Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced

[David J Taylor]

Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/19/Nikon-D3200-with-WiFi-Option

"Nikon has announced the D3200 24MP entry-level DSLR that can be used with
an optional WU-1a Wi-Fi module. The camera can now shoot up to 1080p30
video (rather than the D3100's 24p) and has a 920k dot LCD, up from 230k
dots. Beyond this, and improved continuous shoot rate despite the
pixel-count hike, the biggest change is the ability to add the Wi-Fi unit.
The WU-1a will sell for a recommended sale price of $59.95 and will be
able to broadcast to smartphones over a 49ft range. The D3200 is expected
in late April at an MSRP of $699.95."

Cheers,
David

[RichA]

On Apr 19, 4:34 am, "David J Taylor" <david-

1. An attempt to keep people from flocking to mirrorless cameras
(even their own).
2. Proves the D3x was the most vastly-overpriced DSLR in history.
3. Will be funny asking D3100 owners to pony up for the lenses
they'll need to really do it justice!

[Bruce]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 19, 4:34 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
>tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced.
>

>1. An attempt to keep people from flocking to mirrorless cameras
>(even their own).

The Nikon J1 and V1 are selling well after some very heavy discounting
in Europe and some very heavy advertising in the USA.

>2. Proves the D3x was the most vastly-overpriced DSLR in history.

It proves nothing of the sort. It might be an indication that Sony is
having to offer the extremely noisy 24 MP APS-C sensor at extremely
low prices for other manufacturers to take it.

>3. Will be funny asking D3100 owners to pony up for the lenses
>they'll need to really do it justice!

No, they might know how to count pixels but it is unlikely they care
too much about real image quality.

It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?

[nospam]

In article
<5fb587a4-7fd5-42ec...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. An attempt to keep people from flocking to mirrorless cameras
> (even their own).

different market segment. many people will have both.

> 2. Proves the D3x was the most vastly-overpriced DSLR in history.

not at all. the d3x competed with the canon 1ds which cost about the
same amount. they're high end studio cameras.

as for the most overpriced, that goes to the sigma sd1. nobody else
comes close.

> 3. Will be funny asking D3100 owners to pony up for the lenses
> they'll need to really do it justice!

not really. it will be better than what they had before.

[Alfred Molon]

So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
--

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

[RichA]

On Apr 19, 12:38 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
> --

Doesn't hurt, especially for the person who can only afford a D3200-
class camera. They won't need quite as much expensive telephoto since
they'll be able to produce higher-resolution crops.
The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
horribly noisy.

[Bowser]

I think it will be interesting to see what that sensor can do with
decent glass and when not suffering from the"NEX Handicap." I like
this cam.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <d568419a-1ed3-4f54-8951-
67a114...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...

> The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
> their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
> horribly noisy.

Are you sure? ISO 800 on the A77 is quite clean:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/24

[Stuffed Crust]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
> will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?

Yeah, I wonder what the successor to the D300s will be; nothing Nikon's
put out since then fits the same niche (pro-level DX body + controls),
and how it's going to compare price-wise to the D800.

Because at this point, the D800 (in DX crop mode) appears to trump the
D300s in every way but max frame rate...

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[Bruce]

Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
>> will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?
>
>Yeah, I wonder what the successor to the D300s will be; nothing Nikon's
>put out since then fits the same niche (pro-level DX body + controls),
>and how it's going to compare price-wise to the D800.
>
>Because at this point, the D800 (in DX crop mode) appears to trump the
>D300s in every way but max frame rate...

Yes, but only at a price. I would expect a D300s replacement to cost
not too much more than half the price of a D800.

If I worked for Nikon I would be concerned that the Sony 24 MP APS-C
sensor is nowhere near good enough for the D300s replacement. Its use
in the D3200 is a surprise, and places the sensor at a much lower
level in the market than expected.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Stuffed Crust <pi...@spam.shaftnet.org> writes:

> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
>> will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?
>
> Yeah, I wonder what the successor to the D300s will be; nothing Nikon's
> put out since then fits the same niche (pro-level DX body + controls),
> and how it's going to compare price-wise to the D800.
>
> Because at this point, the D800 (in DX crop mode) appears to trump the
> D300s in every way but max frame rate...

Yeah, but most especially including price! (That is, much higher price
for the D800).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Chris Malcolm]

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

[David J Taylor]

> 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. Other than one specialist lens, most of my
lenses are f/3.5 or slower (they are zooms), and yet a proportion of my
photography is done indoors and with poor lighting. I may also be using
fast shutter speeds outdoors to freeze the action.

High ISOs allow me greater freedom in photography, and if a sensor is good
at ISO 1600 or 3200, it is likely to be more than good enough at lower
ISOs.

