How to make the Nikon D3200 really perform!

spraynpray

No, your opinion is wrong MuratK. For a D90 the need for a fast lens is greater than for the D3200 as the hi ISO noise is worse from the D90 so the fast glass keeps the ISO low. If you wonder about the higher Mp out-resolving the glass, there is a thread here about the 36Mp D800 and the best glass for that body that will help if you do a search.

shawnino

@s-n-p +1.

@MuratK: It's my understanding that, til now, pro glass continues to more than hold its own on 24 MP sensors.

MuratK

Hi everyone. Thanks for your interest about my post.
This is my conclusion at the end of long searches. And I search for D800, you are right the same problem about d3200. So dxomark indicates big pro lenses for d800, could same think be for d3200?
As you know, high MP bodies are also express bad high ISO performance, like big difference between D3x and D4 about ISO range. So if we compare D90 and D3200, D90 sould have a better ISO performance, that is OK,
I said this at my first post that D3200 is good at low iso range. I like D90, it is a cult but only 12mp. So I want to say, you can also improve a d90 or a d3200 with a pro glass, everything goes perfect so at the end you would have a 12mp or a 24 mp photo.
My claim is, if you use a basic lens with d3200 you will be disappointed, but if you have a low mp body, you should be satisfied with basic lenses.
So one of solution for improving the D3200 body is high light transmisible lenses. I did that and I am now very happy with my cam. Before I am planning to improve my body to d7100, but now I think it is not necessary, and now I am planning to spend my budget for good lenses not for body.

Paperman

My claim is, if you use a basic lens with d3200 you will be disappointed

I've always said it and always will ... Against popular belief, Pro lenses make minor performance differences on DX bodies. It was the same at 8Mp or 12Mp 5yrs ago , it is still the same at 24Mp today. I won't say it is a waste of money as a pro lens will always keep its value ( and can be used in future FF bodies ) but the belief that kit lenses won't provide the details/resolution a 24Mp sensor requires is wrong.



Those not taking DxO figures seriously may check other test sites.

spraynpray

@MuratK said: As you know, high MP bodies are also express bad high ISO performance, like big difference between D3x and D4 about ISO range. So if we compare D90 and D3200, D90 sould have a better ISO performance, that is OK,

Again wrong. Your conclusion about D3X and D4 are flawed. I have the D7000 (16Mp) which is newer than the old D90 but the newer D7100 (24Mp) slaughters it on low light hi ISO results. Not just a little, but a shade over two stops! The age of the sensor has more to do with it's low light performance than the amount of Mp. Now if you compared a 12Mp and a 24Mp of the same development era, then yes, you may have a point, but the Mp race means there are no 12Mp sensors around today.


YMMV.

MuratK

Please check ones again all the Nikon body portfolio. Low MP means fast body (shutter time/sec.) and high ISO performance. High MP means slow machine, satisfied ISO performance (not good), but high resolution output at the end of the day.
D7000 and D7100 are both great cams, I don't have one of them, may be I would be wrong, but on the Nikon specifications site, both bodies have same ISO sensitivity. On the paper there is no any difference seen.

Regarding the lens for D3200 I mean that comparison. Please be care the sharpness and transmission areas.
There is big differences on the same body. D5200 and D3200 are equipped same kind of sensor.

shawnino

@MuratK: I think the point we're trying to make is that as each generation of sensor comes along, the quality of the ISO performance improves.

Put another way, just because a camera says it goes up to ISO 12,800 (or some such) doesn't mean the performance at the top-end will be to your liking. My D90 goes up to 3200 with "Hi" boost settings above that. If we pretended for a minute that D7100 topped out at 3200, and fixed both cameras at 3200 for testing, the D7100 would show much better noise levels, even with more pixels on the sensor.

Going further, and guessing, I would think that any low-light advantage the D4 has over the D800 will disappear when compared to D810 or D820. (Sure the D5 might be better again!) The problem is, if we keep waiting for the Next Body, we never get to capture any images.

