Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[]
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).

Apart from file size, I don't think that oversampling the image has much
of a disadvantage, though, given that the net fill of the 24 Mp pixels is
the same as that of the 6 Mp array, i.e. the same number of photons is
captured. Likely the more recent sensor will be more sensitive through
process improvements.

I'm looking forward to the D5200!

David

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012052122003775249-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?

No. I am not suggesting that, nor did I actually suggest that shot from
2004 was something to be aspired to today.

Good, I thought for a moment you were. I'm willing to bet your photography
improved when you got better equipment too, and saw that it could indeed be
better than what you had been doing back then.


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.

On that I disagree, but it all hinges on what you term a "hobbyist
photographer" and what *they* (not just you) expected to achieve.
(I was still using mainly film when 6MB and limited DNR was the best digital
had to offer, but not any more!)

It is certainly not what I am using today.

Exactly, yet some seem to be arguing that is all we need still. May be all
*they* need of course.

Trevor.

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
Apart from file size, I don't think that oversampling the image has much
of a disadvantage,

Not many others, maximum frame rate for some cameras. More memory required
in your computer for editing.
All things that aren't much of a problem these days and becoming less so
every day.


though, given that the net fill of the 24 Mp pixels is the same as that of
the 6 Mp array, i.e. the same number of photons is captured.

Yep, you can reduce noise when you scale down that 24Mp image, and probably
better in post than in camera.


Likely the more recent sensor will be more sensitive through process
improvements.

MORE than likely!

Trevor.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"David J Taylor" wrote in
message ...
Apart from file size, I don't think that oversampling the image has
much of a disadvantage,

Not many others, maximum frame rate for some cameras. More memory
required in your computer for editing.
All things that aren't much of a problem these days and becoming less so
every day.

Maximum frame rate doesn't concern me, although it may affect others. As
I regularly deal with 100 Mp images (from another source), the greater
memory requirements don't worry me.

though, given that the net fill of the 24 Mp pixels is the same as that
of the 6 Mp array, i.e. the same number of photons is captured.

Yep, you can reduce noise when you scale down that 24Mp image, and
probably better in post than in camera.

Yes, experience in other fields suggests that capturing at a greater
sampling rate, even if it's at a slightly reduced accuracy (here, due to
smaller wells on the denser sensor), can produce better results when
resampled down to final resolution. It's also possible that JPEG errors
would be less visible when using a 24 Mp image than a 6 Mp one, when the
image is resampled to its final display resolution.

Likely the more recent sensor will be more sensitive through process
improvements.

MORE than likely!

Trevor.

Indeed. Looking at the high-ISO images from the Nikon 5100 compared to my
present 5000 showed some improvement, but it wasn't very obvious, and not
enough to convince me to upgrade. I'm hoping that the D5200 will be
noticeably better than the D5000.

I'd better compare the D3200 with the D3000 at high ISO on DPReview ....
Wow, the improvement is stunning!

Cheers,
David

On 5/21/2012 11:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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!


Nuttin wrong with the D70. My younger daughter uses one with the kit
lens. Her prints sell for $50 and up.

--
Peter

Alan Browne writes:

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.

I've got a 24x36 (paper size; image size somewhat smaller, maybe 20x30)
print from a 6MP digital original on my wall. It looks far better than
any film shot I've ever printed near that big.

I can see how more resolution in the original would improve the print
slightly, at least when examined closely, so I can't say (with a
straight face) that I couldn't possibly need more megapixels; but big
art prints are a total side issue for me, my equipment was chosen for
fast action and low light. The fact that equipment optimized for that
also does so well on big prints is a general commentary on just how good
the top DSLRs are these days.

I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
set of priorities than me.

It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.
Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
level, but that's not looking likely just yet.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Alan Browne writes:

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).

I rarely to never think about print size when shooting. Print size
tends to be a technical constraint rather than an artistic decision for
me.

(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).

I've got a 24x36 (that's paper size, borders about 2") on my wall from a
6MP original. And several 8.5x11 from 2mp. But at least for the big
one, I can see that it's "imperfect"; it would be better with more
resolution (you have to get really close to see that, though). And
about every print from film I've ever seen is *also* imperfect; these
are better than film prints in general.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-05-22 00:09 , Trevor wrote:
"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.

I've had a FF 24 Mpix camera for over 3 years.

And no pressing need for the D800 or its resolution.


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

On 2012-05-22 00:15 , Trevor wrote:
"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?

You're belligerently missing the point which is that for most purposes
that most people have, 36 or even 24 Mpix is far from a necessity.

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

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
Nuttin wrong with the D70. My younger daughter uses one with the kit lens.
Her prints sell for $50 and up.

Our art gallery has a collection of polaroids they paid big money for too,
does that prove we should all be using polaroid camera's?
I don't think so!

Trevor.