Cheers,
David

[Bruce]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> 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.

[RichA]

On Apr 20, 6:22 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Noisy. At 100 ISO, you can still detect noise in some situations.
To give you an idea, the NEX-7 sensor is less noisy, yet it itself is
noisy compared to say the sensor in the D7000. The A77 and A65 sensor
IMO, is very noisy. 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

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:

> In rec.photo.digital RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 12:38 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
>>> --
>
>> Doesn't hurt, especially for the person who can only afford a D3200-
>> class camera. They won't need quite as much expensive telephoto since
>> they'll be able to produce higher-resolution crops.
>> The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
>> their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
>> horribly noisy.
>
> At high ISOs. Why is everyone so obsessed with high ISO noise?

Wouldn't care to speak for everybody.

I spent last weekend shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400, usually around 1/200
sec, at f/2.8 to f/4. Would have been nice to have a solid 1/250 and a
solid f/5.6 (partly because the action had depth, but also to cover
focus inaccuracy a bit more). But on balance, I don't feel the HI.1 and
up ISOs on my D700 are good enough to use except in severe necessity,
which this wasn't, quite. (Mostly I avoid 6400 also, but that may be
overly conservative; the difference is much more obvious pixel peeping
than looking at actual pictures.)

I'm going to spend a chunk of the weekend after that doing similar
shooting (though that arena is a bit better lit, at least).

Generally, I do a LOT of high ISO shooting. It's why I bought a D700 in
the first place.

> 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?

I don't think that's mostly true, though we don't seem to have a lot of
actual sensor designers to give expert opinions available.

[Alfred Molon]

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.

[David J Taylor]

"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:olh2p7tnu07nt6tcc...@4ax.com...

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

[RichA]

On Apr 20, 2:47 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
> --

NoisieR.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[David J Taylor]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:YZ-dnUQ9DpCyGyfS...@giganews.com...

> 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

[nchen711]

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.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-21 15:12 , David J Taylor wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:YZ-dnUQ9DpCyGyfS...@giganews.com...
>> 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).

[Savageduck]

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

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

[Trevor]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

news:WcOdnUU7JvuXfCfS...@giganews.com...

> (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.

[Trevor]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

[Savageduck]

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

[David J Taylor]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

news:WcOdnUU7JvuXfCfS...@giganews.com...
[]

> 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

[Trevor]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

[Trevor]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:jpfcfc$dia$1...@dont-email.me...

> 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.

[David J Taylor]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jpfgqf$lmt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
> "David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jpfcfc$dia$1...@dont-email.me...
>> 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

[PeterN]

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

--
Peter

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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]

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.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>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.

The Nikon D600 will be the true successor to the D700.

Nikon took care during the launch of the D800/D800E to make it clear
that neither of them was a replacement for the D700. Nikon will not
be similarly reticent about the D600.

The D800 and D800E address a distinctly different market, one that you
are clearly not in. They are not aimed at you, so you have no reason
to be "disappointed" in them, "personally" or otherwise.

[Alan Browne]

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.

[Alan Browne]

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

And no pressing need for the D800 or its resolution.

[Trevor]

"PeterN" <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4fbb9256$0$26612$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

> 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.

[Trevor]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

news:BMSdnVsObJZoYibS...@giganews.com...

> On 2012-05-22 00:15 , Trevor wrote:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

No I'm not, they are "belligerently missing the point" that what suits them
may not suit everybody. They are welcome to use old 6Mp camera's if they so
choose, just as others are entitled to buy 24Mp+ camera's if they want them.
However the undeniable fact is that any direct picture comparison of a D70
image and D800 image is going to leave the D70 user very second best!
Whether *you* care or not is your choice, not a debate.

Trevor.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I'm hanging on to that shot. But the general pattern of adding one to
the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.

Well, my D700 works fine currently. And maybe I can afford a used D3s
or something in a while.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-05-22 22:09:08 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> The Nikon D600 will be the true successor to the D700.
>>
>> Nikon took care during the launch of the D800/D800E to make it clear
>> that neither of them was a replacement for the D700. Nikon will not
>> be similarly reticent about the D600.
>>
>> The D800 and D800E address a distinctly different market, one that you
>> are clearly not in. They are not aimed at you, so you have no reason
>> to be "disappointed" in them, "personally" or otherwise.
>
> I'm hanging on to that shot. But the general pattern of adding one to
> the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
> established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
> successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
> successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.
>
> Well, my D700 works fine currently. And maybe I can afford a used D3s
> or something in a while.

I still think that D700S or D700X would be the way to go, not D600.
That way all the PR goodwill the venerable D700 has earned will not be
flushed.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>But the general pattern of adding one to
>the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
>established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
>successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
>successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.

