Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced

In article bf6b8918-7626-44c5-8688-33cc34f19f4e@
21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Go to this page, check the noise at 100 (you'll
see it in the Sony A77 images) and then dial it up to 3200 and look at
how it compares to the default cameras in the group.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/14

There is no visible noise at ISO 100 for the A77 on that page and if you
look at the noise graphs, the A77 is as noisy as the other cameras of
the group.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Bruce" wrote in message
news
"David J Taylor" wrote:
At high ISOs. Why is everyone so obsessed with high ISO noise?

I was under the impression that sensor noise and image quality were a
trade off. If you made a sensor to get the best possible low ISO
quality it would be noisy at high ISOs. And if you made a sensor to
give the least noisy high ISOs low ISO image quality would suffer.

What's the low ISO image quality of this noisy sensor like?

--
Chris Malcolm

For me, having the ability to work at higher ISO and get good images is
now more important than ever.


Then it's about time you bought a better camera.

Oh, I know I could get a full-frame DSLR, but that would conflict with my
camera and lens size and weight requirements. Should the next version of
my existing camera have significantly better high-ISO performance, I would
consider buying it.

David

On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
resolve more than that anyway."

They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.

Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has gone
mute on that issue.

Amusing, really.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
resolve more than that anyway."

They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.

Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has gone
mute on that issue.

Amusing, really.

I am likely to buy one the the new Nikon entry-level cameras, but the 5200
rather than the 3200. I certainly don't see the need to 24 Mp (with the
displays and output formats I use), and it's not impossible that I'll
choose a lower resolution for some of my shots. On the other hand, I have
always felt that oversampling at the image plane was a good way to go to
reduce artefacts (it's a technique used in audio), so if the file size
isn't too great, likely I'll just leave it at 24 Mp. As far as I can
recall, I never criticised the 24 Mp of the Sony DSLR.

David

On 5/21/2012 11:15 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
resolve more than that anyway."

They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.

Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has gone
mute on that issue.

Amusing, really.



I suppose some people may see the issue as more like if 12 Mpix's and 24
Mpix's are progressively good, 36 Mpix's must be a hell-of-a-lot better.
Since I have no specific interest in just the 36 Mpix's, I'll not debate
the pro's and con's of the matter. As far as I'm concerned, for my type
of photographic interests, I'm very satisfied using my D700 and D300 as
a two camera set-up and see no reason to change. However, being very
satisfied doesn't sell more cameras.

On 2012-05-21 15:12 , David J Taylor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
resolve more than that anyway."

They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.

Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has
gone mute on that issue.

Amusing, really.

I am likely to buy one the the new Nikon entry-level cameras, but the
5200 rather than the 3200. I certainly don't see the need to 24 Mp
(with the displays and output formats I use), and it's not impossible
that I'll choose a lower resolution for some of my shots. On the other
hand, I have always felt that oversampling at the image plane was a good
way to go to reduce artefacts (it's a technique used in audio), so if

To me it's just a way to ensure recording the artifact in greater
spatial and dynamic detail.

the file size isn't too great, likely I'll just leave it at 24 Mp. As
far as I can recall, I never criticised the 24 Mp of the Sony DSLR.

In the end, shooting much over desired display or print resolution
doesn't give much to anyone. If one prints at 12x10 inches, then 12
Mpix is more than enough. (Cue the "but I want to crop a lot" crowd).
Even there, 12 Mpix is usually more than ample (Cue the calculated
example weenies).

(Note even with my old 6 Mpix camera I made some decent prints (post
crop) at 15x10" with careful up-sampling and selection of print resolution).

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-05-21 17:42:50 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-05-21 15:12 , David J Taylor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
resolve more than that anyway."

They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.

Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has
gone mute on that issue.

Amusing, really.

I am likely to buy one the the new Nikon entry-level cameras, but the
5200 rather than the 3200. I certainly don't see the need to 24 Mp
(with the displays and output formats I use), and it's not impossible
that I'll choose a lower resolution for some of my shots. On the other
hand, I have always felt that oversampling at the image plane was a good
way to go to reduce artefacts (it's a technique used in audio), so if

To me it's just a way to ensure recording the artifact in greater
spatial and dynamic detail.

the file size isn't too great, likely I'll just leave it at 24 Mp. As
far as I can recall, I never criticised the 24 Mp of the Sony DSLR.

In the end, shooting much over desired display or print resolution
doesn't give much to anyone. If one prints at 12x10 inches, then 12
Mpix is more than enough. (Cue the "but I want to crop a lot" crowd).
Even there, 12 Mpix is usually more than ample (Cue the calculated
example weenies).

(Note even with my old 6 Mpix camera I made some decent prints (post
crop) at 15x10" with careful up-sampling and selection of print
resolution).

Agreed.
That old warhorse, I bought in 2004 D70, gave me a 6MP camera which
produced decent prints at 15x10 and some quite acceptable 19x13 prints.
I took this shot of the Bixby Creek Bridge at Big Sur in 2004 with my
then new D70, when I had less of a clue of what I was doing with
digital photography than I think I might have learned since. It works
very well at 15x10 particularly as a B&W conversion;
http://db.tt/W03PJTge
....and the B&W
http://db.tt/hAnrjnqg

It is still my "lifeboat" camera if I ever have problems with the
D300s, since I haven't made that D70 IR conversion.
....yet!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
(Note even with my old 6 Mpix camera I made some decent prints (post crop)
at 15x10" with careful up-sampling and selection of print resolution).

As long as you were happy then, but I'm *very* glad I have moved well beyond
that, as are many others.
Fortunately nobody is forcing you to buy a D800 though.

Trevor.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012052120420716807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
That old warhorse, I bought in 2004 D70, gave me a 6MP camera which
produced decent prints at 15x10 and some quite acceptable 19x13 prints.
I took this shot of the Bixby Creek Bridge at Big Sur in 2004 with my then
new D70, when I had less of a clue of what I was doing with digital
photography than I think I might have learned since. It works very well at
15x10 particularly as a B&W conversion;
http://db.tt/W03PJTge

Are you seriously using *that* as an example of what people should aspire
to?

Trevor.

On 2012-05-21 21:15:30 -0700, "Trevor" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012052120420716807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
That old warhorse, I bought in 2004 D70, gave me a 6MP camera which
produced decent prints at 15x10 and some quite acceptable 19x13 prints.
I took this shot of the Bixby Creek Bridge at Big Sur in 2004 with my then
new D70, when I had less of a clue of what I was doing with digital
photography than I think I might have learned since. It works very well at
15x10 particularly as a B&W conversion;
http://db.tt/W03PJTge

Are you seriously using *that* as an example of what people should aspire
to?

Trevor.

No. I am not suggesting that, nor did I actually suggest that shot from
2004 was something to be aspired to today. Back then I was just
starting my climb up the learning curve of DSLR photography. I am
merely saying a 6MPix D70 gave adequate results for a hobbyist
photographer back in 2004.
It is certainly not what I am using today.


--
Regards,

Savageduck