      • koih

        More pixels, not resolution the way I understand it. Is there a DX lens that can resolve 24 mp?

  • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

    Wow 24mp on an entry-level O_o;
    Amazing.

  • Big Eater

    Two things…first not every professional lives in the US, Canada, or Europe. There are lots of impoverished countries where a D4 is out of the question and buying a d3200 will be a MAJOR investment.
    Second, beginners never get close enough, so the ability to crop from a 24mp image will be a godsend.

  • Smart

    These entry-level Nikon cams are great, the best bang for the buck. Sure, they are limited feature-wise, but image quality is way better than most users will ever need. I think even advanced users will be interested in this D3200, because they know how to obtain great results with just any camera no matter its features. My phylosophy is to get the cheaper body and the best lenses, because bodies get devalued over time, however lenses may last a lifetime. Although there are some cheap lenses which offer exceptional performance also, like the always overlooked 18-55VR.

    • Shawn

      +10000000000

      I just couldn’t afford a D7K, so I was only able to pick up a D5100 w/kit lens (body only wasn’t in stock). I am finding out that this little 18-55 VR is really really really good. Total surprise, so I’m very glad I ended up getting the kit.

  • fred yellow

    I’m out of bounds, i know it. And please, dont flame me, i’m not a pro.
    I’ve assisted to a forum on : Nikon D4 agaisnt Canon X (dont remember the name)… and all this was very strange. My feels are quite simple. Who cares if the Nikon D4 got 900 0000 000 pixels and the Canon more. Who cares if the Nikon got 296 FP, and the Canon 89. who cares about that? those numbers are so high that even if you are a pro, you could not use them in an effficency way that your photos are going to look better.
    I watched the superbowl tonight, and i saw a bunch of guy running like a headless chickens taking photos on the run, only clicking CLICK CLICK to take those.
    A newbie could have taked the job.
    I’ve asked one of my uncle who is pro photographer for culturals events and he is still taking pictures with a Minolta x700 35mm. And Jesus, maybe i’m that bad… no clue, but he is taking so great pictures, that’s almost incredible.

    My point is clear. I believe at this time the war in technology in photograph world only save one purpose : money.

    you’re new state-of-the-art Nikon couldnt take better pictures than a 1983 Minolta or Olympus but it’s more easy, really more easier, helping no talent-people be called photographers.

    I’m not one of those. I’m not a pro photographer. I’m just one guy who like to take pictures. who like to run. And for Me, Nikon is better. Not because Nikon surpass Canon. Because in Superman, Jimmy, the photographer was ussing a Nikon.

    It’s all about personal choice… and impressions. It’s not about numbers. Numbers that no one can really use.

    • rhlpetrus

      “you’re new state-of-the-art Nikon couldnt take better pictures than a 1983 Minolta or Olympus but it’s more easy, really more easier, helping no talent-people be called photographers.”

      Besides the ungrammatical ones, your post is full of other mistakes and misconceptions. Do you have a negative shot in 1983 with your Minolta/Oly? Try to compare it to a base ISO shot from the D7000, or even from the D3100, not to go FF.

    • Poch

      Ok:

      1. Commenting on something you clearly know absolutely NOTHING about opens you up to flaming. Why? Because you babble like your opinion has grain of truth when you say that you’re clueless about the subject matter. It’s like saying not to flame you for saying that chicken tastes like shit since you haven’t tasted chicken and yet your opinion should matter.

      2. “Who cares if the Nikon got 296 FP, and the Canon 89. who cares about that? those numbers are so high that even if you are a pro, you could not use them in an effficency way that your photos are going to look better.”

      It’s clear here that you absolutely know nothing and simply use exaggerated numbers to try (vainly, I might add) to detract from it. Specs matter a lot to professional photographers because it enables them to know whether the new equipment will suit them, of if they should upgrade.

      3. “I watched the superbowl tonight, and i saw a bunch of guy running like a headless chickens taking photos on the run, only clicking CLICK CLICK to take those.
      A newbie could have taked the job.”

      They run “like headless chicken” across the field because they need to get the best angles possible for covering the event. Unlike videography, photography is limited in frames, so they need to get the best composition of the action. AGAIN, this is something that you are clueless about because you know NOTHING of the subject matter. I want to see YOU take the job AND have any of your pictures published in print media. So don’t go about saying that a newbie could do professional work because, frankly, you are ignorant about this. It’s like saying all a surgeon does is babble “scalpel” to the nurse and anybody can be a surgeon because of it.

