What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nikon 3200...Waddaya' think?


IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
22,721
Likes
13,258
I take quite a lot of reference photos. I'm not as good as some of you guys, but my interest in photography has been growing since I've been here at PSG's. I currently have an old D50 that still works fairly well for most of what I want to do, but it's limited.

Since both my video camera and DSLR are so out of date, I was looking at the Nikon 3200.

I've read many reviews and they're all starting to run together! Since I trust everyone here, I thought I would just ask some opinions from those of you who may know more about this camera.

I visited BestBuy and noticed I could bundle an extra lens at a reduced cost (-$200.00), I was looking at this 70-300 mm lens.

Any opinions?

Thanks!
 

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,879
Likes
7,023
This is the camera i use Sam, had for my birthday last year and loving it, a great entry level quality camera.
The two lenses is an extra bonus, but like i was told previously buying a new separate lens will make a wondrous difference to image taking, that said the camera does what it says and delivers really nice images.
 

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,879
Likes
7,023
I would also like to add that the opposing camera fraternity will no doubt be 'bigging up' Canon as the better, but i really do think they are much and the same, just a feel thing for, if that makes sense?:thumbsup:
 

Hoogle

Guru
Messages
8,334
Likes
2,587
When you get into the DSLR range of cameras it is not so much the body that makes the difference it is the quality of glass on the lens. Most DSLRS are capable of taking pretty much the same picture if you attach the right lens to it. Well that said apart from the obvious more expensive cameras have a better iso range and the cheaper 1s come in a dx format as to full frame (fx) this results in a a 1.5 x magnifiacation. I have that lens and it is very good for the price and is often thrown in cheaply as part of a kit.

I am going to assume it comes with the 18-55 mm nikkor lens as well as that is the standard kit lens. which gives you a good average all type of photography setup. But neither of the lenses will excel in any subject they are just good all round lenses. If you want to do portraits you will want maybe a prime 50 mm lens or 35 - 80 mm etc that has an aperature of 1.4 /1.8 if you want to do macro then your looking at macro lenses etc. 1 thing I have learnt along the way in photography the cost is not the initial buy it is tweaking what you already have and experimenting and the more you want to experiment the greater the cost. Good quality lenses will make your camera look cheap. I dont mean that it actually looks cheap I meant price reflection as the top end lens will be in the thousands$$$$

But for a keen amateur to intermediate level the camera is absolutely fine it is nit the equipment that makes you a good photographer.

You mention video please note all though I do not know the video specifications of hand on the D3200 but past experience with Nikons you tend to only be able to shoot video for 5 mins at 1080p and maybe upto 15 mins in other resolutions.
 

egosbar

Guru
Messages
778
Likes
351
really depends on what your photographing and if your printing enlargements etc

i personally used to have canons and had all the lenses etc but got sick of lugging it all around and now ive opted for the fujifilm hs50 , look you get what you pay for and it has a small sensor and has issues with noise over 800 iso but that can be cleaned up certainly as i dont really enlarge photos and only usually hold them on a computer for viewing as snaps , not a great camera for low light but for shooting at 1000mm hand held and even with 2x digital hand held at 2000mm it does a remarkable job , id never shoot weddings etc with this camera but i chose to buy what id use the most without lugging too much around

its not really just a point and shoot you do need to know what your doing with this camera as i can get much better images then the default settings

with post prosessing now im getting very satisfactory results at least for web and computer viewing , i love the ease of 24 -1000mm lens even with the small sensor , i can add some images of zoom hand held and other photos ive taken and processed im happy enough with if your interested , ive only had it a month so im sure i can improve more with it , id love a good dslr as backup though for really important photos haha but not in the budget yet

remember a good photographer with mediocre gear will get a much better photo then a bad photographer with the best gear
 
Last edited:

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,879
Likes
7,023
really depends on what your photographing and if your printing enlargements etc

i personally used to have canons and had all the lenses etc but got sick of lugging it all around and now ive opted for the fujifilm hs50 , look you get what you pay for and it has a small sensor and has issues with noise over 800 iso but that can be cleaned up certainly as i dont really enlarge photos and only usually hold them on a computer for viewing as snaps , not a great camera for low light but for shooting at 1000mm hand held and even with 2x digital hand held at 2000mm it does a remarkable job , id never shoot weddings etc with this camera but i chose to buy what id use the most without lugging too much around

its not really just a point and shoot you do need to know what your doing with this camera as i can get much better images then the default settings

with post prosessing now im getting very satisfactory results at least for web and computer viewing , i love the ease of 24 -1000mm lens even with the small sensor , i can add some images of zoom hand held and other photos ive taken and processed im happy enough with if your interested , ive only had it a month so im sure i can improve more with it , id love a good dslr as backup though for really important photos haha but not in the budget yet

remember a good photographer with mediocre gear will get a much better photo then a bad photographer with the best gear

