Does the camera make a difference?

[robbins.photo]

Hey thanks everyone with your feed back, I'll just keep shooting.

Sorry Radical, didn't get in on this one too early but the answer to your question is yes and sort of, well maybe really.. lol.

Ok, if your shooting stuff that doesn't move and your uploading pictures to the web and your not having to crop your photos then really no, you probably won't see a big difference between something shot with a D5200 vrs what you'll see from the D3100.

However the advantages of the D5200 will come into play when you start working with moving targets, you will get a higher rate of keepers because it does have a better autofocus system. The really big difference you'll see will be when it comes time to crop a photo - the 24 mp sensor of the 5200 will give you far better results and let you get pictures that you just can't get with the 3100 because of it's lower MP sensor just won't let you crop as much.

So really the biggest difference between them is something you'll see only under certain shooting conditions. As for me, since I shoot a lot of telephoto the 5200 was a huge step up from the 5100 I used originally. I was really quite stunned at just how big a difference there was between the 16 mp and 24 mp sensor when it came time to crop a photo, and the much larger image size of the 5200 made that even more impressive - by starting with the 6000x4000 image of the 5200 and copying the original image, then reducing the image size to 3000x4000 and pasting the original image back in, I get a huge amount of crop without actually resizing the original image so the IQ really isn't impacted. I can then resize the original even further as needed, which just gives me a ton of options in post to compose and size things just the way I want them and still end up with a very crisp, very clean image of a decent size.

So yes, depending on what your doing the camera body can make a significant difference.

 

[runnah]

Dude, I have an obsolescent Nikon D1 with a gorgeously clean 2.7 megapixel 1.5x sensor, and two batteries for it: I will trade it to you, along with a 24/2.8,50/1.8,and an 85/1.8 and a 135 for your Canon 5D Mark III body! Seriously. Straight across trade???

Sigh...

 

[Derrel]

Dude, I have an obsolescent Nikon D1 with a gorgeously clean 2.7 megapixel 1.5x sensor, and two batteries for it: I will trade it to you, along with a 24/2.8,50/1.8,and an 85/1.8 and a 135 for your Canon 5D Mark III body! Seriously. Straight across trade???

Sigh...

It's a great camera! The photos you get will be just the same as with the 5D Mark III. I mean, I am offering a d-slr body, and FOUR lenses, for just one body that makes little difference....I get a body...you'd get a body and four FAST, Nikon-made, name-band prime lenses to go with it!!!!

See...over the past 30 years, over and over, I've often noticed that it's often the people who own top-grade gear that tell people they only need, "Basic grade stuff." Or the guys with whole studios FILLED with lights and reflectors say, "You can do awesome work with JUST ONE light! All you really need is just one light!" And of course, people who own $3,499 cameras like to say, the camera makes "little difference." Which is why so many serious shooters are just dying to shoot only with low-end gear. Right? I mean, the very small 1- to 2-second RAW buffers, the tiny, dim, crappy viewfinders, the slow framing rates, the tiny batteries, all that stuff is what makes the $350 Nikon bodies the talk of the town. ;-)

The OP asked if a 24.2 megapixel D5200 will make "sharper" pictures than his aged, 14 megapixel D3100. Short answer, according to Thom Hogan and other experts? YES! Significantly.

 

[runnah]

It's a great camera! The photos you get will be just the same as with the 5D Mark III. I mean, I am offering a d-slr body, and FOUR lenses, for just one body that makes little difference....I get a body...you'd get a body and four FAST, Nikon-made, name-band prime lenses to go with it!!!! See...over the past 30 years, over and over, I've often noticed that it's often the people who own top-grade gear that tell people they only need, "Basic grade stuff." Or the guys with whole studios FILLED with lights and reflectors say, "You can do awesome work with JUST ONE light! All you really need is just one light!" And of course, people who own $3,499 cameras like to say, the camera makes "little difference." Which is why so many serious shooters are just dying to shoot only with low-end gear. Right? I mean, the very small 1- to 2-second RAW buffers, the tiny, dim, crappy viewfinders, the slow framing rates, the tiny batteries, all that stuff is what makes the $350 Nikon bodies the talk of the town. ;-) The OP asked if a 24.2 megapixel D5200 will make "sharper" pictures than his aged, 14 megapixel D3100. Short answer, according to Thom Hogan and other experts? YES! Significantly.

See you're purposely being confrontational and difficult.

The OP asked one question that is really two.

Will a newer body make "sharper" images than an old one? Yes, in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing.

So really the operator is the most important part of the equation.