Nikon seems to have lost its way with model numbering. For example,
is the D7000 really a consumer-grade camera? It is certainly capable
of producing top quality results and many pros carry it as a second or
spare body.

In film days, the F801 and F801s (N8008 and N8008s) were
augmented/replaced by the F70 and F90 (N70 and N90) and later the F90X
(N90s). There was not much logic in any of that either.

Plus, I always thought it was silly to number both DX and FX DSLR
bodies in the same series, i.e. D100, D200, D300, D700 and now D800.

The anticipated price point of the D600 suggests that it will be a lot
cheaper than the D700. Perhaps that provides Nikon with a
justification for using a lower number?

The only conclusion is that Nikon is at least as confused by its model
numbering "system" as its customers. ;-)

[PeterN]

Just where did I say everybody should use a D70.

--
Peter

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-22 20:56 , Trevor wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:BMSdnVsObJZoYibS...@giganews.com...
>> On 2012-05-22 00:15 , Trevor wrote:
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.
>
>
> No I'm not, they are "belligerently missing the point" that what suits them
> may not suit everybody. They are welcome to use old 6Mp camera's if they so
> choose,

That wasn't what Savageduck (or I) was claiming. You've snipped away
the context from which he was making that statement.

> just as others are entitled to buy 24Mp+ camera's if they want them.
> However the undeniable fact is that any direct picture comparison of a D70
> image and D800 image is going to leave the D70 user very second best!
> Whether *you* care or not is your choice, not a debate.

You've taken statements far out of the context from whence they came -
see my post of 21 May at 20:42 (UTC: 22 May @ 00:42).

You really should read a few posts back before replying. Selective
snipping (as you did to Savageduck's post) is no excuse.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:

> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:BMSdnVsObJZoYibS...@giganews.com...

>> 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.
>
> No I'm not, they are "belligerently missing the point" that what suits them
> may not suit everybody. They are welcome to use old 6Mp camera's if they so
> choose, just as others are entitled to buy 24Mp+ camera's if they want them.
> However the undeniable fact is that any direct picture comparison of a D70
> image and D800 image is going to leave the D70 user very second best!
> Whether *you* care or not is your choice, not a debate.

You say "any direct picture comparison". That's nonsense; a good
picture will beat out a bad picture any day of the week in most people's
eyes, even with the tech advangage as heavily on the side of the bad
picture as D800 vs. D70.

Which is IMHO the important point. If you don't take good pictures with
your D70, upgrading to a D800 won't help you very much.

If you *do* take good (or excellent) pictures with your D70, you might
well benefit somewhat from a D800.

[Trevor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfkliki...@dd-b.net...

> You say "any direct picture comparison". That's nonsense; a good
> picture will beat out a bad picture any day of the week in most people's
> eyes, even with the tech advangage as heavily on the side of the bad
> picture as D800 vs. D70.

Not sure how YOU interpret two different pictures as a "DIRECT picture
comparison"!
I of course meant two pictures taken at the same time, of the same scene,
using the same lenses, settings etc.

I see no point in comparing apples with oranges just to support your silly
assertions.

Trevor.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

>> 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.

Photography is a lot about being there at the right time, choosing
the right position, the right angle of view etc. When people are
in the scene, how to interact with them is important (or how not
to disturb them).

Sharpness, technique, etc. are all secondary to that, but much
easier to measurebate about.

A better camera only gives better photos when one has been
banging one's head against the limits of the previous cameras,
hard and repeatedly, and still managed to get good photos, modulo
the limits of the camera

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> You really should read a few posts back before replying. Selective
> snipping (as you did to Savageduck's post) is no excuse.

In fact, when applied as "creative" snipping to change the context
that's malice and a declaration of dishonesty. From there it is
only a small step to actually changing words in the quoted text.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

[D800]

> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
(Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
their top model into the 5D3 ...

> 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.

Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
No competition means Microsoft.

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> [D800]
>
>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.
>
> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.
>
> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
> their top model into the 5D3 ...

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

Actually, the D800 AF is reported by all reviewers I've seen to be
first-rate; better thant he D700, which had the full D3 AF suite in it.

>> 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.
>
> Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
> No competition means Microsoft.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>> [D800]

>>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

>> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
>> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
>> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
>> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
>> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
>> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

>> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
>> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
>> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
>> their top model into the 5D3 ...

> The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
> and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
> pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
> Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
> high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
> 1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
me.

[Bruce]

Nevertheless it competes head-on with the Nikon D4.

Do you think the D4 is also a 'total miss'?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Um, what? Certainly not!

I mean, it's all Canon has to offer in that space, true, but it does not
actually "compete".

[Bruce]

I detect more than a hint of anti-Canon bias. ;-)

Seriously, though, the two do compete head-on. While there are
differences between them, they are not sufficiently different to cause
people to change systems.