      3. “I’ve asked one of my uncle who is pro photographer for culturals events and he is still taking pictures with a Minolta x700 35mm. And Jesus, maybe i’m that bad… no clue, but he is taking so great pictures, that’s almost incredible.”

      This is the first time that your post begins to have any semblance of fact in it. Yup, you most likely are just THAT bad. What you fale to take into account is that your uncle has had practice with his equipment for years. To put it simply, he’s one with his equipment, knows them inside out, and so is able to take stunning photos. The photographer and his equipment are one. Heck, I am 100% sure that if he is given a D3 now, or even a D700, he’ll be able to take the same level of stunning photographs over a small amount of time. The operative word is “over…time” because he will familiarize himself with the equipment first, but that’s all there it to it because his years of experience already has composition covered.

      4. “My point is clear. I believe at this time the war in technology in photograph world only save one purpose : money.”

      Yes, your point is clear, but so is your ignorance about photography. This may come as a shock to you, but all current technology, apart from being a money-generating machine, provides photographers with more tools to be more creative. A tool is only as good as the person who wields it, and a tool that provides more options give the user more freedom and lessens limitations.

      5. “you’re new state-of-the-art Nikon couldnt take better pictures than a 1983 Minolta or Olympus but it’s more easy, really more easier, helping no talent-people be called photographers.”

      rhlpetrus said it best, I need not add more.

      6. “I’m not one of those. I’m not a pro photographer. I’m just one guy who like to take pictures. who like to run. And for Me, Nikon is better. Not because Nikon surpass Canon. Because in Superman, Jimmy, the photographer was ussing a Nikon.”

      This has got to be one of the most MORONIC posts I’ve ever read. You are saying one brand is better just because a fictional character is using it. Wow. Really, wow. I’m a Nikon user, BTW, and the reason why I stick to this brand isn’t as shallow as that. I love it because it fits my needs to a tee. I won’t switch to Canon because I don’t need to. But your comment? I really just can’t believe it. Please tell me you’re not that shallow. I am actually praying that this is just a prank post.

      6. “It’s all about personal choice… and impressions. It’s not about numbers. Numbers that no one can really use.”

      If you left the first sentence at that, it would have been great. But noooo. Again, specs matter because photographers need to make informed decision when buying/upgrading. This is something that, at your current state, you would never understand.

      So, bottomline is this: there is no harm in sharing opinions, but don’t be surprised if you get flamed when you make moronic statements, especially if the way you present your opinion is kind of “know-it-all”. Because at the end of the day, the mere fact that you say that you’re not well versed with the subject matter means that, in all honesty, your opinion won’t matter since it doesn’t bring anything to the discussion. You want your opinion to matter? Research about the subject matter first.

      • david distefano

        i will say one thing to back up the gentleman getting his ass kicked. galen rowell’s or henri cartier bresson’s film work is better than 99% of the dslr work today. all i hear is that more mp’s will increase resolution. it’s the image that makes the photograph not just resolution. as edward weston said, there is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. with only 1% of digital images being printed to fine arts standards (study done by the manufacturers of large format printers) the question becomes why the mp race. if you truly want resolution large format film destroys dslr’s. if it’s low lite, you have the new king in the d4 (but only 16mp more than enough). the only winner in the mp race is the manufacturers, because they convince you that your old body is obsolete and you need to drop a few more thousand dollars to stay current. thats why hasselblad has been so successful. i was able to add a digital back to my film body and keep right on shooting, nothing is obsolete.

  • Prashanth

    What about D200/D300s users? I can see lot of semi professional photographers waiting for the replacement of this who can’t afford D3s or D4 or the to be announced D800.

  • http://_ LRH

    Does the D3200 bring back ML-L3 compatibility and the “green dot reset?”

    The former was done away with by the D3100, and it was dumb. Every entry-to-mid level Nikon d-SLR, even in the Nikon N65 35mm SLR days, has been compatible with this handy accessory. Why in the WORLD did the D3100 break from that?

    Green-dot-reset–even the D40 and D60 had green-dot-reset, so you could quickly return WB-Image Quality/Size/drive mode/ISO etc to their defaults. Maybe “the target market won’t care,” so what–it was there, out of the way & discrete but oh so handy for those who knew what it did.

