Scrappers - D4 vs 3200 - Does gear actually matter???

[sscarmack]

So after seeing this thread (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-blowing-images-taken-entry-level-gear-4.html)

I decided to do some testing of my own and see if I could duplicate some results.

#1

Full size: http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m20/scar488/20140617-011-2_zps197a8cea.jpg



#2

Full Size: http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m20/scar488/20140617-006-2_zpsfc999101.jpg



I don't want to reveal any settings just yet, as they will give away which camera is which. But shutter speeds, iso, and aperture are pretty close to insure same results. Taken within 2 minutes of each other. Processing is the same on both. Just a slightly different angle.



Lets discuss.

 

[Raj_55555]

From my years of experience of using the D4, I am pretty sure the first one has been taken using the better of the two. :er:

 

[TWright33]

I like the idea of testing the two.

I love the fact that they are almost identical.

But I understand that once you go indoors and get into things like a dark wedding reception the D4 is going to make the D3200 cry.

 

[SnappingShark]

I would also say #1 is the D4.

 

[tirediron]

Good idea, however, IMO, a flawed execution by which to evaluate the hypothesis. In average conditions most modern DSLRs are going to perform well. There are no tricky exposure issues to deal with, no dark rooms, etc, BUT... what people seem to forget is that the difference between the D4 and the D3200 isn't nearly so much about image quality as it is about build quality, features, frame rate, buffer-size, battery life, etc. Given a D3200 and a decent lens kit, I'd expect any reasonable photographer to turn in good images from an out door sporting event in good light. Let's try this again on a dark evening when it's pouring rain, shoot the whole game with both cameras and THEN do a comparison. I'm guessing the results will be pretty obvious.

 

[robbins.photo]

Good idea, however, IMO, a flawed execution by which to evaluate the hypothesis. In average conditions most modern DSLRs are going to perform well. There are no tricky exposure issues to deal with, no dark rooms, etc, BUT... what people seem to forget is that the difference between the D4 and the D3200 isn't nearly so much about image quality as it is about build quality, features, frame rate, buffer-size, battery life, etc. Given a D3200 and a decent lens kit, I'd expect any reasonable photographer to turn in good images from an out door sporting event in good light. Let's try this again on a dark evening when it's pouring rain, shoot the whole game with both cameras and THEN do a comparison. I'm guessing the results will be pretty obvious.

Agreed, with one proviso - take these exact same shots from say 3x the distance, then crop. Suddenly image quality does become a really big issue. For your average everyday shot where you have the telephoto reach to get the crop you want, well provided your not printing something huge there won't be much of a noticeable difference. When you go to crop something or print something really big - then yes, going from 16 mp to 24 mp can make a huge difference.

Granted for a lot of people shooting landscapes, portraits, etc the difference between a 16 mp and 24 mp sensor won't be a big deal for the most part - but boy when you do a lot of telephoto their really is a big difference in what you can accomplish in post processing with the final image when your dealing with something shot at 24 mp as opposed to something shot at 16, or 12.

Now granted the D4 has a ton of things going for it over the D3200, better AF, much faster shooting speed, etc, etc, etc.. But I point out the sensor difference because so often I see people posting things like "Higher megapixels don't produce better images, that's a myth" - which really isn't true. Yes, the camera companies have drastically overhyped the need for higher MP sensors in a camera and yes a lot of salespeople with just enough knowledge to be dangerous will use this as a selling point without really understanding the true benefits of the higher MP sensor, but they really do make a difference.

Now granted given my choice between a D4 or a D3200 even for shooting telephoto I'd go with the D4 in a heartbeat, just way to many other advantages to the D4 not too really. But then again we are comparing a top of the line pro camera to a very basic, entry level camera that only costs a fraction of what the D4 costs.

 

[astroNikon]

as mentioned, On a bright sunny day with the right timing, etc I think there would be minor differences.

Add any other issue with weather, lighting, etc then there's a bunch of differences.

I'm happy with my cameras. I've slightly dropped my d7000 in a stream, been out with the d600 in light rain taking photos at a car show. I've dropped the d7000 to a concrete floor. I think these snafu's would have rendered a plastic body camera with no weathersealing basically dead or broken.

 

[photoguy99]

Gosh, it's almost as if different gear has different strengths, and there's a pretty large area of overlap in which pretty much any camera can produce excellent results.

 

[sashbar]

D3200 is for those of us who like taking great photos. D4 is for those of us who must take great photos. It is not about the image quality, it is about functionality.

 

[Milky]

probably due to the internet display, but both looks like they have a dodgy quality....

