How to make the Nikon D3200 really perform!

Ironheart

Pixel binning would mean that the pixels are being combined electrically as they are being read off the sensor. That is not happening. If it were, Nikon would give you the option of saving a reduced size raw file, which they do not on any model. The reduced size jpeg is not just a simple (bicubic or otherwise) reduction in pixel count. All of the picture controls, such as d-lighting, sharpening, hue, etc... or one of the presets Vivid, Neutral, Standard, etc... are applied to create a very high-quality image. If you set it to Neutral you will get a very flat image that will be close to an unprocessed raw as possible.

Ade

@Iconoscope

1) Your math is way off. Uncompressed RAW data on a D3200 would be 6016*4000*12/8/1000000 = 36 megabytes, not 300 megabytes.

2) Pixel binning of bayer array sensors must be done using specific patterns (e.g., the Kodak PIXELUX pattern) -- which at a minimum results in a 4x reduction in resolution. By this fact alone we can determine that the downsizing to 13.5mp does not utilize pixel binning.

Iconoscope

Right on ADE! Forgot to convert bits to bytes!!

Iconoscope

Ironheart, your reasoning is flawless! I must agree, pixel binning is very unlikely. The only cameras that definitely use binning are for astrophotography, scientific and industrial applications, and those are very specialized cameras.
I do have one petty gripe about the Nikon D3200 that possibly applies to other Nikon cameras as well: The firmware prohibits using after market batteries! Is this an attempt to sell more Nikon branded batteries, kind of like the 'vertical marketing' strategy of printer manufacturer's ink cartridges? In any case, the firmware is easily hacked using "Ntools" to defeat that particular firmware feature, and the hack works very well.

DaveyJ

My initial reaction to the D3200 and my three lens purchase (kit lens 18-55VR, 55-300VR and the 35mm 1.8 is that this camera is a very sharp little camera. It doesn't focus as quickly as the D7100 but the camera I just bought and took quite a few photos with proved that this camera is capable of some amazing shots. I am particularly impressed with the 35mm f1.8 lens yet the 55-300VR produced some very nice action wildlife shots. I did try RAW versus JPEG fine large and concluded that I will leave this subject to someone with different objectives. This camera on JPEG Fine and Large is a very capable camera. I did not conduct any serious video tests with our group of video and DSLR cameras for comparison. So I do not know yet what the camera will produce for us in that department. For the price the camera and lens is a real keeper.

DaveyJ

I also tested the 18-55 against the 60 Micro Nikkor and was pretty impressed at the macro capability of this little camera with the kit lens.

DaveyJ

A topic on this thread I would like to see from others with experience with the D3200 is that I BELIEVE the D3200 has a built in engineering bias towards shallow depth of field. I have seen photos on Nikon Rumors with those disappointed with depth of field on this camera. After substantial use of the camera and lens 18-55, 55-300, and 35mm f 1.8, I have begun to use the camera on A (aperture setting) and although better, it is still shallow in depth of field compared to my D7100 of the same subject, with the same lens, in the same lighting shot only seconds apart. Sometimes the effect is nice, but it does place a premium on focusing control which by the way is WAY worse than on a D7100. All in all, a nice camera. Makes a nice compact travel camera. But the D400 many of us want should have features even an advanced novice would like, and that a pro NEEDS.
Any thoughts on depth of field being designed to be shallow on this camera???

FlowtographyBerlin

A topic on this thread I would like to see from others with experience with the D3200 is that I BELIEVE the D3200 has a built in engineering bias towards shallow depth of field.
Any thoughts on depth of field being designed to be shallow on this camera???

Hm, I always thought depth of field is fixed by aperture vs. image plane size. So unless the 3200 doesn't have a different-size (i.e. larger) sensor, I don't understand how a design towards more DOF would be possible.

Paperman

How would it now what depth of field you wanted ?

DaveyJ

The reason I bought the D3200 is that as I recommended it so highly to my novice friends maybe I should actually buy one as use it as a lightweight travel camera. Then my results began to really get my attention.

I have shot with the D3200 and the D7100 in the same lighting, same lens, etc. The RESULTS are very far from the same. The depth of field is MUCH shallower on the D3200 using program or aperture settings. Sometimes the effect is OK, sometimes it is not. Since I am used to MTF charts and have owned $$$ in lens and large format cameras I have been quite startled. I began with the premise that I just wanted to see what the modest D3200 could do. Basically it is a wonderful camera at a reasonable price. But comparing it in the field to the D7100 I began to get results which were quite puzzling. I have found quite knowledgeable photographers who commented on this BEFORE I ran into it. One of the comments about this was on Nikon Rumors but I can't remember where I ran into it. It was on NR before this thread started. It also was accompanied by photos labelled D3200 shallow depth of field. My approach has been exactly what FlowtophotographyBerlin's comment. The results defy this logic.