    24mp for an entry-level model? Gee whiz, for a true beginner or entry-level user, even a D40 or a D60 is enough. The D300-D90-D5000 sensor would be perfect at this price point, or if we’re “filtering down,” have the D7000-D5100 16mp sensor trickle its way down.

    But 24mp? Really? What in the world for?

    Cropping? Meh. Get off your tush and get closer–you know, shoe leather zoom. I like Henri Cartier-Bresson’s philosophy–NO CROPPING. (He was such a stickler about this that when he had prints made he would have them include the edge of the negatives so he would know nothing was cropped out.) Getting more MP so you can crop is a lazy attitude. (Well, maybe not for wildlife photographers, maybe.)

    What is Nikon DOING?

    • HRL

      “What is Nikon DOING?”

      So, according to you, Nikon is doing something dumb.

      The last time I checked, Nikon is making profit (see it’s Q3 result); while company like Kodak filed for bankruptcy…..

      ….. may be Kodak hired too many smart people like you.

      • http://_ LRH

        Maybe Kodak hired you to do it’s spelling (newsflash, there is no apostrophe in that scenario, it’s is short for “it is,” so you’re saying I should see “it IS Q3 result?”, the correct usage is its)

        Anyway.

        Read the entire thread, Einstein. In case you are literate enough to do so, you will see that I’m hardly the only one that questions the wisdom of a 24mp sensor in an entry-level body, especially if it’s done to appease the masses as part of a foolish “megapixel race.”

        As the one person pointed out–you can buy it in silver, red or black? That’s their focus, on colors? Options are fine, but such a focus hints at a company thinking more about marketing than quality. I know they have to make money to build a product to start with, and obviously they’re a “for profit” organization, but I’d like to see attention to details that MATTER to people who KNOW d-SLRs. I get tired of d-SLRs made to appease the masses who don’t even know what an SLR really is. Guide mode, scene modes (granted, those have been around forever), colors? That’s what we’re worried about, Nikon? How about, I don’t know, an ISO button, the option to make the camera “release” priority (instead of “focus”), bringing back green-dot-reset and compatibility with the ML-L3 remote control? Built-in WiFi or bluetooth so the photos can be beamed to a smartphone and published “live on the scene” for those who would otherwise use their phone to take the photo?

        • Poch

          “As the one person pointed out–you can buy it in silver, red or black? That’s their focus, on colors? Options are fine, but such a focus hints at a company thinking more about marketing than quality.”

          Ok, first. How does color options dictate quality? Or how does consideration on aesthetic indicate lack of focus on a product’s overall quality? Based on the specs, there’s nothing crappy about it. Yes, the 24MP is an overkill for a consumer product, but as pointed out numerous times already, it’s what’s important to this paticular product line’s target audience. That is something we cannot dictate.

          “I know they have to make money to build a product to start with, and obviously they’re a “for profit” organization, but I’d like to see attention to details that MATTER to people who KNOW d-SLRs. ”

          Well, this is obviously not the product for you. If you want a DSLR that would really matter for professional use, then there’s the uber excellent D7000. Upcoming products? There’s the D4 and the D800, the latter of which seems to be aimed at studio photographers, or other such works that need high resolution (i.e. those who would rely on medium format for their work). Again, this is a CONSUMER product, so every feature is is aimed squarely at them, do remember that.

          “I get tired of d-SLRs made to appease the masses who don’t even know what an SLR really is. ”

          But this is the target audience of this particular line. This is the DSLR for those who have never handled a DSLR before. Those who are transitioning from a P&S to something more serious. You can’t expect many of the people to buy this product to know how to control a pro DSLR right away. User-friendliness comes first for a consumer product. Again, there are more professional DSLRs. This is not it, never has been, never will be.

          “Guide mode, scene modes (granted, those have been around forever), colors? That’s what we’re worried about, Nikon? How about, I don’t know, an ISO button, the option to make the camera “release” priority (instead of “focus”), bringing back green-dot-reset and compatibility with the ML-L3 remote control?”

          D7000 above is your answer. Don’t make it complicated for consumers, that’s the golden rule.

          “Built-in WiFi or bluetooth so the photos can be beamed to a smartphone and published “live on the scene” for those who would otherwise use their phone to take the photo?”

