where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
So as we all learn more about the D3200, I'd like to start a discussion about that vs. the D5100. How is the new Sony sensor compare to the one in the D7000/D5100? That's my main interest, of course
It seems that many of the D3200 specs got a bump up from the D3100 and are closer to the D5100, e.g. 11 AF points, 4 fps. How do the features compare?
On a side note, I wasn't expecting the D3200 until the fall, so I bought a D5100 recently.
roombarobot said:
How do the features compare?
What features matter are the ones that matter to YOU.
Written before the launch, I am sure that the D3200 will be an easy to use, guided (although you can just not use the guide mode), basic/simple Nikon dSLR with a high mega pixel count and is small and light.
I assume the sensor is the same one as used in the Sony NEX7 so you can guess at the kind of image quality (or maybe not?)...
Is it the same one used in the Alpha 65 and Alpha 77? I assume it is.
If so, here is the DXOMark comparison:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/735%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/698%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon
I don't know about the 5100, but my D40 officially belongs in the dust bin.
That wireless module has a crazy level of appeal to me.
I'm in the same situation, I got my D5100 about a week ago and I'm loving the swivel screen on this. The only thing that interests me on the D3200 is the WIFI adapter. Not sure if I should return it and get the D3200 instead?
roombarobot said:
So as we all learn more about the D3200, I'd like to start a discussion about that vs. the D5100. How is the new Sony sensor compare to the one in the D7000/D5100? That's my main interest, of courseIt seems that many of the D3200 specs got a bump up from the D3100 and are closer to the D5100, e.g. 11 AF points, 4 fps. How do the features compare?
On a side note, I wasn't expecting the D3200 until the fall, so I bought a D5100 recently.
I'm just buying a D7000 although I know the upgrade is coming soon so I know how you're feeling.
I think that visiting this forum can easily make one feel 'less than' if you aren't keeping up with those with top-end and newest gear BUT - and that is a big BUT - go to the PAD and compare pictures from NSXType-R (who is still using a D40) to the others. I think you will agree that his pics show it isn't all about the gear so don't get buyers remorse, just enjoy what you've got in the knowledge that your next upgrade is further away!
Just look at Nikon's very own kit lens samples with the d3100, they are not exactly sharp..
I just realized that the 24 Mpix sensor that is used in the D3200 is the same as the Sony Alpha 65 and 77, while the 16 Mpix sensor used in the D5100 and D7000 is the same as the Sony Alpha 57. Is that correct?
If so, isn't this odd? That the lowest-end Nikon dSLR would use the same chip as the middle Sonys and the the middle Nikons would use the same chip as the low-end Sony.
Personally, I find it beyond strange that the Nikon's flagship camera (released a month ago) is rapidly becoming their lowest resolution camera. Not that I'd trade one for the D3200, but its a very odd lineup.
Honestly, Nikon could have put a D90 sensor in this thing and I would have bought it for the WiFi module alone (Assuming of course it becomes iOS compatible. Why they started w/ Android is beyond me).
Willis said:
Personally, I find it beyond strange that the Nikon's flagship camera (released a month ago) is rapidly becoming their lowest resolution camera. Not that I'd trade one for the D3200, but its a very odd lineup.Honestly, Nikon could have put a D90 sensor in this thing and I would have bought it for the WiFi module alone (Assuming of course it becomes iOS compatible. Why they started w/ Android is beyond me).
Android is more widely spread, especially outside of the US, but it might be just an app-store admission delay. And to be honest I prefer the d7000 sensor with it's better low light iso and superior dynamic range. D3100 itself has a great sensor btw, it's not why it feels an entry level camera..
Willis said:
Personally, I find it beyond strange that the Nikon's flagship camera (released a month ago) is rapidly becoming their lowest resolution camera.Why they started w/ Android is beyond me).
Don't confuse MP with picture quality. Joe Schmoe does, and high MP counts sell cameras to them, no matter how crappy the images it produces are. That said, the sample shots (at low ISO) are still pretty good - yes, not D800 quality, but then this isn't D800 price either!