:thumbsup:
 

ALB68

Dear Departed Guru and PSG Staff Member
Messages
3,020
Likes
1,332
Looks like a great choice to me. I am kinda in the same boat with a D70 and a D40. I have some pretty good lenses but my body is antiquated- both of them-cameras and Mine!:cry:
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Hi Sam -

When someone asks me a similar question, I suggest that they spend an hour or two going through their old, un-culled photos while asking themselves the question, "Which of the poor shots could I have nailed if I had a brand-new whiz-bang camera?".

There is an unexpected bit of subtlity to this approach. For one thing, it is not thinking in the abstract about how wonderful life would be to have this or that in your camera. It is personalized to precisely your shooting habits. If you don't like shooting bugs and flowers, they won't show up in this search. You wouldn't have pressed the button if you didn't want to take a picture of *that* subject in *that* situation.

When I apply this evaluation technique to my own photography, I find that the areas of improvement are rarely in the category of simple landscapes, macros, or anything with a stationary or nearly stationary subject. If I needed to, I could probably still do a reasonable job on any of these situations with a tripod, a WW2 Zeiss roll film folder camera with a Tessar lens, and then scan the results.

Nor are they in the category of typical outdoor daytime touristy pix (ie, "here we are in front of x, now we're standing in front of y", etc.). I can usually nail these with a $100 point and shoot or my iPhone.

I find that what drives me to upgrade my camera are situations that absolutely require me to get a good shot on one try. For example, I shoot quite a few events for my employer. If I don't nail the photo of the president as he is lifting the spade of dirt to kick off groundbreaking for the new building, I look like an idiot. Although I don't shoot weddings as frequently as I used to, I still do the occasional one, and again, if I don't nail the key moments or screw up some of the table shots, again, I look like a complete idiot.

So, what improvements would improve my success rate for such shots? It's always the basics. In no particular order:

1) Accuracy and speed in auto focus,
2) Accuracy in metering,
3) Improved high-ISO / low light performance,
4) Reduction in shutter lag,
5) High bit depth RAW output (so I can pull detail out of the shadows with minimal noise / posterization / banding, and with better color correction in uncontrolled lighting situations).
6) A full frame sensor is fairly important to me because it makes obtaining OOF backgrounds easier, and my lenses match up better than with a crop-frame sensor.
7) Having an accurate, on-the-fly, extendible flash system is extremely important to me. I regularly shoot with one on-camera hot shoe flash and two off-camera flashes synched to, and controlled by the main flash. Personally, I have found that the Nikon CLS has been a God-send for me.
8) Finally, I would add that the user interface is supremely important to me. I want lots of individual, dedicated knobs, wheels and buttons. I simply will not accept any camera where you have to drill down through a menu tree to access any of the common shooting parameters.


A) It is *NEVER* "more features" (eg, more preset "scenes").
B) Once sensor sizes went above around 10 Mpixels, simply having more pixels isn't a big deal to me anymore.
C) It is never adding video to a DSLR. If I want serious video, I use a video cam. If I will be happy with just some sort of record of the situation, I just use my iPhone.
C) Personally, I probably wouldn't use Internet connectivity on my DSLR very often, but I can also see where this could come in handy.
D) It is currently not the "frames per second" rating since I rarely shoot sports, and even when I did, I found shutter response on a single press much more important to nailing the critical moment.

Anyway, I know that I didn't answer your exact question, but I hope my ramblings give you an idea of how I would make such a decision.

Cheers,

Tom M
 

egosbar

Guru
Messages
778
Likes
351
pretty much why i went to the fuji bridge , it suits my needs now , im wondering how far bridge cameras can go actually and for the price they perform well , ill probably just keep upgrading the bridge camera when significant changes occur

i love the feel of a dslr though so i was happy the fuji replicated this

im sure you will be happy with your choice , do as tom says evaluate what you really need
 
Last edited:

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
22,721
Likes
13,258
Thanks to everyone for your responses up to this point! I really appreciate them!

I'm really not one of those kinda guys that needs all the new fangled gadgets. Cost is not an issue, I usually assess need.

The basic functionality between my old 50 and the 3200 are fundamentally the same. However, the 3200 has some additional features that I believe would be useful.

I have a lot to think about!
 

Top