          This one, I would agree with, but for a different use. Having WiFi capability has been tried and tested,and is extremely useful, especially for event photographers. Problem with this is that it’s going to eat up battery power like crazy, and you honestly can’t expect consumers to buy a lot of extra batts. I won’t use it to send it to a smartphone, though. I’ll use it to send images to a colleague’s laptop in real time, so that while I’m shooting away, that person will be able to either enhance the images in Photoshop, or create a video presentation to show at the reception ASAP.

          • http://_ LRH

            “D7000 above is your answer. Don’t make it complicated for consumers, that’s the golden rule.”

            Well, I realize companies are in this for profit & I have no qualms with other people’s likes & dislikes per se, but frankly, once you get in the d-SLR realm, you ought to aspire to better, and even an entry-level d-SLR shouldn’t be made with soccer moms & the point & shoot crowd in-mind. Let them get a J1.

            Obviously, having OPTIONS for color doesn’t affect quality, but if you’re so busy worrying about that to where you goof-up details that MATTER like green-dot reset (which even the very entry-level D40 & D60 had), then you’re flunking the “form follow function” standard which practically EVERY product out there, aside from ones which are all about form (clothes come to mind), ought to aspire to if you ask me.

            But then, I’m one that says that people who buy a car or a phone based on its looks, that such is stupid, just like the people years ago who purchased iMacs just because they had that “cool clear green case” but you couldn’t upgrade it as readily as a normal PC. Stupid, stupid, stupid. (I don’t know how much that still applies in terms of if an iMac isn’t as upgradable, I’m referring to when they 1st came out.)

            It isn’t about what “some people think is important,” if someone thinks what a computer LOOKS like is more important than how readily you can upgrade it, or what a car looks like is more important than how reliable & troublefree it is, or what a smartphone looks like is more important than how long the battery lasts or whether you can add a microSD card–sorry, I’m going to make a judgment call and say that is just stupid. It’s not “diversity” or a “difference in opinion,” it’s just stupid.

            Why should I have to spend extra money on a D7000 to avoid a product being designed for people who don’t know what an SLR is anyway? I understand spending more on a D7000 for the extra features like non AF-S compatibility, 2 command dials instead of 1, larger viewfinder & more AF points, sure, I totally agree.

            But to potentially make a worse sensor because some people have “megapixel tunnel vision?” That’s “dumbing it down for the masses,” and I don’t like seeing that occur in the d-SLR realm, not even at the entry-level. How about letting those persons LEARN a little, rather than dumbing the product down to suit their inferior level of intelligence about d-SLR?

            I mean, if we’re going to do all of that, why not remove the RAW mode and hot-shoe while we’re at it–after all, how many people at this level do you figure is going to shoot in RAW and bother with any flash besides the built-in one? For that matter, let’s just eliminate P-S-A-M and only have the FULL AUTO mode and scene modes? Why do we even have the option to set white balance or flash exposure compensation, really, do you think 95% of the users will bother setting white balance off of “auto” or knowing that you can brighten-lighten flash by holding down the flash pop-up button and the +/- key?

            Yet, these models, even the D40 and D60 of before, could do this, and those were clearly models aimed at the soccer-mom & point & shoot crowd.

            My point–yes, a D7000 or even D5100 is going to have more features and be more “enthusiast-oriented” and that’s understandable, but even at the entry-level, there are basics which should still remain, even if “the target market doesn’t care.” Let them learn a little, and leave the capabilities there for those who DO know some of this but don’t think they should have to move all the way up to D7000 and D4 level because the soccer-moms get to enter into the d-SLR door at cheaper prices for some odd reason.

            (I know I’m going to get lots of hate-posts in reply for this, so be it.)

            LRH

            Let them buy a J1.

            • Poch

              Nah, I doubt that you will get hate-replies. For one, your posts are composed with thought placed in them, unlike the other posts that are basically junk. And I completely agree with the J1. It’s a much more viable option for those who want better IQ than P&S but are wary with going the DSLR route.

              From what I understand, the D60 line branched out to two product lines: the D3000 and the D5000. The D60 line sat neatly between these two product lines if you look at it. The D5000 was a beefed up D60, with the D3000 as the more “simplified” version. In fact, from what I remember, the D5000 was closer in price range to the D60 than the D3000 was. So the trend follows here. The D5100 is closer to the prosumer than the D3100. If you can’t afford the D7000, then the D5100 is the best compromise: D7000 sensor performance in a slightly larger D3100 body with some more bells and whistles that the D3100 lack. In fact, before I decided on the GX1, I was seriously considering the D5100 as my de facto street photography/ travel camera.