Android is the fastest growing phone O/S in the world and last time I looked at the stats (several months ago mind you), will overtake Apple this year. All it probably means is that they got an Android app up on the market/play store a little bit earlier than Apple managed to crank it's process.
@6daniel - sooner than later there's gonna be d5200 on the market with wifi
@roombarobot - as seen many times in the past, it may be the same sensor but certainly it's not the same processing engine, which counts.
So ... obviously hypothetical DX cameras (D400, D7100, D5200) of this generation will have a lot of features to stratify the price points. However, is this the image quality we can expect from those future releases? Will they have similar dynamic range, ISO performance, etc?
I would assume the answer is "yes," as the D5100 and D7000 have identical (or nearly identical) image quality scores, and the previous generation's scores for the D300s, D90 and D5000 on DxOmark were within three points of each other. However, when I look at the D90 in comparison to the D3000, which I think share the same sensor, the DxO scores are six points apart--not a huge difference, but not negligible either.
I'm one of those people who actually needs good high ISO performance, and while the one shot from the D3200 at ISO 1600 posted so far isn't bad, I'd like to hope the higher models can do better. So, what makes the difference in IQ other than sensor technology? Can we expect images from the higher end cameras to be about the same? Slightly better? Significantly better?
adamz said:
@roombarobot - as seen many times in the past, it may be the same sensor but certainly it's not the same processing engine, which counts.
I agree. I was just saying that until we have more tests and data on the D3200 the information about the Sony cameras with this sensor can give us some inklings.
jablkosaid:
So, what makes the difference in IQ other than sensor technology? Can we expect images from the higher end cameras to be about the same? Slightly better? Significantly better?
The image processing chip (Expeed 2 or 3 for Nikon, Digic 3, 4, or 5 for Canon) makes a lot of difference in the image quality. Particularly for JPEG images, as the chip makes a lot of assumptions about how the RAW data from the sensor is processed into JPEGs.
@jablko - get d4 or d3s and You will have a very nice high iso, for 24mpx d3200 iso 1600 looks really, really good - especially comparing to older generation cameras (pre expeed 3) like d90, d300
Ok,
Please post links to any high ISO images from the D3200 sensor you run across. The test images I have seen so far seem spectacular but they are all down at or near base ISO.
Also, if this is now the bottom of DX what will be the top in the new D400? It should be very, very amazing.
I sure hope it is not the same sensor as in the Sony Alpha 65!
@adamz: Unfortunately, the D4 and D3s are outside the price range I can justify for my (or my employer's) return on investment. I have a D800 on pre-order with my local shop for myself, which will have more than adequate low-light performance (especially after downsizing). However, I keep hoping against hope for Nikon to announce a D400 that's an amazing DX sports/event shooter to replace our office D300s in the next academic year.
The D3200 photos look better than the D300s (with four years of tech advances between them, that's not a shocker), but if this is approximately the quality we can expect from the D400, I'm slightly disappointed and need to start managing my expectations. Of course, it's awfully hard to really make a valid judgement based on only one image.
@Donaldjose: The only ISO1600 photo I've seen so far is from NikonFrance on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/7092821121/sizes/o/in/photostream/).
I really wish they'd post a wider range of image samples at launch.
adamz said:
@roombarobot - as seen many times in the past, it may be the same sensor but certainly it's not the same processing engine, which counts.
D3200 uses the Expeed 3 - same as the D4.
Not sure how much of it has been crippled/simplified etc, but as others are saying, way too many of the sample images are done at too low an ISO to be sure about the IQ. We need some more 400 and 800 shots in moderate light - not all but one done in bright sun light.
spraynpray said:
I'm just buying a D7000 although I know the upgrade is coming soon so I know how you're feeling.I think that visiting this forum can easily make one feel 'less than' if you aren't keeping up with those with top-end and newest gear BUT - and that is a big BUT - go to the PAD and compare pictures from NSXType-R (who is still using a D40) to the others. I think you will agree that his pics show it isn't all about the gear so don't get buyers remorse, just enjoy what you've got in the knowledge that your next upgrade is further away!