One point where I think we agree is that it's wiser to invest in lenses than it is in bodies. I'm already 40, but I expect many of my lenses to last a lifetime.

Paperman

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is a DX lens in the $500 range. Enhances the point that one does not need expensive glass to get good results on DX.

spraynpray

@MuratK: You are quoting paper specs after having not understood fully either what they mean or what the reality is, therefore the best advice I can give you is: Shoot a lot, read a little and shoot a lot more then come back for a discussion. The figures you are reading and quoting on don't mean what you think and even then, the reality is somewhat different. If you are coming looking for advice, then you shouldn't have such firm opinions formed on such shaky foundations. If you want to open a discussion on the opinions you have written above, then you are just flat-out wrong. No offense intended. If I have missed the point of your post, feel free to re-phrase and reply if you wish.

MuratK

Dear All,
Thank you very much for your opinions and helpful comments. As you know, I am new in this forum, and I am glad to join forum.nikonrumors.
As you see, I have a lot of questions about photography and now I think that I solve some of them with your helpful comments.
@Spraynpray: You are right and thanks for advice. Next, I will share my shooting experience for discuss.

DaveyJ

I myself went out and bought a D3200 and three lens. The lens were the 18-55DX VR Nikkor (kit lens) the humble 55-300VR and the 35mm 1.8 Nikkor. I have also tried a number of other lenses on the camera such as 70-300VR Nikkor and about 20 non Nikon lens. I was very impressed with the 18-55VR which I had a GREAT prejudice against it. One lens i used a lot was the 16-85 Nikkor. In summary I think this camera is fantastic for the price. I also use it as my PRIMARY camera now. My D7100s and D7000 are being used by my family as their primary cameras.

I do think really great lens are a good way of getting the best results but I use the 18-55 VR Nikkor as the lens on this camera most of the time now. I have an advantage that if it gets scrapped out I have not lost a lot.

This November I had to run at the fastest I could for three miles with that camera in a suit and cowboy boots.......something I could not have done with a D4 and a big lens. When I arrived quite out of breathe as my distance running championship days are many years ago.....I took a batch of photos and video. There were PROS taking pictures too with bigger cameras. The lighting was perfect. My photos compared very well with the pro work. I also shot some video of the event and the image and sound was exceptional for this modest camera. Add EXPEED 4 processor on a D3300 and it will be amazing for I hope a modest price tag.

DaveyJ

I better add too that I think in low light the D7100 is superior to the D3200. Using a tripod with the D3200 in low light seems more required than a D7100 but as my experiences there were not carefully planned comparisons I am still just leaning towards the more expensive cameras must have some advantages.

By the way......@ MuratK: I bought the humble D3200 and the 18-55VR Nikkor as much on a few posts by Spraynpray! I thought HIS CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT AND TESTED comments on the 18-55VR Nikkor seemed very interesting and it did not cost me a fortune to "join that club" Besides I was recommending the D3200 to many amateurs as where they should start to get serious. I was startled how right he was. It also saved me a lot of money It also gave me excellent results and I could loan out my more expensive rigs to my son and grandsons who were doing some interesting stuff and I felt the good cameras should go with them. Then as luck would have it I happened on some real photo ops myself. Well good luck to you all.

Nikon Rumors at times has some amazingly good and thought out advice! On price I should also say our new Nikon 1 AW 1 cost quite a bit more than the D3200 with the ket lens. At present i think Nikon has a winner on their hands there too. It is a Nikon 1 J3 in reality with a lot of added safeguards for use underwater to 49 ft. etc. I should note for an UW camera that is really inexpensive. But above water I would just get a D3200 with the 18-55 Nikkor VR and at the SAME time add one more lens for price savings. Then TEST it until you are getting the results you need. I think it is a GREAT value!

spraynpray

My Canon shooting friend has the Canon 18-55 however and that lens is truly a piece of junk! He thought I was stupid until he tried the Nikon version, now he's just a little sick that he is too invested in Canon.

