Is there a reason to upgrade dslr?

[amolitor]

... you can't temporarily change your format size.

You can brenizer up any equivalent format you like! This doesn't work so well for motorsports, but if your subject will hold still it ain't so bad.

 

[hamlet]

That could be a good reason, but the iso comparison on for example: d800 and d3100, the differences are unremarkable even @ iso 64k.

This is a wildly incorrect statement. Like, off the charts wrong. There's well over a stop of difference between the D800 and the D3100 sensors at any given signal to noise ratio. That is an immense difference.

It could be my inexperienced eye. Have a look so you can judge for yourself:

iso comparison: D3200 & d800.

 

[amolitor]

I will say that I think the case for trading up from a $400 body to a $1000 body is gonna be a pretty tough case to make. The differences are fairly modest. Incremental improvement in high ISO performance, incrementally better control layout, incrementally more powerful control of this and that.

If there's some show stopper, like "I Really Need Full-On Nikon CLS" then, sure. If you Really Need two control wheels because you shoot in such and such a setting a lot, then, sure. If you just really want a more expensive piece of gear then, sure.

If you just have a vague idea that the $1000 body is going to push you to some next level, well, it ain't. The D3200 is a pretty amazing piece of gear.

 

[amolitor]

That could be a good reason, but the iso comparison on for example: d800 and d3100, the differences are unremarkable even @ iso 64k.

This is a wildly incorrect statement. Like, off the charts wrong. There's well over a stop of difference between the D800 and the D3100 sensors at any given signal to noise ratio. That is an immense difference.

It could be my inexperienced eye. Have a look so you can judge for yourself:

iso comparison: D3200 & d800.

Yes, it is your inexperienced eye. I think the D3200 pictures have some sort of noise reduction going on, because while there's not a HUGE amount of noise at ISO3200, the picture is unusably muddy. At ISO3200 the D800 still has very light noise, and a lovely crisp picture.

 

[hamlet]

This is a wildly incorrect statement. Like, off the charts wrong. There's well over a stop of difference between the D800 and the D3100 sensors at any given signal to noise ratio. That is an immense difference.

It could be my inexperienced eye. Have a look so you can judge for yourself:

iso comparison: D3200 & d800.

Yes, it is your inexperienced eye. I think the D3200 pictures have some sort of noise reduction going on, because while there's not a HUGE amount of noise at ISO3200, the picture is unusably muddy. At ISO3200 the D800 still has very light noise, and a lovely crisp picture.

Now that you mention it, when i remove noise in lightroom my picture loses sharpness. That could be the reason i'm not all that impressed.

example:


noise reduction off:

noise reduction on:

 

[Derrel]

just sayin' ...

 

[hamlet]

You should have that fog looked at

To be clear about this: i have retracted my statement about iso irrelevance, i've been shown the error of my ways. Perhaps in the future i'll get a upgrade, but for now this will do.

 

[ratssass]

 

[EIngerson]

I have yet to see you post any photos. I would suggest actually using the camera you have before your worry about upgrading.

Have some bokeh on the house

So, a blurry image with no subject is now called "bokeh"?…….Interesting.

 

[robbins.photo]

View attachment 62224

just sayin' ...

Funny, it doesn't SMELL like TPF... rotfl

 

[PaulWog]

Your D3200 should be more than enough for you. You seem to enjoy landscape types of photography with non-existent bokeh: That's where crop sensors can really shine in ways. Crop sensor cameras end up with less depth of field than full frame. A full frame camera at f4 will produce more bokeh than a crop sensor camera at f4, when comparing equivalent fields of view. Hamlet, I know you have a tendency to read past information, so please if you don't understand any of what I just said, make sure you do; it has everything to do with your question. On a full-frame camera, you can more easily get nicer separation between your subject and the rest of the picture; what that means is nicer bokeh.

Not only do you get better depth of field, but you also end up using larger focal length lenses to get shots done. On a crop sensor, you have to use a 35mm lens to get what a full frame gets done on a 50mm. Of course, the 50mm lens produces better bokeh. So not only are you getting a nicer amount of bokeh due to the thin depth of field on the full frame camera, but you also get better bokeh due to how you get to use each lens.