Thanks for your compliment!
It's funny that you talk about buyer's remorse- when I was buying the D40, the D40x and D60 were both out and I could have gone for a D80. I'm glad I stuck with the D40, within 5 months of buying the D80 the D90 came out. I would have been really disappointed if I knew how much better the D90 is.
I bought the D40 mainly to get the 18-135 because I couldn't spring for the 18-200.
I still wish the D3200 was available body only- I'm sure some people want to upgrade but have the kit lens already.
A 3200 with a 35mm 1.8 would be a killer starter camera.
bjrichus said:
D3200 uses the Expeed 3 - same as the D4.Not sure how much of it has been crippled/simplified etc, but as others are saying, way too many of the sample images are done at too low an ISO to be sure about the IQ. We need some more 400 and 800 shots in moderate light - not all but one done in bright sun light.
In labeling they're the same, but the labeling usually doesn't talk about the speed of the processors right? They may not be the same chips.
I'm surprised that the D7000 is still the only camera with U1 and U2. I would assume the D800 and D4 might add that to a dial or two.
I might pick up a D7000 when the D7000 replacement comes out- I certainly won't need 24+ megapixels.
Just curious- was there a resolution bump on the screen of the D3200?- appears there is.
And there's also that 2nd IR receiver in the back too, quite handy.
That red D3200 body is really tacky though- and what were they thinking with the Wifi? The door is wide open- looks like a nice way to snap it off. Although to be fair, it was either mount it there or mount it on the hot shoe.
Is it just me or do others think the D3200 ISO 1600 image looks worse than my (their) D7000 images at ISO 1600?
donaldejose said:
Is it just me or do others think the D3200 ISO 1600 image looks worse than my (their) D7000 images at ISO 1600?
Its not all *THAT* bad if you only do a 10x8" print with it from the full size image.
[says me spluttering all the way to the fridge for another beer]
Here are a couple of High ISO with candles. 1600 and 3200. Not sure if you could say noise is better or worse, there is more detail and more dynamic range though. Noise you can deal with, lack of color you can't. Candle light is one of the hardest for a sensor to capture.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6818503645_5a39626eb0_b.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2318/5749474308_836a05b8cc_b.jpg
I'm trying to be very careful not to assume what we see out of this camera would be the same as say a D400 with a 24mp sensor. Historically we there has been some IQ difference with the 3200 being the lowest (sometimes not by much.)
jablko said:
I would assume the answer is "yes," as the D5100 and D7000 have identical (or nearly identical) image quality scores, and the previous generation's scores for the D300s, D90 and D5000 on DxOmark were within three points of each other. However, when I look at the D90 in comparison to the D3000, which I think share the same sensor, the DxO scores are six points apart--not a huge difference, but not negligible either.
The d3000 is using the d200 sensor (it's ccd not cmos as in the d90). The d5100 is identical, not just nearly identical, jpg egines may differ. The D90 and D5000 I'm pretty sure share the same sensor, not sure about the d300s.
Gabbb said:
The d3000 is using the d200 sensor (it's ccd not cmos as in the d90). The d5100 is identical, not just nearly identical, jpg egines may differ. The D90 and D5000 I'm pretty sure share the same sensor, not sure about the d300s.
The d300s/d90/d5000 all share the same 12MP sensor , while the D300 uses a slightly older version of that...
What I'd really like to see - is if Nikon could make DX D400 with about the same high iso performance as the D3/D700 and at least 8 fps but I'm not holding my breath.
D800 (high rez) vs D4 (performance), D3200 (high rez) vs D5100 (cough, cough, consumer performance)
The main hiccup with Dx and Iso is just that. It is Dx...
You must log in to post.