 

[pixmedic]

I have had a pretty good run of cameras over the last decade...not quite as far back as Derrel, but I have seen (and owned) the progression of cameras and lenses that have changed a lot over the years, from the 6.1MP D100 to the 24MP D7100, and just about everything in between. (D200, D300, D90, D7000)
its not that you cant take good pictures with older gear...because you most certainly can...but to say that the improvements made in sensor and camera technology over the last decade dont make a noticeable difference is rubbish, and the more you want to do with that picture, the bigger the difference that new technology makes.

the new 24mp sensor in the D5200 is a huge...huge improvement over the 14mp D3100. I noticed a difference when cropping between my 16mp d7000 and 24mp d7100.
if i drop down to my 10mp d200, its even more noticeable. it really all depends on what you want/need your camera to do.
now, notice i mentioned cropping....i say that because cropping is where you will see the biggest difference, along with low light conditions.

along with a newer and better sensor, upgrading to a D5200 will get you a better AF module, faster processor, and better low light performance.
if you are looking for a really good upgrade to you d3100 (whether you feel its necessary or not) the D5200 is a fantastic choice. you get the new 24mp sensor without breaking the bank.

 

[Derrel]

See you're purposely being confrontational and difficult.

The OP asked one question that is really two.

Will a newer body make "sharper" images than an old one? Yes, in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing.

So really the operator is the most important part of the equation.

No, I was making a point using humor...something that YOU do all the time. As in daily. I am also pointing out hypocrisy.

Your one-word, dismissive "Sigh!" post is a good example of being difficult and a diva. What, no words?

And, I am also was providing the OP with an accurate answer, based on the current state of Nikon products. And I was pointing out that your original response was little more than a flippant, ill-reasoned, knee-jerk reaction. AND, your original response showed that while you talk a talk, you do not walk it yourself: you shoot a Canon 5D Mark III, but you blow that off, and tell the OP the body does not matter but "only a little". You abandoned an "old" Nikon body to buy a new $3,499 Canon body just a few months ago. Hmmmmm. The OP wants to do something similar...he wants to upgrade...but apparently what's good for you is not good enough for him because , I guess, he's not a good enough photographer, and he ought to stay with his old, economy-level crop-framer? Is that it? Apparently, you think that "in his hands", of somebody who does NOT know what he's doing, nothing will make sharper, better photos. Right?

I'm giving the OP an ACTUAL answer, based on 15 years of buying one digital SLR camera after another. The D3100 is an older sensor that, frankly, Thom Hogan has been saying he CAN NOT recommend for about two full years now; there has been THAT much improvement. The D3000 was a 10-MP Nikon CMOS sensor the 3100 a 14 MP Nikon CMOS sensor; the D3200 a Nikon-made CMOS sensor, and the D3300 a 24MP Nikon CMOS Sensor, without the low-pass filter, which adds up to around another 15% or so in sharpness. Look at the stats Nikon D3300 Review | byThom | Thom Hogan

I'll state it plainly, runnah: The D3100 is THREE generations behind the times, sensor-wise, and the camera has cheap electronics. He asked a simple question, and got a bad answer, in my opinion.He deserves a litle respect, and a correct answer, free of condescending assumptions that he is NOT somebody who, "knows what their doing".

There has been a LOT of improvement in the APS-C sensor world on the NIKON side since the D3100 was released. The D3100 has the horrible 230,000 dot rear LCD screen.

 

[Radical]

Hey thanks everyone with your feed back, I'll just keep shooting.

Sorry Radical, didn't get in on this one too early but the answer to your question is yes and sort of, well maybe really.. lol.

Ok, if your shooting stuff that doesn't move and your uploading pictures to the web and your not having to crop your photos then really no, you probably won't see a big difference between something shot with a D5200 vrs what you'll see from the D3100.

However the advantages of the D5200 will come into play when you start working with moving targets, you will get a higher rate of keepers because it does have a better autofocus system. The really big difference you'll see will be when it comes time to crop a photo - the 24 mp sensor of the 5200 will give you far better results and let you get pictures that you just can't get with the 3100 because of it's lower MP sensor just won't let you crop as much.

So really the biggest difference between them is something you'll see only under certain shooting conditions. As for me, since I shoot a lot of telephoto the 5200 was a huge step up from the 5100 I used originally. I was really quite stunned at just how big a difference there was between the 16 mp and 24 mp sensor when it came time to crop a photo, and the much larger image size of the 5200 made that even more impressive - by starting with the 6000x4000 image of the 5200 and copying the original image, then reducing the image size to 3000x4000 and pasting the original image back in, I get a huge amount of crop without actually resizing the original image so the IQ really isn't impacted. I can then resize the original even further as needed, which just gives me a ton of options in post to compose and size things just the way I want them and still end up with a very crisp, very clean image of a decent size.

So yes, depending on what your doing the camera body can make a significant difference.

Hey thanks robbins, and yes that is what I'm seeing and a lot with my new tamron tele lens. I have been trying to figure out how to pickup a 5200 but I have not gotten that lucky yet.

 

[Radical]

See you're purposely being confrontational and difficult.

The OP asked one question that is really two.

Will a newer body make "sharper" images than an old one? Yes, in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing.

So really the operator is the most important part of the equation.

No, I was making a point using humor...something that YOU do all the time. As in daily. I am also pointing out hypocrisy.

Your one-word, dismissive "Sigh!" post is a good example of being difficult and a diva. What, no words?

