D3200 vs T3i (taking pictures of pictures)

[sparta1978]

Hello Forum,

I am thinking of getting a professional camera. I do these kinds of photography:
1)of primary importance: is capturing photographs from research labs that do not allow scanners in. Basically taking a picture of a picture(tripods are allowed).
2)also very important: taking picture of maps that are very large(6 feet by 6 feet).

those are the specialty uses. I also take pictures of military technology, and if i capture video, stabilization is very important, as I rarely use a tripod for that.

My main question is this: megapixel counts are radically different for T3i and D3200! 18mp to 25mp. MP carry more weight as far as size, so if quality of T3i/D3200 is the same for my primary uses listed above(1,2) then i would look at canon first. if megapixels do result in better product for my purposes, i would choose nikon.

Another question: how is the stabilization in these cameras for video shooting? is it comparable with hand held recorders? I'd prefer one piece of equipment to shoot.

Does anyone of the cameras work better with iphone, perhaps a remote control app, or something else?

Another lingering question: Nikon has a GPS geotagging unit you can buy separately that looks awkward. Does canon have the same approach or is it built into the camera?

Please advise,
David

 

[KmH]

Both of those cameras are consumer, entry-level grade DSLR cameras and are not professional cameras.

The MP difference will have little imapct on image quality, since that is mostly a function of photographer skill and knowledge.
The main difference between the image sensors in each camera is the ISO performance, dynamic range, and color depth.
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

As far as not using a tripod and image stabilizing systems, I'm afraid you have a misconception regarding what they do.
Most of the time image stabilizing systems need to be turned off, or they can degrade your photos. Doing video without a tripod is often a problem because of limits to the range of movement of image stabilizing systems.

There are after market (3rd party) geotagging options available that work with any camera.

Making high quality photographs of documents/maps requires some specialized set up to minimize camera perspective distortion and to provide lighting that does not have obscuring hot spots.

 

[snowbear]

Additionally, the stabilization (in the Nikon, at least) is in specific lenses, not the camera body.

 

[KmH]

Canon IS is also in the lens.

 

[sparta1978]

Thank you for replies.

A lot of interesting information for me, particularly the stabilization being in the lenses not the body was new to me completely... Stabilization i was hoping to use for video.

well, one camera will make picures 25% larger. will that 25% larger image size translate to a better image or no? Assume that the same skill level is using canon/nikon cameras please.

For example: I have a sony F717 from early 2000s, it has a 5.1mp sensor. I took very sharp photos with it of high quality. I recall borrowing a camera from a friend to use in the archive which was also 5 megapixel, and the results were not near the sony one in quality... So when i ask about quality i mean sensor's ability to capture a very sharp, clear image. IN my example sony F717 has a great image quality, and the carl zeiss lens in it I believe is the reason for it.

 

[sparta1978]

i followed your link KmH and it looks like Nikon body had much higher scores as far as the given categories. Im not sure under what category taking a picute of a picture would be. i can do it with special lighting or on the table.

 

[Light Guru]

of primary importance: is capturing photographs from research labs that do not allow scanners in. Basically taking a picture of a picture(tripods are allowed).

To get good results when taking a picture of a picture you are also going to need really good lighting.

Why would a place that does not allow scanners allow you to set up a tripod and external lighting?

 

[ronlane]

Sounds like you need Google glass instead of a camera. You could record or take pictures and then stitch them together for the large map. (Yes, I am joking, because I'm no sure how well received GG would be around military technology.

 

[KmH]

i followed your link KmH and it looks like Nikon body had much higher scores as far as the given categories. Im not sure under what category taking a picute of a picture would be. i can do it with special lighting or on the table.

Photographer skill and knowledge ultimately determine image quality.

The bottom line is, either camera is more than adequate for your purposes.
Lens choice, and lens quality, will also be a factor.
Your ability to use the camera/lens/light effectively is the unknown piece of the total image making system you are wanting to assemble.

Lens based and camera based IS each have their pluses and minuses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

 

[TCampbell]

Unless the GPS is a big deal I'd probably go with the Nikon for this particular situation.

On Canon, the GPS is built-in to the 6D (no need for an accessory -- but that's a $2k body), but they sell a GPS accessory that slides into the shot-shoe. Only _some_ cameras are compatible (they have to designed to communicate through the hot-shoe pins and not so very long ago, those pins were really only intended to communicate with a flash.)