I also noticed this comment on another site before I purchased the D3200 and a 3 lens set. I am not unhappy with the camera but it is very different than the D7100. In line with Paperman's comment I now leave the camera on Aperture priority only. As a scientist I am of the belief that the same experiment can produce similar results anywhere on the planet. The whole approach I started with was to have a portable camera where I did not want the bulk of a big rig. I started with doubts about the 18-55VR lens and even the 55-300VR lens and those doubts have been put to rest! I thought I would use the 35mm f1.8 lens more than I have. It is a very lovely lens and very affordable. Every time I put it on I conclude that I wish I had put on the 18-55 lens.

So those are my current thoughts while I impatiently wait for a D400 and see what the price is on that. I'd like to buy both the D400 and the recent 80-400VR.

Ironheart

I have a D3100 and haven't noticed that effect, so it must be particular to the D3200. Since DOF is related to four things, focal length, aperture, distance to subject, and the diameter of the CoC, and the first three you can control, it must be that the CoC is smaller. How is this possible, given that the CoC is calculated based upon the size of the sensor? Well, it is also based upon the size of the sensor blown up to a standard size and viewed from a standard distance. The "viewing" part is subjective. This means that for whatever reason, the perceptual CoC is different on the D3200. I'm guessing a slightly more aggressive AA filter in front of the sensor, ever so slightly blurring the image, thereby reducing the CoC. Or maybe it is magic pixie dust...

Paperman

I can go into lenghty discussions about why there can't be difference between depth of fields of 2 DSLRs but it is best to that Daveyl supports his observation with sample photos.

@Ironheart - any filter they put in to blur the background will blur everyhing - I don't think anyone wants that ( having gone into the trouble of putting a 24Mp sensor :-* ) .

Ironheart

@paperman, you missed my point. I was suggesting that it is blurring everything, but just ever so slightly. Every sensor has an AA filter of some degree including the D800E which means every sensor has some degree of slight blurring going on. The only one that doesn't is the D7100. Which is exactly the comparison that @DaveyJ is making, D7100 to D3200 both 24 MP DX sensors, one with, one without an AA filter in front of the sensor.
The additional sharpness due to the complete lack of AA would tend to make the DOF greater, because it is. The CoC is larger therefore creating the perception of more sharpness across a wider range of focus from the lens.

Paperman

The discussion is then not D3200 being built for shallower depth of field ; it is D7100 giving more depth of field than other APS-C sensor DSLRs.

DaveyJ

Two points both Paperman and Ironheart mention I THINK is exactly what is going on. The D7100 is my favorite Nikon camera to date. I still keep my F5 and some serious Nikon glass. The D3200 I am not knocking as my cost of the camera and three lens setup from B&H was $1,000. It does give me a quick field camera at a modest investment, yet I would rate the D7100 as really my best deal I have made so far. The omission of the AA filter seems to be the new standard for Nikon. The biggest boost I got out of this D3200 kit though was the 18-55 lens and the 55-300VR. I sure had my doubts about both of those.

I WISH I could post photos on NR to illustrate the DoF from both cameras with the same lens in the same lighting but when I get on the Internet it takes a long hike and I cannot download photos as we always have severe bandwidth use problems with my son's Wild Blue dish internet. I have been given many estimates for getting high speed internet back at my place but that is years out. FOr that matter we lived there for the first 22 years with a Honda generator for electric power. When I visit outback camps in Alaska they think they are really roughing it when it is to me about like the first half of our living here in the Adirondacks. But each day part of our crew run a very fashionable restaurant in downtown Lake Placid.

FlowtographyBerlin

@DaveyJ: I don'T wanna do the typical forum thing and (again) smartass about how something that you have noticed/seen is not possible, but it really is not possible. :-) DOF cannot be shallower on a 3200 than a 7100 if they have the same sensor size. Given you have all other parameters fixed (lens, aperture etc.). What can be is that the camera's software is programmed so that it always chooses a lower aperture in some automatic mode, but if you go to Aperture priority and set the aperture, it's physically impossible that that one of the two cameras would have a different DOF.

But maybe it would help to see images to see what you mean.

Ironheart

@FlowtographyBerlin, DOF is not exact. It is subjective, so it is entirely possible that two camera's with the same sensor size would have different DOF.

From http://dofmaster.com/faq.html
"Note that the circle of confusion is subjective. Thus, some people use 0.025 mm as the circle of confusion for 35mm format, while others will use 0.030 mm. There isn't a "correct" value."

When you really dig into what the CoC is, you will see that it is entirely possible that two sensors of the same size could have a different CoC, especially if they were a different MP and/or pixel pitch. The interesting thing here is that they are the same MP (and likely close to the same pitch). Does anyone know if they are the same sensor? Because even the design of the micro-lenses on the sensor could affect the perceived DOF.

