Is there any gossip on the LCD size?
That's my biggest beef with the D3000/3100.
D3200 Discussion Thread
(56 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
TaoTeJared said:
Bogus. It is all oversimplified math from 100 years ago that does not take into account modern lens design. It didn't happen with the Sony NEX 7, nor does it happen with every digi cam with sensors 1/10th the size of a DX sensor. People were pounding that drum when 10mp sensors came out. One could argue that some film was finer than any sensor out there and it didn't happen with it either.I have to disagree, TTJ . The NEX or A77 hits diffraction at medium apertures so do all small sensor cameras . If you have ever wondered why you can't select an f-stop higher than f8 in a DSLR-like or small sensor compact, look into diffraction ! ! You won't see a thing at f16 - that's why the choices are limited to wide open apertures in tiny sensor cameras.
The fact that you do not notice any diffraction at f16/f22 with your DSLR does not mean it is not there. Any photo that is taken at an aperture above the diffraction limit ( determined by current laws of physics ) will be worse in resolution than the one taken below the limit. Any photo that I take with my 12 Mp D300 at f16/f22 will be better in IQ at around f8.
Please look at the below article in NR - it might change your mind. It is not about diffraction only but it shows with sample images how the resolution changes with aperture . f22 in a FF is f16 in an APS-C size DSLR, in terms of diffraction.
Diffraction is not lens dependent so improvements in lens design won't change a thing. Do we hear any lens producer advertising/saying they have beaten/decreased effects of diffraction with a certain design ? No, because it is not possible. The calculations are made for the PERFECT lens - which we will never have. The only thing that matters is the aperture opening ( and the sensor size - as the diffraction limit is calculated working backwards from the pixel density/size ).
Posted 1 year ago # -
You really need to inform yourself better on diffraction and how lens design engineers deal with it. Diffraction is absolutely lens dependent - all of your arguments till you last one is all lens attributes.
Look into how Nikon design it's macros and how they engineer them do diffraction does not show till very small apertures. That is a good start. You have go beyond the wiki and never vetted blogs and go to the tech papers of developers and lens designers if you want to learn it.
Nikon, Canon, and every single CCD and CMOS chip maker have all stated they are still no where close to hitting diffraction limits because of the sensor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
" Light bends when it passes ......., blah blah blah .... — green to yellow-green— is 0.0005 to 0.000555 mm ..... The eye is most sensitive at 0.00055 mm, but 0.0005 may be more characteristic of daylight situations. This bending, called diffraction, is an UNAVOIDABLE PHYSICAL EFFECT THAT HAPPENS REGARDLESS OF LENS QUALITY."
This, from Norman Koren, is from one of the numerous technical articles on the subject.As I said, diffraction calculations are not made by considering a specific lens or its capacities. It is simply based on what the human eye can capture - as if you have a perfect lens.
TaoTeJared said:
Look into how Nikon design it's macros and how they engineer them do diffraction does not show till very small apertures. That is a good start. You have go beyond the wiki and never vetted blogs and go to the tech papers of developers and lens designers if you want to learn it.Nikon, Canon, and every single CCD and CMOS chip maker have all stated they are still no where close to hitting diffraction limits because of the sensor.
Please provide any link/quote/source for the two statements above ; laws of physics have to be rewritten for the first one and I'm really curious about the second one. ( The diffraction of a sensor can not be hit anyways as there is no limit on the sensor on its own . It is the selection of a smaller apertures which causes the diffraction on the sensor. )
You have not commented on the NR article with images showing detoriation at small apertures . The lens is one of the best - TS lens and the camera is either a D3x or D700. This one ( if allowed ) is again samples of the diffraction effect - this time taken with a PHASE ONE.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtmlI agree with almost everything you write on this forum but somehow we fall apart miles on diffraction :-).
And I'm expecting Nikodoby to show up anytime !
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TTJ.
Tried to quickly google to understand your comments. Only articles I could find about breaking diffraction limits were about printing computer chips with smaller pitch. There was a Korean paper that seemed to talk about cameras, but couldn't pull that one. Can you send a reference?
Here's an article that seems to agree with Paperman:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/guest/physical_limits_long.html
I have no knowledge of this subject, just trying to understand it better.
I don't see why even if there is a shift in diffraction limit that 24MP for an entry level camera is the end of the day. If it's sharpest at F=5.6, and you don't get 24MP resolution stopping it signifcantly down from there, is 24MP bad for an entry level body?
Posted 1 year ago # -
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! :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
@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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That D7000 just keeps looking better and better........
Posted 1 year ago # -
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).
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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?
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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???
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.shtmlAnother good discussion here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtmlKeep 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).
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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????
Posted 1 year ago # -
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 possibleYou 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 :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
SkintBrit: I would rather have 16 mp with a clean 25,600 ISO also!
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