Of course, you could take this logic to the extreme. You could say "well, then there's medium format... it's like another step up". Medium format is to full frame as full frame is to crop sensor, to put it into simpler terms. At a certain point, you have to pick how thin of a depth of field you want, and how large you want to go on your lenses. Also, the pockets only run so deep for anyone.

The reasons why I want to move to full frame at some point are as follows:
- thinner depth of field (Bokeh!!)
- better lens options (50mm = 50mm field of view!!)
- way nicer high ISO performance
- better build quality, controls, built-in features, focus system, & weather-proofing (of course, most of this could be had with a D7100 as well

Remember that there are a couple upsides to crop sensors:
- larger depth of field: sometimes you want this, so you can shoot at f5.6 or f7 without excessive out of focus areas
- crop factor: this is often desired, you get more reach

 

[hamlet]

Your D3200 should be more than enough for you. You seem to enjoy landscape types of photography with non-existent bokeh: That's where crop sensors can really shine in ways. Crop sensor cameras end up with less depth of field than full frame. A full frame camera at f4 will produce more bokeh than a crop sensor camera at f4, when comparing equivalent fields of view. Hamlet, I know you have a tendency to read past information, so please if you don't understand any of what I just said, make sure you do; it has everything to do with your question. On a full-frame camera, you can more easily get nicer separation between your subject and the rest of the picture; what that means is nicer bokeh.

I am currently limited physically by my lens. I do enjoy bokeh a lot, its not always possible with my current lenses on bigger subjects. But here is one:

Not only do you get better depth of field, but you also end up using larger focal length lenses to get shots done. On a crop sensor, you have to use a 35mm lens to get what a full frame gets done on a 50mm. Of course, the 50mm lens produces better bokeh. So not only are you getting a nicer amount of bokeh due to the thin depth of field on the full frame camera, but you also get better bokeh due to how you get to use each lens.

Of course, you could take this logic to the extreme. You could say "well, then there's medium format... it's like another step up". Medium format is to full frame as full frame is to crop sensor, to put it into simpler terms. At a certain point, you have to pick how thin of a depth of field you want, and how large you want to go on your lenses. Also, the pockets only run so deep for anyone.

The reasons why I want to move to full frame at some point are as follows:
- thinner depth of field (Bokeh!!)
- better lens options (50mm = 50mm field of view!!)
- way nicer high ISO performance
- better build quality, controls, built-in features, focus system, & weather-proofing (of course, most of this could be had with a D7100 as well

Remember that there are a couple upsides to crop sensors:
- larger depth of field: sometimes you want this, so you can shoot at f5.6 or f7 without excessive out of focus areas
- crop factor: this is often desired, you get more reach

The dof and the iso are perhaps the only two reasons i could see myself upgrading.

 

[hamlet]

When i buy the 70-200 then i'll be posting pictures like this: http://img.wonderhowto.com/img/40/42/63416119327772/0/howto-make-magical-bokeh-photographs.w654.jpg

 

[Coasty]

After waiting years for Nikon to release the D400, I had to find a stop gap. The 12 mega pixels just weren’t keeping up with the Cannon dorks on my boat with their 18 mega pixels. My D7000 was just to hold me over till the wonderful D400 came out. It never did, but I kind of like the D7000. Mostly metal, weather sealed, ok buffer. The things I don’t like are it feels smaller, so I need the battery grip to hold it, and I’m not too big a fan of the “consumer” grade dial, iso on the back by my nose, and no AF-ON button. Other than that, it’s not a bad camera and was an acceptable upgrade from the D300.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Still haven't gotten to a decent PC yet....

I think the D3200 pictures have some sort of noise reduction going on, because while there's not a HUGE amount of noise at ISO3200, the picture is unusably muddy. At ISO3200 the D800 still has very light noise, and a lovely crisp picture.

IIRC, I read an article about modern Nikon DSLRs have built in noise reduction from ISO 1250 on ward no matter what settings you have. I don't remember if turning on more reduction options were additive or over ruled the built in noise reduction. It was probably a year ago give or take six months I read the article. Pics looked good enough so I didn't bother doing my own tests to see.

I'm on a slow internet so you can google it at your own leisure.