I have had quite a range of camera in the last years (Canon 450D, 7D, 5D1, 5D2, 5D3, Fuji X100) and well, in good condition it is hard to see the difference. but well I only own 5D1 and 5D2 right now, but I can tell you while shooting show, you can often tell which one was taken with 5D1 or 5D3, juste have a quick look at my website... but obvisouly you don't have to have the last camera to have the better photo, far from it, it is just less pain sometimes IMO.

 

[Derrel]

I've actually used a then top-shelf Nikon, a D2x, with nearly instantaneous shutter lag times, and the Nikon D70, at the same track meet. The D70 was sloooooow; on pole vaulting, you got the plant, then the top of the bar, and then the person ON the GROUND...that's what approximately 3 frames per second gets you--basically ONE, single good shot opportunity at the athlete going over the bar. With the D2x at 8.2 fps in crop-mode, you could get the plant, the beginning of the bend of the pole,full bend and loading of the bar, the approach to the bar, crossing the bar, the push-away of the pole, the beginning of the descent, the bar staying or falling, and two frames of the drop, then the impact. An utterly HUGE difference. Not so much a focus issue as what 3 frames per second AND a slow lag time means...at 3 frames per second, the "action" is widely separated, by,well, like 1/3 of a second per frame, so the way you approach shooting things is different than if you have a camera that can fire a second frame really,really quickly.

On field goals in college football, with a D70, I needed to press the shutter release as the kicker cocked his leg back...and by the time the mirror leisurely swung up and the shutter fired, you'd get foot-on-ball, hopefully. With the D2x, shutter lag with the LCD auto-review option set to OFF, lag time was 37 milliseconds, on the D70 about 134 milliseconds, or just a bit over three times slower. With ANY camera you use regularly, you CAN and WILL get used to the exact lag time and also the firing rate/time between frames/mirror return time, and you do learn how much anticipation is needed. In some cases, the anticipation needed makes it very tough to get the right timing, but you can get close. What I find is that with the "pro" Nikons, you can actually literally "see a shot", and hit the release and still get the shot, but with the slower bodies, if you actually "see" the shot, it's already too late, and you're behind the action, at least on fast-action stuff.

The bigger, better AF-S lenses like the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/2.8 focus on low-end bodies that I have used just as fast for one shot focus acquisition as they do on the D1,D2, or D3x, but the older, slower, screw-driver lenses like the 80-200 one ring are utter DOGS on the low-end, older Nikons I have used. I have not had a new mid-level body and an 80-200 one ring or anything old, so not sure how those bodies like D300s or D7100 can handle the oldrer "big" screw-driver lenses.

Whatever camera you have, you CAN and WILL get used to its timing after a while. It takes about a month I think, and then the more you use the same camera, the more used to it you become.

 

[Scatterbrained]

So after seeing this thread (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-blowing-images-taken-entry-level-gear-4.html)

I decided to do some testing of my own and see if I could duplicate some results.

#1
View attachment 77223
Full size: http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m20/scar488/20140617-011-2_zps197a8cea.jpg



#2
View attachment 77224
Full Size: http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m20/scar488/20140617-006-2_zpsfc999101.jpg



I don't want to reveal any settings just yet, as they will give away which camera is which. But shutter speeds, iso, and aperture are pretty close to insure same results. Taken within 2 minutes of each other. Processing is the same on both. Just a slightly different angle.



Lets discuss.

This is like saying a Corvette and Aveo are equally good because they both do 55 on the highway. Posting finished images on the internet isn't telling the whole story.

 

[robbins.photo]

This is like saying a Corvette and Aveo are equally good because they both do 55 on the highway. Posting finished images on the internet isn't telling the whole story.

You managed to get an Aveo up to 55? Ok, wait, was it on the back of a tow truck at the time?

 

[Scatterbrained]

It was drafting behind the Corvette while going downhill.

 

[Derrel]

What I wanna see is like the 15th,16th,17,18th, and oh, the 28th frame out of say a sequence of a night-time dirt-ttrack open wheel race car crash shot with the D3200. Oh, wait...it only has a12-frame NEF buffer...oh, nevermind.

A SINGLE frame, shot at home plate from down the third base line baseball shot...wow....pre-focus city....that kind of shot has been done since the Graflex company started making glass plate cameras in the 1880's...and no, I am not kidding at all. Not in the least.

Here's a public domain shot from the Library of Congress collection, showing old GLASS-plate Graflex cameras at a major league ,ballpark...four of the guys are loaded, cocked, pre-focused, and waiting for a shot to appear.

You can see the guy fifth from the left, winding the tensioning key for his camera's huge, cloth focal plane shutter.