              The reason why they’re pushing the D3100 line as their de facto consumer camera (despite having the J1) is because there’s still such a high demand for entry APS-C-sized cameras. They can’t turn their backs on that. If I have to guess, though, I think along the line, the D3100 will evolve itself further as an APS-C mirrorless camera, similar to Pentax having an APS-C and Q MILCs. When that happens, it’s bye-bye M43.

            • Poch

              On my post above:

              I meant to say bye-bye M43 for me. I wanted an APS-C mirrorless from Nikon, but we got the CX instead and was sorely disappointed. I considered the NEX-7 but wasn’t available where I lived when I bought the GX1.

  • enesunkie

    I may be completely wrong here, but the thing that saddens me most is the availabilty in three colors. People that bought into a dslr bought it for better image quality. But to offer it in differnt colors makes it more of an “accessory”, something to match the purse.

  • rhlpetrus

    I doubt the 24MP count. My bet is they may keep the 14MP, or go to 16MP, but add the new PDAF system, would be much more logical, it’d beat the LV AF of any present dslr (and of any m43 or Nex camera as well), making for good marketing for video, etc.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilovewalkman/ Abhinav

    this is an’t happening :P

  • Tom

    Isn’t 24MP a bit too much? In my opinion that wouldn’t really be necessary.
    Hoping for a D7100, I’m planning on getting a D7000, I’d be happy if the price was a bit lower.

  • Tags

    As a landscape shooter, I would LOVE having 24mp in a tiny body. This is perfect for me. When you shoot landscape AND print big, you can never have enough mp. However, the quality of the mp also needs to be considered. I think 24mp will give some solid prints up to 24×36 assuming the sensor behaves like the Sony a77 sensor.

    Wow, Nikon is really the new Canon though- 36mp D800 and 24mp entry level? They are definitely succumbing to the mp war.

    I doubt this helps most people, but for my purposes this is a good thing.

    • Maxfield

      It is Sony who is the MP war’s aggressor. All the high MP sensors used by Nikon are from Sony (The 36MP FX and 24MP DX). Nikon’s D4 sensor (low pixel pitch and high ISO) is its own design.

      Sony leads the attack on the MP war against Canon, and Nikon is forced to join Sony because of its utter dependency on Sony for DX/FX sensors. Nikon might not like to have too high MP count for DX, but is nonetheless forced to take whatever Sony dishes out.

      Look at the market for compacts (those tiny 1/2.3″ sensors) Sony’s 2012 line will up that to 18MP for the latest Exmor R sensors. And I thought the pixels for the previous generation of 16MP 1/2.3″ Exmor R were already too small. I am waiting to see how noisy the 18 MP 1/2.3″ Exmor R will get.

      However, there is some hope though. Sony gets to use its sensors first in its own Alpha SLT cameras, but that is not necessarily a good thing. I am sure that just like any semiconductor including Intel’s CPUs, image sensors go through steppings. I bet the 24MP sensors used by the current SLT-A77/A65 and NEX-7 belong to the first few steppings. By the time Nikon gets its hand on the 24MP chip, it will be the latest stepping. On top of that, Nikon extracts better performance out of Sony sensors than Sony itself. So I am sure the D3200, if indeed equipped with Sony’s 24MP sensor, will achieve a better DXOMark score than the NEX-7 across the board.

      If Nikon manages to shrink the body of this beginner’s DSLR even further, the D3200 will give the NEX-7 a serious run for its money, at a price of around 650$ with 18-55 kit lens.

  • Actionjunky

    I need a custom home and custom car. I don’t need a custom camera in red, silver, or black. Please simplify manufacturing and reduce the price or give me more features for the same price.

    Thanks.

  • http://www.chriswrightphotography.com Photographer Dundee

    24mp? Too high I think… Interesting though.

  • Gideon

    Nope, not replaced. Well, maybe the numbering will be different, but compare a D7000 to a D300 and you will see that the latter has a way better build. Even better sensor technology can’t make up for that. So perhaps (unlikely) it won’t be updated, but the D7000 doesn’t replace it any more than the latest Prius replaces a Rolls Royce.

    I can imagine a 24MP D400 to go with the 36MP D800, each stepping up to the plate with a far more detailed image than their predecessors. I think they’ll also have better high ISO performance than their Sony equivilants, due to Nikon ‘tweaking’.

  • Back to top