It is also possible that @DaveyJ's D3200 (and others) slightly front focuses, and since there is no fine tune on a D3200 you get what you get. A slight front focus would appear as a shallower DOF especially on the 18-55 which has a maximum aperture of f/3.5. In any event it would be great to see some photos to really dig into this some more...

Paperman

you will see that it is entirely possible that two sensors of the same size could have a different CoC, especially if they were a different MP and/or pixel pitch

I would rephrase that as "two sensors of the same size could have different Coc ( ONLY ) if they were a different MP / had different pixel pitch."

As you stated, Circle of Confusion is not something built in - it is just an assumption of how well we can see. . "Assuming" different CoCs for same pitch sensors will have no effect on what you actually see.

spraynpray

Surely if the pixel count is higher, the resolution is better so the DoF is apparently better? :-B

Note the use of the word apparently because none of us is measuring, only looking.

Msmoto

Please...continue this in a new thread on "Factors Affecting Depth of Field".

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1446/factors-affecting-depth-of-field

thomg

Hi,
i wrote some review of the Nikon D3200 in my blog : http://www.d3200-nikon.com/tutorials/nikond3200review/
i'll be happy to have ur opinion..
Thom.

DaveyJ

I based my D3200 and 3 lens outfit on various reviews including the one thomg lists above. I have not been disappointed! For the cost it is a great camera. I did carefully consider a Nikon 1 V1 and two lens kit but could not adjust to the mirrorless design which did not work for me.

MuratK

Hello everyone. I want to share my opinions and experiments about D3200. I bought one 6 months ago as my first DSLR, but not first SLR. I am an amateur about DSLR's. The cam came to me with 18-55 kit lens. My first experiments with this lens are, while shooting everything is fine, but at the pc side you are not satisfied with the output, because images are not sharp enough.
I find an interesting information and solution about this issue. Firstly, D3200 is a very high perform cam and have a very high quality sensor. This means you can shoot better than all old model of Nikon crops and a lot of Canon cams (even some full frames). So why we can not shoot perfect qualified photos?
The solution: I observed that lens quality is very important for this kind of high quality lenses. If you use a kit lens or same luminous transmittance lenses may be good for old cams but is not for 24 Mpx sensor cams. The sensor needs more light and more details from lens input than it produce a high qualified images.
Yes, now I am satisfied with my cam, because I upgrade my kit lens with Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX DC OSM etc... a used one with half-price. The lens has a 77mm filter diameter and can be all time f2.8 aperture. And Sigma's price is very lower than a Nikon 17-55 f2.8.
Now, I am very happy with my cam-lens combination. I think that I doubled image output quality with this lens. I shoot RAW every time and I don't believe that jpg is better than RAW, as you know, RAW has better ability for photoshop editing.
In my opinion, Nikon's a lot of lenses have now very low perform with Nikon's high megapixel sensor. Nikon must upgrade a lot of lenses for new cams. I love Nikon cams, they are very good, but lenses are expensive and low light quality.
At the other hand, I don't understand that this cam is low quality DSLR. If you prefer to shoot high quality, this cam is better than a D300s and only (belong crop cams) slightly lower than a D7100 ( thanks to no low pass filter in D7100). But I know that main difference is body with these cams. They are heavy and more safe, but if you can keep the cam safe, and understand the d3200, you can shoot very good images. For example; Nikon's have tendency to over exposure, so if you put your cam -0,3-0,7 ev, everything will be perfect.
I want to say something for ISO performance. D3200 is not good over 800 ISO. Don't believe the test results. Better is 400 ISO below, low light is not good for this cam. But with a f2.8 lens you can shoot on hand in urban at night.
I hope my opinions will be helpfull for some one about D3200.

shawnino

Welcome to the forum MuratK!

Your claim that a fast, fixed aperture zoom outperforms the kit lens won't be news to many people here, but I think you do make a point that isn't heard enough: the budget DSLRs (3200, 5200, 7000) can, with proper skill and a good lens, take very, very good images at low to moderate ISO. @msmoto has posted some ridiculously clean, striking images from her D4 at ISO 10,000+ but so many images can be taken by a good photographer at ISO 800 and below that the D3200 is simply a great body for people who take the time to understand it. If you "stuck" a skilled D4 user with a D3200, they'd still get a large majority of their everyday shots. They would be less likely to get the formula 1 cars and the dead of night exactly as they need it, but they'd get an awful lot.

MuratK

Hello shawnino. Thanks for your information. D4 is an exellent cam, I don't think to compare a D3200 with D4.
Your opinion is important for me. Could you consider my claim that high resolution sensors need more light then low resolution sensors, so a lens (f3.5-5.6) should be good perform with D90, D3000, D3100, D5000, D7000 etc, but if you have a high resolution cam like d3200, d5200, d7100 you have to improve the lens with high luminisance (f2.8, f1,8). The lens upgrade affects the photos resolution and sharpeness.