@truckdogg4

Welcome to NRF. "The best setting" First read the manual as far as you can stand it.... look at the table of contents, so when all else fails you can go back to it.

P for program mode is the best to start. Set ISO at 400, and auto ISO at maximum of about 3200. Then, start shooting with your camera and see what the camera decides is the best exposure for a shot. From that exposure setting, shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO, then go to another mode...like S for shutter. Pick a shutter speed and shoot some more. Try slow shutter speeds like 1/15th sec and see what happens with the photo....mostly they will be blurry. Try faster like 1/250th sec, see how these turn out.

After a few hours download all into your computer. Look at them, see if you want to keep one or two, then delete all the rest from the computer hard drive. If you have some photo post processing software in the computer...play with them.

Almost to a person, the folks on this forum learned by trial and error. Or maybe trial and 10,000 errors...and we sometimes still make errors. So, if you get nothing but garbage, do not worry, I still do this a lot. I have just learned to throw away the garbage.

Again, welcome and please share on Photo-A-Day if you get a chance.

Just bought a D3200. I'm new to this DSLR game. So from what I have been reading I have a lot of learning to do. I also picked up a AF-S 50mm 1.8G at the recommendation of a friend. I plan on trying to shoot a lot of inside cruise ship pictures so I will have to learn what the best setting to use will be.

Plane said:
OK, Chipworks released their D3200 sensor report:
NC81369R

https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=NIK-NC81369R&viewState=DetailView&cartID=&g=&parentCategory=&navigationStr=CatalogSearchInc&searchText=nikon

Guess this one is significantly different from IMX096, the sony 24MP APS-C sensor, not only on package, but also on die

NSXType-R said:
bjrichus- he's the kind of consumer I want!

It'll make the D7000 cheap (relatively speaking) for us regular users.

HAHAHAHA..... I suspect he is the kind of person that would line up outside an Apple store for a week to buy the newest (minor) iteration to the iPhone "because its the latest". If Nikon did a new body at the $1k price point every year, he'd buy it!

I have no problem with something like the D7000 body coming down in price perhaps to $750 to make way for a D400 at something like $1500 or thereabouts. The D7000 is a decent enough body for everything I do both work and non-work photography related as I don't shoot (much) sports and while performance of a D800 would be welcome, life won't end without it. I could handle a D400 if money allows or if not, a D3200 might be in interesting fun buy, low light ISO and dynamic range performance allowing... We shall see.

bjrichus- he's the kind of consumer I want!

It'll make the D7000 cheap (relatively speaking) for us regular users.

I mean, I can certainly use the D40 for another couple years. Heck, it's a 6 year old camera now and I still enjoy using it.

But I prefer to buy new and not used. If the specs of this D3200 camera is true, then the next D7000 replacement should be around the corner- Nikon can't possibly have the D7000 be leapfrogged for too long.

When I bought the D40 I bought it knowing it was "replaced", so it's not a big deal. The D40x and D60 were already out by that time, but I opted for the D40 just for the 18-135 kit. Glad I did, I don't think I would have enjoyed using the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses.

I have an avid photo amateur who lives about two blocks away from me who knows I shoot part of the time as part of my work and am a Nikon owner too. We both have D7000 bodies! He made a point of talking to me about the "new Nikon entry level camera" due soon, which turns out to be the D3200.

I told him I don't know anything other than the NR info and that in the one photo I have seen of it the thing looks like D3000/D3100.

He wanted to know what else was going to happen to the Nikon range as a result. I'll paraphrase his words "After all, with the D800 at such a high MP level and the D3200 also way higher than anything else, does this mean all the other models under 24MP are now obsolete?"

I tried to talk about ISO and noise as well as dynamic range, but he kept on coming back to megapixels. If he is typical "consumer" then Nikon marketing might have done a good job? [fx: falls over in shock]....

That's why I sold my Canon gear and moved to Nikon just a couple weeks ago. I felt I was better off going with the 16Mpix Nikon sensor rather than the 18Mpix in the Canon cropped line.

SkintBrit: I would rather have 16 mp with a clean 25,600 ISO also!

Gabbb said:
Laws of physics don't have to be rewritten. The effects of diffraction are only dependent by the size of the aperture hole. Designing a lens where the lens elements surrounding the aperture mechanism are significantly bigger is entirely possible

You make the "hole" bigger one way or another, you are changing the f-stop.