And, I am also was providing the OP with an accurate answer, based on the current state of Nikon products. And I was pointing out that your original response was little more than a flippant, ill-reasoned, knee-jerk reaction. AND, your original response showed that while you talk a talk, you do not walk it yourself: you shoot a Canon 5D Mark III, but you blow that off, and tell the OP the body does not matter but "only a little". You abandoned an "old" Nikon body to buy a new $3,499 Canon body just a few months ago. Hmmmmm. The OP wants to do something similar...he wants to upgrade...but apparently what's good for you is not good enough for him because , I guess, he's not a good enough photographer, and he ought to stay with his old, economy-level crop-framer? Is that it? Apparently, you think that "in his hands", of somebody who does NOT know what he's doing, nothing will make sharper, better photos. Right?

I'm giving the OP an ACTUAL answer, based on 15 years of buying one digital SLR camera after another. The D3100 is an older sensor that, frankly, Thom Hogan has been saying he CAN NOT recommend for about two full years now; there has been THAT much improvement. The D3000 was a 10-MP Nikon CMOS sensor the 3100 a 14 MP Nikon CMOS sensor; the D3200 a Nikon-made CMOS sensor, and the D3300 a 24MP Nikon CMOS Sensor, without the low-pass filter, which adds up to around another 15% or so in sharpness. Look at the stats Nikon D3300 Review | byThom | Thom Hogan

I'll state it plainly, runnah: The D3100 is THREE generations behind the times, sensor-wise, and the camera has cheap electronics. He asked a simple question, and got a bad answer, in my opinion.He deserves a litle respect, and a correct answer, free of condescending assumptions that he is NOT somebody who, "knows what their doing".

There has been a LOT of improvement in the APS-C sensor world on the NIKON side since the D3100 was released. The D3100 has the horrible 230,000 dot rear LCD screen.

Hey Derrel, thanks for your response, I'm sure everyone here is trying to give the best advice with what is asked, but thanks for watching my back.

 

[astroNikon]

I've had a few lenses which I thought were not as "sharp" as other lenses. Such as my 55-200 I had at one time. In comparison to the same focal length on the same subject it just was not as sharp as other lenses. I sold it. Maybe fine tuning, etc could have helped it ... but I'm using a 80-200 now which is sharp unless I blow focus or something but that's another issue.

 

[greybeard]

Dude, I have an obsolescent Nikon D1 with a gorgeously clean 2.7 megapixel 1.5x sensor, and two batteries for it: I will trade it to you, along with a 24/2.8,50/1.8,and an 85/1.8 and a 135 for your Canon 5D Mark III body! Seriously. Straight across trade???

Sigh...

It's a great camera! The photos you get will be just the same as with the 5D Mark III. I mean, I am offering a d-slr body, and FOUR lenses, for just one body that makes little difference....I get a body...you'd get a body and four FAST, Nikon-made, name-band prime lenses to go with it!!!!

See...over the past 30 years, over and over, I've often noticed that it's often the people who own top-grade gear that tell people they only need, "Basic grade stuff." Or the guys with whole studios FILLED with lights and reflectors say, "You can do awesome work with JUST ONE light! All you really need is just one light!" And of course, people who own $3,499 cameras like to say, the camera makes "little difference." Which is why so many serious shooters are just dying to shoot only with low-end gear. Right? I mean, the very small 1- to 2-second RAW buffers, the tiny, dim, crappy viewfinders, the slow framing rates, the tiny batteries, all that stuff is what makes the $350 Nikon bodies the talk of the town. ;-)

The OP asked if a 24.2 megapixel D5200 will make "sharper" pictures than his aged, 14 megapixel D3100. Short answer, according to Thom Hogan and other experts? YES! Significantly.

I have to agree with you in that I have experienced just that sort of thing several times. However, I think the guys with the leading edge equipment realize that it is the subject and how the photographer treats it that makes the picture. I have a Nikon 105 Micro (macro) but, my best macro/closeup pic to date was taken with a 55-200 zoom (elcheapo) with a closeup lens attached.

 

[robbins.photo]

See you're purposely being confrontational and difficult.

Which royally hacks me off, because that's my job.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hey thanks robbins, and yes that is what I'm seeing and a lot with my new tamron tele lens. I have been trying to figure out how to pickup a 5200 but I have not gotten that lucky yet.

No problem at all - I bought both of my 5200's used, one was "used" and the other refurbished. Had a great experience with both.

 

[sleist]

I think something that should be considered is that a specific sample of lens may be soft on one body and sharper on another.
There are times when two components can be within tolerance individually, but when combined create a situation that is out of spec.
Lens Rentals had an article regarding this ages ago.

This is why I will never again buy a body that does not have some sort of AF fine tune functionality. (Not available in the D3100)

I bought a 24mm f/2.8 D for my D90 to have a ~35mm angle of view and was never really very satisfied with it's performance.
Shortly after, I bought a D700 and much later a D7100 - both with AF fine tuning.
The 24mm is very sharp on both with some fine tuning applied.

Test on a tripod and test with a couple lenses and see what you get by eliminating the influence of poor technique and lens variation.
There's no harm in sending the camera in for adjustment if it's needed. Any camera body should be able to provide a sharp image under proper conditions.

My 2 cents.