Hi
Just curious.

From all you old Nikonians - what do you think?

I mean Cost and what you get for it = resulting picture quality

Thanks experts

Happy Imaging!
M

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Going from the specs at Nikon's website, comparing them...

• The D3200 appears to not have the autofocus motor connector: AF lenses that don't have a motor inside them become manual focus
  
• The RAW is less: 12-bit compressed only. D7000 can do 12 or 14 bit in compressed or lossless.
  
• The AF system has many less points: 11 to D7000's 39
  
• Half the battery life of the D7000 (540 on the D3200, to the D7000's 1050).
  
• Sensor: it may be more powerful, but as it it is 0.4x0.2mm smaller, the pixels are packed much more closer together. Haven't seen if that means it is much more noisier.
  
• Continuous: 6fps on the D7000, only 4 fps on the D3200
  
• D3200 has more video modes, including HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 & 25 fps (D7000 can only do 24 fps at that resolution)
  
• The D3200 is 2/3 the weight of the D7000, and is a little smaller.
  
• The D7000 has 2 card slots, while the D3200 only has the 1
  
• Faster shutter speed of 1/8000 on the D7000
  
• D7000 has many more scene modes.
  
• Not sure, but as there is no details about bracketing on the D3200 (exposure, flash, and white balance), thinking it doesn't support it.
  
• Don't think it has CLS commander built in on the D3200
  
• More White Balance options on the D7000
  

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

• The RAW is less: 12-bit compressed only. D7000 can do 12 or 14 bit in compressed or lossless.
  

My website | My Nikonians gallery

Other things D7K has going for it:

- Magnesium subframe & weather sealing
- more & better external controls & displays i.e. top LCD, sub-command dial, user banks
- DOF preview

OTOH the D3200 looks to be an amazing camera and I'm sure will produce some great images (and movies) in the right hands, and we won't know anything about IQ until the camera is out there.

Ironically the old story in choosing Nikon was that the equiv. Canon usually had more pixels, but taking a closer look you'd find that never told the whole story when it came to IQ. Now Nikon is spanking everyone in the megapixel wars and we tell ourselves the same thing looking upwards through the DX lineup.

It is a strange thing Nikon has now done in that the DX lineup is inverted - the more expensive you go, the older, lower res sensor you get. Not that the D300s is in any way a slouch. Just about five years ago you couldn't touch that performance level at any price, and the D2x was close and mind-blowing good at $5K. It's an amazing time to be a photographer, although I really thought D400 would have been next.


Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Reading a review of the D800 they were seeing how much they could cram into a sensor, and still have a great shot (low noise, etc). I'm thinking they are porting everything else up with that development -- I'm wondering what the D5 will be in a few years... Starting to save my change for something about that time frame!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Reading a review of the D800 they were seeing how much they
>could cram into a sensor, and still have a great shot (low
>noise, etc). I'm thinking they are porting everything else up
>with that development

Past it actually - The D800 seems revolutionary but really it has the same size pixels (and according to DxO, very similar pixel-level performance) as the D7000 which has been out for a couple years. The really revolutionary thing about D800 was the price.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

I have a couple of friends who bought the 5000 because it was "less expensive to start out with".

Both have since decided they need to move up -- They like my D90 -- I have suggested they go for the 7000.

So I see the 3200 as similar -- its a starter, gets you hooked, rather than being a great go-to SLR for an amateur. So I don't think I would really compare it to the 7000 per-se.

Having a camera that looks REALLY affordable before you are hooked is great. It was the 5000's price that got my wife to say "ok" to buying me one for Christmas -- I upped it to the D90 which darn near bought me a divorce, but without the price on the 5000 I would not have gotten started at all So I think the 3200 will fill that roll in today's arena.

----
Dennis Smith.

So you're saying that the D3200 is an effective "gateway drug?"

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Hi M:

Most of the pros and cons have been addressed by the previous posters, except two. The one thing that the D3200 has going for itself is the image processor Expeed 3. The other cameras that come with it, so far, are the D800 and D4. IMHO, Expeed 3 is probably one major difference between the D700 and D800. However, my D7000 has an excellent viewfinder, just as good as my D700. This is major, imho. I have not seen the D3200, but a friend of mine has the D3100 and the viewfinder is not comparable to the D7000’s. I’ll tell you a story.

About two years ago, I got the D5000 for street shooting and I was very happy with it. I took it out with the 16-85 VR to Venice Beach under a bright sun light. I could not see the numbers in either the viewfinder or the LCD screen. This will never be the case with the D7000. Therefore, I put the camera on P* mode and came back with a failed shoot. That shoot spelled the end to my D5000. Eventually, I sold it:

http://www.hektorsphotos.com/Travel-Photography/Venice-Beach-1/9922879_RCnps7

The photos are OK, but no DOF or subject isolation even after applying Alien Skin Bokeh to some of the photos.

Best regards,

Hektor

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos

How many lenses do you need? - Just one more!