Gabbb said:
.... f15 means different aperture hole diameter on different lenses, and diffraction only depends on that. If it were laws of physics only, we wouldn't have different optimal apertures for different lenses. (my lenses: f5,6 ; f8; f8, f11)

f-stop is a ratio ( focal length/aperture opening )and the aperture opening is different in mm for different focal lengths . Diffraction depends on this ratio - the fstop , not the diameter of the opening.

If lens performance was only dictated by diffraction, we would have optimum quality at maximum apertures. We all know it is not the case.

-----------

My nightmare would be a 24 Mp D3200 with a new Nikon 18-300mm kit zoom :-)

Paperman said:
@TheManfromMandrem - It must be really confusing for you if you haven't heard of the subject before; there are lots of "easier" readings than this one :-).

I don't really have a problem reading it (I have Physics degrees), but thanks!

Getting back to D3200, ANYONE seen any rumors on the LCD screen resolution????

I think I am actually curious to see some performance test comparisons between the newer high MP entry level bodies and say the D7000 and things.

I have always thought my D5000 had decent ISO performance usable at 1250 or maybe even higher.

donaldejose said:
I am going to make a suggestion which "swims against the current." Perhaps the D800 is not out of line in pixel count. It seemed to be when first introduced. We were used to 12, 14, 16 mp sensors. We were getting used to and expecting 24 mp. 36 mp seemed "off the chart" and "out of line" with the slope of increased pixel count up the Nikon Line. But, just maybe, we had the wrong paradigm. Maybe there will be a new slope based upon new technology. 24 mp sloping on up not to 36 mp but rather on up to a 50 mp replacement for the D3x. Scale up a 24 mp DX sensor to FX size and what do you have? About 50 mp. Now is all this increased mp "foolishness" done at the sacrifice of high ISO IQ? It seems the answer is no. Look at the stats for the D3200. The top native ISO has gone from 3200 to 6400. That suggests new technology at work.

Unless you're saying in this new technological world that the two will become unrelated, I'd still rather have a 16MP camera that could shoot crystal clear shots at iso 1000,000.

If D3200 has 24 MP, I don't quite understand why Nikon would produce both a D3X00 series and a D5X00 series below the D7000 series.

You know, I think I'm actually interested in a 24MP D3200 as an extra camera. In many ways, it seems to make more sense than say, replacing my D90 with a 24MP D400 or D7100. I don't need 24MP all that much really, but there are occasions in which it would be nice to have that extra resolution across the board.

Of course, it would only be occasional, so it wouldn't make sense to spend a lot of money for it and it also wouldn't make sense to have a heavy/large camera for it either, but that's where the D3200's strengths really shine. And who knows, maybe it will be good enough that I can replace my D90 with a lighter camera.

My only issue is that they probably wouldn't see it in a body-only kit. I don't need any more cheap midrange zooms, and I'm not so sure that getting the 18-55 VR with 24MP is such a great idea anyway.

As a very recent D5100 buyer, I am quite interested in what the D3200 comes out to be and if it ends out being better than my new D5100 (if so, ouch!).

However, I am also interested in the diffraction discussion. I found a related article here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
I haven't had time to read it carefully, but it seems directed at this specific diffraction discussion.

There are some examples here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml

Another good discussion here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Keep in mind that a lens can not correct for diffraction. That said, in many cases there are other effects that degrade the sharpness much more than the diffraction in a shot (e.g. camera shake, lens flaws, subject motion, etc).

NSXType-R said:
You know, I think we've approached diminished returns. Each successive upgrade seems less and less significant.

[snip]

I feel like Nikon is just trying to change mp just to move more cameras- which is all fine for me, they need to get a profit too in order to crank out new lenses, designs and stuff.

[snip]

In fact, I'd rather the D7000 replacement have a much larger buffer but keep the 16 mp than to have 24 mp.

Indeed. They could easily double buffer sizes, with double density RAM chips (add $4 to manufacturing costs?) and get much more 'love' from us as a result...

If Nikon do move more product then its good if the R&D does its stuff and delivers better products for all.