Here in the UK, their selling prices are less than 0.2% apart ...

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>>> The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
>>> and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
>>> pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
>>> Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
>>> high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
>>> 1.3x line.

>> You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
>> High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

> I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
> me.

You still aren't a *professional* shooter, your needs do not
call for a top of the line camera. (Nor do mine, much as the
"new cool gear" factor calls --- my finances are not up to every
unneeded whim of my flaunt streak --- so I tend to buy once and
keep till it breaks or till I do bump hard into limits.)

Canon's quite clever uniting the top end high pixel and top
end high speed cameras. That will save many professionals and
camera pools from having to buy 2 cameras. And it allows Canon
to produce one camera in higher numbers rather than two in lower
quantities. And the cameras do have come closer to each other,
so it's a logical step.


Of course, being able to shoot not only *really* high fps (12
fps for full 3 seconds or, JPEG only, 14 fps for 8.6 seconds)[0]
when you need them[1], you also get the result with lotsa pixels
as a bonus ... and vice versa.

-Wolfgang

[0] more if your card can store pictures during these 3 seconds,
as that's buffer only, AFAIRI.

[1] Of course, if you can properly anticipate that moment, you
don't exactly need such high speeds ... but not everyone can
do that[2] and not every situation have the right moments
spaced so that you have time to change to the next plate. :-)

[2] and there's nothing wrong with using technology to help you do
things for which you otherwise would need (very) long training,
if you could obtain it at all. If you cannot walk properly
for whatever reason, why not use canes or walking frames or
wheel chairs, even if some might sneer at your unwillingness
to walk 'as God meant you to do it'.

Archer units have been longer ranged, more accurate *and*
endowed with a much higher firing rate than crossbow units ---
but it takes 20 years to fully train an archer with an English
longbow, and 6 weeks to drill the techniqiue of crossbow
loading and firing into some mentally slow farm hand.

And the same thing repeated for firearms (only that they
proceeded to improve way beyond archers later on with the
machine guns and the sniper rifles).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
>>>> and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
>>>> pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
>>>> Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
>>>> high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
>>>> 1.3x line.
>
>>> You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
>>> High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.
>
>> I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
>> me.
>
> You still aren't a *professional* shooter, your needs do not
> call for a top of the line camera. (Nor do mine, much as the
> "new cool gear" factor calls --- my finances are not up to every
> unneeded whim of my flaunt streak --- so I tend to buy once and
> keep till it breaks or till I do bump hard into limits.)

Semi-pro, I do work for clients. But in fact the kind of work that is
done professionally is very often the *least* demanding on equipment.

You can subdivide photography a huge number of ways; but the one that
seems to me to relate to equipment pretty well is "challenging
conditions" vs. "high resolution".

> Canon's quite clever uniting the top end high pixel and top
> end high speed cameras. That will save many professionals and
> camera pools from having to buy 2 cameras. And it allows Canon
> to produce one camera in higher numbers rather than two in lower
> quantities. And the cameras do have come closer to each other,
> so it's a logical step.

Or even better, *4* cameras, since you can't really take on serious work
for clients without backups (so, if the convergence works for a shooter
who previously needed both, they can get by with 2 rather than 4).

> Of course, being able to shoot not only *really* high fps (12
> fps for full 3 seconds or, JPEG only, 14 fps for 8.6 seconds)[0]
> when you need them[1], you also get the result with lotsa pixels
> as a bonus ... and vice versa.
>
> -Wolfgang
>
> [0] more if your card can store pictures during these 3 seconds,
> as that's buffer only, AFAIRI.
>
> [1] Of course, if you can properly anticipate that moment, you
> don't exactly need such high speeds ... but not everyone can
> do that[2] and not every situation have the right moments
> spaced so that you have time to change to the next plate. :-)

I hear that for most sports work you really need the expert hand to get
the best picture; spray-and-pray is almost always a near-miss.

> [2] and there's nothing wrong with using technology to help you do
> things for which you otherwise would need (very) long training,
> if you could obtain it at all. If you cannot walk properly
> for whatever reason, why not use canes or walking frames or
> wheel chairs, even if some might sneer at your unwillingness
> to walk 'as God meant you to do it'.

Yes, assistive / enhancing technology is *good*.

> Archer units have been longer ranged, more accurate *and*
> endowed with a much higher firing rate than crossbow units ---
> but it takes 20 years to fully train an archer with an English
> longbow, and 6 weeks to drill the techniqiue of crossbow
> loading and firing into some mentally slow farm hand.
>
> And the same thing repeated for firearms (only that they
> proceeded to improve way beyond archers later on with the
> machine guns and the sniper rifles).

Yes indeed.