I got my hands on a d3200 during a trip to Indianapolis and took it out for a test. Its really an impressive camera once you ignore what its lacking functionally. Straight out of camera... resized only for upload. No post
Nice exposure. Do you have the settings for this shot, especially the ISO? It seems that the initial reviews on the D3200 uniformly suggested that the Expeed III processor results in superb high ISO results, but some recent comments in this forum have suggested otherwise.
Sun 13-May-12 12:36 AM | edited Sun 13-May-12 12:39 AM by mfaccone
This shot just happens to be at 100 ISO, and I think 30 sec exposure at f11.. I dont use a high ISO for much except low light action shots. I have taken some at 1600 and thought it was ok. 3200... I question a little. Its a little better than my d300s and not quite as good as a d700. Not sure how it compares to a d7000 in ISO. Although it seems to knock the pants off the d7000 as far as sharpness goes.
True in the math world, but it has a different usage in the photo world. It is a crop that displays one photo pixel in each pixel on the computer monitor.
How is the Picture cropped 100%. > >a 100% crop would mean nothing is left. > >If you cropped so that only 1/2 the width and length is left >That would be a 50% Crop. For example you have a 8 by 10 >Picture and you reduce to 4 by 5 that's 50%. >
Wed 16-May-12 12:09 AM | edited Wed 16-May-12 12:12 AM by mfaccone
Well... It's considered a 100% crop for pixel peepers. I was basically showing what this camera is capable of. It was for people who was interested in buying one. I just happened to take a couple shots with this on my vacation and was so impressed that I purchased it... Despite the fact that it doesn't bracket. ( although you can manual bracket if necessary ) I was also using the kit 18-55 vr lens.
I won't belabor the point. I'll open with Capture NX2 and see it for myself. I've been in Electronics from time I was 20 years old. and The concept of 100% Crop is hard to get your head around. Everything I've been taught and use on computer if you remove 100%, that's it there is nothing is left.
I went on vacation and left my D300s camera at home... went to Roberts Camera in Indianapolis to see if I could rent this one. I was impressed and bought it. I may sell my new d300s... its that impressive. These shots are the reason why. 100% or not, this posting was to only show what I thought the camera was capable of.
>Anyway... that wasn't the point of my post. > >I went on vacation and left my D300s camera at home... went to >Roberts Camera in Indianapolis to see if I could rent this >one. I was impressed and bought it. I may sell my new >d300s... its that impressive. These shots are the reason why. >100% or not, this posting was to only show what I thought the >camera was capable of. >
I bought my first DSLR, the D50, from Roberts online back in 2007.
>If you cropped so that only 1/2 the width and length is left >That would be a 50% Crop. For example you have a 8 by 10 >Picture and you reduce to 4 by 5 that's 50%.
Perhaps I’m being a bit pedantic, but it depends upon which metric you are describing. Halving the length and width would be a 50% reduction in the linear measurements, but it would be a 75% reduction, or leaving you with only 25% of the original pixel resolution.
I don’t particularly agree with the use of the term, but the term “100% crop” as used in this context is grammatically incomplete as far as I’m concerned when explaining what is meant. To me the full phrase would be “I’m presenting a sample which is a cropped portion of the whole capture that represents what’s viewable on screen in an editor at 100% view”. Basically, if you are cropping without the need for interpolation when prepping a sample for posting, it is expressed by many as being a 100% crop. Like it or not, that’s the usage. Personally I think “actual pixels” or “100% view” would be a better phrase, but I doubt everyone will agree with me.
If you wanted to express Mark’s sample as representing the percentage of the area cropped from the total capture, it only represents about 2.7% of the total pixel resolution; or cropping away about 97.3% (at least I think I worked that out correctly!!). If that’s the case and it is a 100% crop, then he did a really fantastic job and used great technique for that capture. None the less, the D3200 seems to be a dramatic step forward in digital imaging technology.
Exactly.. The crop was slightly less than 100% view on screen. A lot of data was taken away to show the resolution of this camera and how sharp it can be even looking at it at 100%. I've reloaded an actual crop of 100% view. The first shot of the war memorial was out of camera... no post. The second cropped shot and this crop was out of camera no post. It was also shot handheld.
well... due to the resolution of this camera... to even see pixelation you have to really zoom in. The image you see here is at 100% I had to zoom in to about 300% to see any definitive pixelation. Far more than anyone would want to crop an image for printing
There is another way to reduce File size. For example I have my D3000 jpg set so it puts out 300dpi. You can in Capture2, Photoshop, and GraphicConverter you can reduce the File size by reducing resolution from 300dpi to 72dpi. This not only reduces the resolution it also reduces the physical size.
Sat 19-May-12 05:28 PM | edited Sat 19-May-12 05:43 PM by mfaccone
This is a crop though... Meaning I'm throwing away data to either get the composition I want, or in this instance show a 100% view that was a tiny portion of the full picture. If I were just resizing, you would see the full picture out of camera at a size that I could upload to this site without loosing much data... As the first picture was done. Both pictures were raw files processed into jpg with either the size reduction required for this site or cropped so no size reduction was needed. The reason I cropped so much of the second one was to show the quality of the sensor in the d3200 and just how much data you can remove and still have a quality print. I did print this shot out on 11x17 paper and it looks just as sharp as it does here. Just guessing here, but this shot probably has 10-12 mp or less data left from a 24 mp camera
Really, the only feature things missing is bracketing. There are others but bracketing is at the top of the list. I don't use bracketing so not a big deal for me. The only other thing missing is the viewfinder at 100% and the lack of focus points... But that also is an easy workaround. If they use this sensor in a d300s replacement... It would be an awesome camera
I'm incredibly impressed with these shots, but like others, I'm planning on buying a lighter camera than my D300 but still need bracketing (reducing weight for hiking but still need to bracket for some landscape/HDR shots).
So, I'm probably going to have to go with a D5100. Still, I'm wondering if there is any possibility Nikon might add bracketing to the D3200 via firmware update down the road?
I too was disappointed to see that the D3200 does not include Bracketing. My daughter is ready to go from P&S to dSLR and that feature for a novice would have to be seen as virtually indispensable for getting better shots while moving along the learning curve for using lighting effectively.
It is clearly a really nice entry level camera, but Nikon decided to keep Bracketing out, probably for the sole reason of maintaining that function as a demarcation between the D3000 series and the D5000 (and higher) series. It would have added virtually nothing to their cost of producing the camera so the only other explanation for its not being included would have to be - "we forgot".
So, unfortunately, I doubt that they will add it in later. Hope I'm wrong.