Camera Labs

Does not matter if you compare it between D7000 or D5100 given that they share the same sensor.

_________________
Canon 5D MkII -|- Sigma 24mm f/1.8 | Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Lensbaby Composer
Canon A-1 -|- Canon 28mm f/2 | Canon 35mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro

One can only assume that the D5200 and D7200 are soon to follow. The D5200 with it's articulating screen and upgraded specs will be a killer!

Hello everyone, my first post here, but been reading the pre- and reviews over a few months now.

I am an eager (newbie) camera and photography enthusiast, and I am going to purchase my very first D-SLR very soon.
I've over the years had, and used, various compact cameras - mostly Canon though.

But now I've heard and read about this soon-to-come camera, and I have some quick questions before deciding on a purchase.

Will this camera be a good choice for a first-timer?
(Or should I look in other directions and maybe take D3100/5100 instead, since it's my very first?)

I see people in this thread talking about the MP of the D3200 being almost redundant, due to the ISO-settings?
(I've tried a friends D-SLR a few times, and I don't think I once played with the ISO-settings. Is it really that important a setting? From what I've understood, it's the camera's light sensitivity that you scale, with ISO.)
(Not to point fingers, but especially the comment about 'what are beginners going to use it for?' made me think if I should just stick with a lower-end, cheaper camera until I can upgrade?)

I hope you can help me -

Sincerely,
'The bewildered beginner'

_________________
Newbie camera and photography enthusiast. Going to purchase my first D-SLR soon - but which one to buy?!
Co-writer at: Free Travel Guides and Tips for Copenhagen, Denmark.

Well, the D3200 is the replacement for the D3100. I don't see why you should take the D3100 over the D3200. The D5100 is placed a bit higher in the lineup - the screen might come handy.

Yes, the ISO is important and it's the easiest setting to understand. Maybe I just say that because my first camera didn't have auto-ISO so I had to learn it from the beginning on.

In short: Low ISO = best quality, less noise but "less light on the sensor" (=longer shutter speeds, which compensate that missing light, might cause shaky shots.)

The less megapixels you have (in the same generation of sensors) the less noise is visible but of course more megapixels mean more detail if the lens is good enough and if that's what you need.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

Thanks for the quick reply, Jiko.

What I means by taking the 3100 over the 3200, is that 'newer isn't better' - and that I should maybe look into purchasing better lenses for a 3100.
But yeah, it's a huge upgrade spec-wise 3100 vs 3200, and I might go for that one. I can't wait for my local photo-shop to get it in store, so I can try it out and hold it.

_________________
Newbie camera and photography enthusiast. Going to purchase my first D-SLR soon - but which one to buy?!
Co-writer at: Free Travel Guides and Tips for Copenhagen, Denmark.

Hi everybody,

For what it's worth, I've compiled all past and present cameras into an Excel Chart for comparison.
I hope it will help you to see more clearly, and most of all, answer the question to : Is it really worth ?

http://www.photoexposition.fr

With all due respect and not wanting to discredit your efforts, while the chart is helpful, there's only so much it can achieve. There are a lot of human and qualitative factors both in terms of ergonomics and performance that sometimes render what you read on paper less important. Some of the newer lenses, for example, only have benefits over their predecessors under certain conditions.

I genuinely don't want to give the impression I'm dismissing the chart (you misspelt the link by the way) but a dry list of statistics doesn't always determine if one product is better or more useful than another.

_________________
Bodies: Canon EOS 550D w/ Magic Lantern
Lenses: Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX f/2.8, Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Accessories: YongNuo Speedlite YN-468 Flash, Neewer Macro LED Ring Light, Meike Battery Grip, YongNuo RF-602 Wireless Flash Trigger & Receiver YongNuo WR-128 Wireless Remote Control

Hello JeromeM, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum!
To enjoy your stay here please have a look at the house-rules!
----
I've edited your link so that it works OK.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Regarding the insane pixel count...

Nikon has figured out that you need to not give customers a reason not to buy something. Almost no-one needs 24MP but some people will baulk at reducing MP while upgrading from an 18MP P&S. Nikon lost a lot of sales back in the day based on MP count (including D700 vs. 5Dii) as witnessed by the number of Canon shooters moving from 5Dii to D800 because the 5Diii isn't king of MPs despite quite possibly being a more usable camera.

I'm not criticizing or praising Nikon — this is smart marketing. The D3200 will almost certainly outperform all of Sony's 24MP cameras at a very nice price and come with a decent lens range. I think it's particularly impressive that Nikon has improved the LCD and continuous shooting. As with the D7000 and D800 Nikon seems to have pulled out the stops.

Hello guys,

As a new member I've been scanning the wealth of opinions and advice on this forum, with a view to narrowing my choice of first DSLR and expanding my knowledge.

Just when I thought I'd made my choice (D5100), the D3200 is released....! I have to say it seems to my untrained eye that the D3200 is a perfect marriage between the D3100 and D5100!? It has the built-in guide function of the D3100 which I found appealing, but also incorporates the built-in effects of the D5100 with a superior MP count.

I was wondering whether someone could help with the pros and cons for a beginner between the D5100 and the D3200?

Will the D5100 be that much more complicated for a novice like me? Is the MP count on the D3200 that significant in practice? Also, am I right in thinking the D3200 has no articulated screen? Are the screen resolutions the same?

Sorry for the elementary questions guys, would really appreciate your help.

P.S. Will a review be up soon on camera labs for the D3200?

Thanks.

Welcome to this forum. I'll give short answers

No.


No.*


Yes.


Yes.



*16MP (4.928 x 3.264) are quite a lot, too. But 24MP (6.016 x 4.000) need much more space on you HDD and unless you want to crop a lot the difference is smaller than it sounds like.
In comparison: A full HD screen has a resolution of 1920x1080, which is about 2MP. In order to get a better quality, the MP aren't that important in comparison to a better lens. If you want to make use of the full resolution (24MP) you need pretty good lenses.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

===================
Hello OmegaDSLR, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum!
To enjoy your stay here please have a look at the house-rules!
----
Ken McMahon's review is up with all the usual bells and whistles. Have a look here.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Thanks Jiko & Thomas. I've read through the comprehensive review and it has helped shape my decision.
I've opted for the D5100 in the end. The store were out of stock but it should arrive by Monday, can't wait to get going with it.

Is the 24MP sensor a marketing ''thing'' or has it to do that the sensor already existed in the Sony range?
I mean, of course has everybody their own tastes, but I -personally- have my 50D on sRAW1 or 2 (7 or 3,7MP) and find that plenty. Why would a beginner need many more pixels than I (and even quite many pros) do?
As if printing or cropping with that many pixels (and many, many kit-zooms I guess) is the kind of thing they're all going to do.

Of course with a decent wide-angle lens it would be a great cheap landscape camera, but to target it at the beginners..

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

A 24MP DX/APS-C sensor is many things:
- It's marketing: to have the highest MP sensor in that camera class
- It's economic: to (re-)use a sensor that is already on the market
- It's making your files larger and your processing slower
- It's giving you higher resolution, even if the glass is not the absolute best
- It gives you a magnified view of the flaws of your lens
- It allows you to choose 24MP resolution if the light is good or lower noise if the light is bad (by scaling the image down to say 6MP)

So it's not inherently bad to have a high-MP sensor in a camera. But the incremental benefit over 16MP APS-C/DX sensor may not be easy to reap as you need very good shooting skills regarding precise focus and holding your camera stable.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses