Is it worth being cost effective?

Tkot · Jul 16, 2012

Here's my question: I want to upgrade from my Nikon D3000 to a better camera body, and I'm stuck on two possibilities. On the one hand, there's the D7000. On the other, there's the D3200. I know the D3200 costs half as much as the D7000, but I must admit I'm slightly enamored with the 24 megapixel sensor. Is the 24mp sensor worth missing out on other features that the D7000 has but the D3200 doesn't? Not sure what to do here.

tirediron · Jul 16, 2012

Don't get caught up in the mega-pixel frenzy. I'm shooting with 12 (D300, D700) and I'm perfectly happy. A higher-quality sensor which will deliver lower noise at higher ISOs, better highlight and shadow detail, etc, is far more beneficial, (IMO) than a few more MP.

sovietdoc · Jul 16, 2012

D7000 > D3200

The end.

However, if you're trying to do studio photo on the budget, D3200 will be better only because of the res. For everything else, D7000 absolutely kills it.

Big Mike · Jul 16, 2012

Depends on what you shoot, how you shoot and what your intended purposes are.

More megapixels doesn't mean higher quality images...but it does give you larger images for making large prints and closer crops. Of course, there may be other technology to go along with the extra pixels (newer camera) which may help for better image quality.
So if you need/want to make large prints, then more MP might be a priority.

If you are more into shooting action/sport or something like that, the D7000 probably has better AF, which would be an advantage.

I don't know about this particular case, but it seems that with most of the 20+ MP DSLR cameras....it has become increasingly important to use high quality lenses. In other words, it looks as though the high MP sensor are out-resolving the cheaper lenses. I don't think it means worse image quality...just that you can't reach the potential of the sensor, without good quality (expensive) lenses.

Solarflare · Jul 16, 2012

If you want more Megapixels, dont get a DSLR. Get a Noika phone. One of them has or will soon have 41 Megapixels. To get more than that on a DSLR, you would need to go medium format.

Otherwise, even the fotosensor of the now almost 2 years old D7000 is superior than the sensor of the D3200. It has less noise, much better high ISO performance, and much better dynamic range.

And the rest leaves the D3200 in the dust.

What the D3200 has over the D7000 is
- a bit more resolution of colors (only at ISO100, at higher ISOs the D7000 is superior)
- a bit more resolution (this vanishes at about ISO400, after that the 16 Megapixel sensor of the D7000 offers MORE resolution than the 24 Megapixel sensor of the D3200, because the D7000 resolution doesnt deterioate much at higher ISOs).

So yes, if you only shoot at ISO100, dont ever shoot anything with high dynamic range (which is kind of very unlikely unless we talk studio), and dont care about the countless advantages of the D7000, like more robust build, much better viewfinder, more comfortable to use controls, much better flash support, weather sealing, high end autofocus, automatic backup on second memory card etc etc, then the D3200 might be a better choice for you.

SCraig · Jul 16, 2012

All I can say is that I'm not going to run out and trade my D7000 for a D3200 any time soon. In fact, I can't think of many bodies I would be willing to trade my D7000 for.

djacobox372 · Jul 16, 2012

keep in mind that 24mp is only 20% more resolution then 16mp (4000 lines vs. 3200).

Tkot · Jul 19, 2012

Thanks all for the replies. This was basically me checking my logic against everyone on the forum's; I had already pretty much concluded that the D7000 is the better choice, but I also know that I am by no means an expert (particularly when it comes to technical things like sensors), and I wanted to see what everyone else thought.

orb9220 · Jul 19, 2012

Yep agree with others on points. Also mentioned glass becomes more of a serious consideration. As well as technique as many are complaining of image blurring because of the details holding technique becomes more serious. Also many are forced to upgrade the computer systems to handle 24mb images. Needing faster and more ram to keep it usable when editing.
.

sovietdoc · Jul 19, 2012

orb9220 said:
Yep agree with others on points. Also mentioned glass becomes more of a serious consideration. As well as technique as many are complaining of image blurring because of the details holding technique becomes more serious. Also many are forced to upgrade the computer systems to handle 24mb images. Needing faster and more ram to keep it usable when editing.
.

I am not sure about upgrading computers for 24 megapixels, but probably for D800 for sure

orb9220 · Jul 19, 2012

Well a lot of people still have some pretty old setups. I had single core and 2gb of ram couple of years ago. And D90 and Lightroom 3 required more for easy editing. So built up a dual-core and 4gb system that is running fine.

And yep definitely for D800 is a must

.