I had an email overnight from my boss, who is a "Canonista" as he was in a heated "debate" with someone else yesterday at work. I didn't get involved with any of this stuff (as a Nikon shooter, I want to keep my job LOL), and he wanted me to explain what was going on with Nikon and all these megapixels.

He was very dismissive of 24 and 36MP bodies. He was also unable to handle that he was paying thousands for 22MP Canon gear and out comes Nikon with what will be under $1k for an entry level 24MP body so soon after doing high end 36MP bodies for $3k.

It sounded to me that he just don't like or want Nikon to have products that are clearly "higher" in marketing speak than his beloved Canon gear!

This got me thinking about WHY high MP numbers are such a bad thing.

If the processing in camera produces an image as good as (say) a D7000 but larger - then this opens up more cropping options which is a good thing, and as for image file size, the low cost of disk drives today (1Tb for about $100) makes that a "so-what" issue.

If the IQ is about the same as a D7000, then when ELSE is there about high MP values that makes them bad.....

The speed of transferring a larger file form camera to computer?

Diffraction (that debate is already underway)?

Other things???

spraynpray said:
That D7000 just keeps looking better and better........

You know, I think we've approached diminished returns. Each successive upgrade seems less and less significant.

I mean yes, the D90 to D7000 leap was pretty huge, as was the D2x to D3, even from the D3 to the D3s. But if you look at the gap between the D3s to the D4, at least to my eyes, there has only been a slight increase in image quality and resolution. Which is all fine for the pros, they need that sort of stuff.

I feel like Nikon is just trying to change mp just to move more cameras- which is all fine for me, they need to get a profit too in order to crank out new lenses, designs and stuff.

But for once I feel like I'm not that excited for the next generation of cameras.

In fact, I'd rather the D7000 replacement have a much larger buffer but keep the 16 mp than to have 24 mp.

roombarobot said:
You know, it might make more sense for the D7100 to get the newer Sony 24 Mpix sensor and the D3200 to get the trickle-down 16Mpix sensor from the D7000 and D5100. It just seems odd to me to bring in a new sensor on the lowest model in the lineup.

That would be the traditional way to do something, but who knows what other internal changes make the new sensor a must-use for Nikon? Maybe they can reduce the size and quantity of the electronics with it by being more integrated, perhaps Sony are making zillions of them rather than only a few of the 16MP design and so the purchase price of the newer sensor is almost nothing... I doubt both, but like I say - who knows?

Willis said:
How long before the just released flagship D4 is the lowest resolution camera in Nikon's lineup.
Sheesh.

And that would be a problem because ......?

PB PM said:
You do have to wonder what Nikon is doing. Maybe they want to slap high res sensors into the D3200, D5200 as they are generally purchased by people who only look at MP counts? Nikon keep the low light sensors in the D7200 or D400, which are targeted at people who are less swayed by MP count alone.

Seems sensible to me.

I hope the D400 comes soon, shooting with the D7000 gives me ache in the finger joints because the camera is just too small for my hands. Pity, because I love the camera except for the size and the dual SD card slot (would prefer CF/SD or even a single CF slot to SD/SD).

That D7000 just keeps looking better and better........

Laws of physics don't have to be rewritten. The effects of diffraction are only dependent by the size of the aperture hole. Designing a lens where the lens elements surrounding the aperture mechanism are significantly bigger is entirely possible, aka f15 means different aperture hole diameter on different lenses, and diffraction only depends on that. If it were laws of physics only, we wouldn't have different optimal apertures for different lenses. (my lenses: f5,6 ; f8; f8, f11)

Imo the problem with 24 megapixel, that It will look horrible with kit lenses, or 18-200+ zooms. That is the same for the nex7 too, pictures looks terribly bad until you start using a Leica/Nikon/whatever adapter to put real glass on it.

@TheManfromMandrem - Quite an article which I'm sure I will be going back from time to time. It must be really confusing for you if you haven't heard of the subject before; there are lots of "easier" readings than this one :-). The images at the end are helpful in illustrating the effect of small apertures.

Yep, back to D3200 before we annoy anyone else. We can discuss diffraction and the essay later if TTJ feels like opening a topic on that.

I have to work for the next 4 days, but I'll try to find time to pull something simple together and I'll start a thread for it. We then can stop hijacking other threads :)

Back to the D3200

Where's the F-n D400! :)