The Canon GPS (GP-E2) is compatible with the T5i and T4i ... but not listed as compatible for the T3i.

The extra resolution on a D3200 doesn't really help as much as you might expect... A Canon T3i can shot at f/8 without being diffraction limited. A D3200 does start to become diffraction limited just below f/8. Diffraction limits prevent light from achieving sharp focus when passing through a tiny opening. Basically what this means is that you can make your pixels smaller hoping to increase resolution, but it wont matter because the light can't focus finely enough beyond the diffraction limit.

I should mention that you'd only see these effects when zooming in considerably. You'd never see these limits in a web-size image. My point isn't to talk you out of a D3200... it was really just to highlight that there's a point where increasing the resolution no longer helps. It's not that the D3200 is "worse"... it's that once a camera hits it's diffraction limits, more resolution is no longer "better."

A physically larger sensor (e.g. a "full frame" camera) gets more breathing room before they run into diffraction limits, but those cameras are much more expensive (they tend to start at about $2000 for the "body only".)

Most lenses have a "sweet spot" with their focal ratios... an f-stop where the lens can produce the sharpest image possible for that particular lens. That point is usually about 2 stops down from whatever "wide open" is -- and often it's somewhere in the neighborhood of f/5.6 to f/8. That means if you want to take a picture of a picture and get the sharpest possible image, you'd want to use an f-stop somewhere in that range.

Prime lenses are generally sharper than zoom lenses, and prime lenses which also happen to be macro lenses are usually even sharper still.

If I wanted to take a photo using a Canon camera with an APS-C sensor, I'd probably give strong consideration to the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens and shoot at f/5.6 or f/8. BUT... you'll need a LOT of room to take a photo of a 6'x6' map. A 60mm lens on a Canon APS-C body can take a photo of an area just barely bigger than 9' wide by 6' tall... ONLY if the lens is 23' feet away from the subject! It is, however, an EXTREMELY sharp lens (the MTF scores are _very_ high ... not only compared to most lenses in general, but definitely compared to anything even remotely close to it's price tag.)

With Nikon, I'd go with the AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G -- also a _very_ high MTF score. A 40mm lens on a Nikon APS-C you'd get an area roughly 9' wide by 6' tall and would only have to be about 16' away.

16' is still quite a distance, but I wouldn't use a wide-angle... they distort ... you get pin-cushioning, barrel distortions, and a non-flat field (which can be a real problem if you're trying to photograph a map.)

 

[Greiver]

Personally I'd get the D3200 cause I lean towards Nikon's but either of those cameras will be a good choice.

 

[sparta1978]

A lot of very useful, albeit high tech answers...

I think i can zero into two categories of picture of a picture that i will be dealing with immediately upon buying the camera:

Tripod mounted camera(looking down) to take a photo where tripods are allowed/This research facility also has tables that have intense light sources on either side of the picture that i can turn on.

Hand-held camera (looking down at the table) to take a photo where tripods are not allowed, and i have not seen people carry in lighting equipment either.

For the camera selection: It sounds like both are very good... I will find a place in boston to play around with them(maybe a store with them on display?) and see which one is more my style. For specs, i tend to favor the Nikon D3200 now...

david

 

[Benco]

Thank you for replies.

A lot of interesting information for me, particularly the stabilization being in the lenses not the body was new to me completely... Stabilization i was hoping to use for video.

well, one camera will make picures 25% larger. will that 25% larger image size translate to a better image or no? Assume that the same skill level is using canon/nikon cameras please.

For example: I have a sony F717 from early 2000s, it has a 5.1mp sensor. I took very sharp photos with it of high quality. I recall borrowing a camera from a friend to use in the archive which was also 5 megapixel, and the results were not near the sony one in quality... So when i ask about quality i mean sensor's ability to capture a very sharp, clear image. IN my example sony F717 has a great image quality, and the carl zeiss lens in it I believe is the reason for it.

The lens is more important than the resolution, the difference between 18 and 24 megapixels is not much in linier resolution, the difference between, say, a consumer zoom lens and a good prime is far more significant. I photograph my paintings and drawings so I can make giclee prints of them, for that I use a Nikon 50mm D1.8 lens (and a camera too of course), it's a cheap full frame lens, maybe it's edges aren't too hot on a full frame body but on my crop sensor camera gives sterling quality across the whole frame. I'd not use any lens less capable than this one for that specific purpose.