If you think that your D3200 is less than a state of the art camera, think again. Since I have been debating whether or not to bring my D3s with me on an upcoming trip as opposed to taking just my D3200, I took them both to a car show today and took the same shots with both. I'm hard pressed to see much of a difference. Here they are.

All of the EXIF data should be there.

All of the photos taken with the D3S were taken with the Nikkor 14-24 and all of the photos taken with the D3200 were taken with the Nikkor 10-24.


D3S at 1/400 f/4.5 ISO 200


D3200 at 1/160 f/4/5 ISO 100


D3s at 1/320 f/5.6 ISO 200


D3200 at 1/200 f/5.6 ISO 100


D3200 at 1/125 f/5.6 ISO 200


D3s at 1/160 f/5.6 ISO 360


D3200 at 1/125 f/5.6 ISO 200


You can't tell alot from these, so I am going to do some huge crops from these files to see if we can tell the difference.

jP

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)
Attachment #5, (jpg file)
Attachment #6, (jpg file)
Attachment #7, (jpg file)
Attachment #8, (jpg file)

Here are some crops:

D3S


D3200



D3S



D3200

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)

Hi there, first of all nice shots.

i have a D3200 which is my only camera, i really do not need anything else, but i think that although the D3200 produces a very good image you can see quite clearly certain differences.


if you look away from the cars you will see in the first photo the trees & the woman in red under the canopy is far sharper with the D3, also the note on the car windscreen & the red bar below the windscreen as well as the grill are sharper on the D3.

again in the 2nd photo the grill is sharper & the people under the canopy are also clearer as are the trees.

i personally think that if you did not have the comparison images the D3200 would stand up really well, but not quite as good as the D3.

i note that the settings on the images are different, could this have anything to do with the difference between the shots?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Nice captures all the way around!

On my screen the D3 images are clearly crisper and seem to have a bit more "life" to them (contrast or vibrancy maybe?) -- but would this be more (or at least as much) a factor of differences between the lenses?

Regards,
Glenn

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

http://shadowriderimages.com

Jeremy and Glenn

Thanks for your comments, and of course you are both correct about a few things. The 14-24 is a 2.8 lens stopped down to f/4.5 and 5.6 in a couple of the shots. It is also one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. The 10-24 is a 3.5 to 4.5 aperture lens so it is pretty much so wide open in a number of the shots. When I pixel peep the NEFs, they both look pretty good at the focus point which is difficult to see in the tiny jpegs that I posted. So, you are both correct, this is not an Apples to Apples comparison.

Here are two more crops that verify at least part of what Jeremy has said:

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)