Paperman

No comparison between Nikon & Canon kit zooms. Don't know the latest but older versions 18-55 & 18-135's were pieces of crap. Canon does not like giving anything free/cheap on entry level - just like the number of AF points, lack of spot metering at chosen AF point etc ...

Pistnbroke

I owned two D7000 and used sigma lens..when I went to the D7100 the picture was no better until I changed ot Nikon 18-140 which is higher rated in DXO ,I only changed because Nikon are making third party stuff misbehave with the body BUT the increase in sharpness is very noticable, I also have the D3200 and can see little difference to the D7000 ..and all this RAW rubbish ...I have sold over 60,000 images in the last two years all large basic jpeg with no problems..if you zoom in no difference between basic and fine

DaveyJ

I took 30 photos and one video at my son's wedding in Central Park in NYC with my D3200 and the kit lens.
I had to run a number of city blocks to even get there on time as the taxi I was in got snarled in traffic. My daughter in law looked through 1,500 photos a pro photographer took with a big Nikon Pro Camera and several others took on Nikon D7000's. My Nikon D7100 was packed for their honeymoon trip so that did not get compared. She finally asked to look at what I had shot. She felt the sharpness, color, depth of field and composition of mine was what she had not found in the other voluminous images. Mine were shot as I always do on JPEG Fine Large. Most of the other shooters were using RAW. All of my shots and one video were shot with the kit 18-55VR. The 30 photos and one video were rated exceptional by them and five were selected as the ones she would frame. So the D3200 I have been shooting a lot with has done very well. I usually shoot it on A priority to enhance depth of field and 400 ISO. The plus minus exposure settings I adjust often to maximize quality and the get as close as possible to the optimum exposure.

MarkyBoy

Hi All,

I have just joined the forum after reading the various opinions of the D3200. In fact I have been considering upgrading to a D7100 but have changed my mind in the last few minutes...! My main reason was for wanting to upgrade was for higher image quality as the D7100 has no low-pass filter - however most reviewers regard the difference this makes as negligible. I am not ready to spend a fortune on new lenses so I don't want to go full-frame yet...

I bought the D3200 - my first DSLR - almost 12 months ago. I was pretty impressed with the shots I got from the kit lens. Then I bought a 35mm Nikkor prime and 14mm Samyang lenses (the latter being designed for use with both FX and DX cameras). I also have the Nikkor 55-300 DX zoom for the odd wildlife shot...

I shoot mainly landscapes and the night sky. The difference these lenses make is incredible - you definitely need to invest in decent lenses to get the most out of this camera. I always view my shots on a 42inch screen before deciding if they are 'finished' or not, and the detail is terrific.

I still consider myself a beginner, but one thing I have learned in the last few months is that lens choice is crucial. But of course choosing your subject & composing the shot is more important than anything else...no lens or pixel-count can help with this!

I hope this post helps anyone contemplating the D3200 as their first DSLR...

Regards
Mark

DaveyJ

@MarkyBoy: I have a number of posts on the D3200 here. It is an excellent camera. However i found that to make it perform well special precautions were needed. It is NOT however a D7100. I have owned most of Nikons DX DSLRs. I still own my Nikon F5 film camera, although it is essentially now unused. The D7100 is the single best camera I have ever owned. Many environments will find the D3200 and D3300 pretty marginal. For instance cold field performance. Another huge factor is how difficult it is to see the focus points on the D3200. The D7100 is in a whole different league. Right now the $999 price on the D7100 body make it an astonishing value. And of course, you'd get a D3300 if buying an entry level DSLR Nikon today over the D3200.

DaveyJ

Another D3200 problem is how poorly it handles many better Nikon lens or say Sigma with the Nikon adapter. The D7100 has a focus motor in the body. The D3200 does not have that feature and that alone should give anyone very serious about buying one pause. We have found the D3200 EXTREMELY difficult to use in night sky photography and the D7100 very adequate. On a 42 inch screen many D3200 shots will look about the same as a D7100 EXCEPT for tougher lighting conditions etc. Plane fact is I use the D3200 a lot. But it is so far from the D7100 I myself would not probably even waste my money on another D3300 or similar level camera.