Upgrade from D3100 to 3200 or finally time for Canon? - General

Basically I have had a D3100 for a while now but a day or 3 ago I accidently dropped it, and It shattered. As there are just new camera's coming out and don't really feel like bringing it to repair. So since yesterday I have been peeking around and came across the D3200 (Just cause i have been using the D3100 for a while and got used to it) but then again every friend of me who knows only a little about photography has been recommending me to step over to canon . So basically I don't really know what to do, as it will be a camera that will be used for about 1-4 years and later passed on to my brother , because he cannot afford a camera himself. My budget is around 500 Euro max, it doesn't have to be "the best" of the best but rather good quality. I do need a lens also , but then again kit lenses are not always as great . Some recommendations would be great, Thanks

Well if you liked your Nikon then stick with that. The d3200 is similar but has 24mp. Alternately the d5100 will have a few more features than your d3100 like the flippy screen. Going canon won't change your images any

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41233705]Well if you liked your Nikon then stick with that. The d3200 is similar but has 24mp. Alternately the d5100 will have a few more features than your d3100 like the flippy screen. Going canon won't change your images any[/QUOTE] I was wondering because people are complaining about the nikon kit lenses (Yes, they're never that good but) a specially with the D3200 there seems to be a lot of speculation around it . So I was wondering if there was a canon in budget that could equal up or be better than the D3200 . & Thanks for the reply.

I don't think they would be. The Nikon has a much newer sensor, one just for the camera made in 2012. Any Canon APS-C camera will have one that came out in 2008, so the Nikon will have an edge on things like dynamic range, ISO, and color depth, though probably not by any big margin. And pretty much all kit lenses "suck", but Nikon has some great APS-C alternatives (namely their 35mm prime) that canon does not have. No brand has any kit lens that is significantly better than another, they are all pretty much the same. Most of the speculation is about the Nikon sensor being very high resolution and thus having a high pixel density, so the kit lens doesn't resolve enough detail for the sensor. It basically means if you take a shot with that lens on a 16mp camera and increased the size to match a 24mp that it wouldn't look much different. This isn't that big of a problem because many lenses can resolve the 24mp pretty well, like the Nikon 35mm 1.8. I have a 24mp camera myself and it really isn't a problem from what i have noticed.

repair d3100, buy new expensive lens (and insurance)

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41240045]I don't think they would be. The Nikon has a much newer sensor, one just for the camera made in 2012. Any Canon APS-C camera will have one that came out in 2008, so the Nikon will have an edge on things like dynamic range, ISO, and color depth, though probably not by any big margin. And pretty much all kit lenses "suck", but Nikon has some great APS-C alternatives (namely their 35mm prime) that canon does not have. No brand has any kit lens that is significantly better than another, they are all pretty much the same. Most of the speculation is about the Nikon sensor being very high resolution and thus having a high pixel density, so the kit lens doesn't resolve enough detail for the sensor. It basically means if you take a shot with that lens on a 16mp camera and increased the size to match a 24mp that it wouldn't look much different. This isn't that big of a problem because many lenses can resolve the 24mp pretty well, like the Nikon 35mm 1.8. I have a 24mp camera myself and it really isn't a problem from what i have noticed.[/QUOTE] I have bough the D3200 also because it was just time for a new camera. I am very happy with it, this is taken with just the lens kit, can't complain about it. [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/98190265@N03/9168014843/[/url] Excuse me for the shadows & the flash but wanted to try it all out at once.

It's a great cam, you'll have fun with it. Enjoy dude, hope I helped

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41244234]It's a great cam, you'll have fun with it. Enjoy dude, hope I helped[/QUOTE] Thanks, and yes you did ! Thank you very much for the help

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41240045]The Nikon has a much newer sensor, one just for the camera made in 2012. Any Canon APS-C camera will have one that came out in 2008, so the Nikon will have an edge on things like dynamic range, ISO, and color depth, though probably not by any big margin.[/QUOTE] I hate this so much. With Canon's current offerings, you're stuck with the same shitty 18MP sensor until you shell out 1900 euros.

[QUOTE=Raygen;41253167]I hate this so much. With Canon's current offerings, you're stuck with the same shitty 18MP sensor until you shell out 1900 euros.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm not really sure why they are still relying on in house fabs, they are the only company left that does that (besides sony, Panasonic, and Samsung, but they are big electronics companies so it makes sense for them). Selling the same sensor to people for 5 years is lame, coupled with them selling basically the same camera since the t2i aside from the screen. They've been pretty poor to their customers recently IMO

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41255759]Yeah I'm not really sure why they are still relying on in house fabs, they are the only company left that does that (besides sony, Panasonic, and Samsung, but they are big electronics companies so it makes sense for them). Selling the same sensor to people for 5 years is lame, coupled with them selling basically the same camera since the t2i aside from the screen. They've been pretty poor to their customers recently IMO[/QUOTE] It would be fantastic if they lowered the megapixel-count a bit in favour of low-light performance, but my guess is that they'll want to go head-to-head with Nikon, who've been offering 24MP in their budget models and 36MP in their professional models. Canon have been doing strange things, man. When the market called for a new 24-70 f/2.8 (or rather, something along the lines of a 24-105 f/2.8 IS USM), they released the 24-70 f/2.8 II, which basically offers better image quality, but with the same specs [I]and [/I]for a huge premium in price. Then, they released a 24-70 f/4. The only reason you would choose this over the 24-105 f/4 is less distortion, a tiny bit more sharpness and improved macro capabilities (at the cost of 35mm on the long end). Then, shortly after the 650D, they released the 700D. Changes? A new body finish, a mode dial that can rotate endlessly in both directions, and some new filters. But they also released the 6D, which is generally a good thing. Canon, what are you doing?

Lowering megapixel count doesn't really give better low light performance realistically. I mean at 100% they will look like the smaller megapixel count has better performance, but that's because they have different magnifications. If you resize them to the same size (either making the smaller image bigger or the bigger image smaller) they will look basically the same. If you look at Nikon or Sony's 24mp offerings they are at least as good as their 16mp offerings on noise performance. I mean it's the same surface area, and pixels aren't that digital in the way they gather light (not a simple on/off, but a more analog collection of light). The smaller pixels would still get the same effective light as the larger ones when combined. But basically signal to noise ratio is really complex and stuff. Over time though sensors get better and have better noise performance than previous generations of the same size.

I have a pretty quick question, I love the stars & things such as , the night sky and dark photography. I have last night tried to take photo's of the dark skies, but it came out WAY too clear, I tried playing with the ISO Settings but sadly it all came out as if it was day or very blurry & showing nothing but a lighten up dot (The moon) What are the best settings to photograph with in low light at night? regards

[QUOTE=Siemz;41264774]I have a pretty quick question, I love the stars & things such as , the night sky and dark photography. I have last night tried to take photo's of the dark skies, but it came out WAY too clear, I tried playing with the ISO Settings but sadly it all came out as if it was day or very blurry & showing nothing but a lighten up dot (The moon) What are the best settings to photograph with in low light at night? regards[/QUOTE] you should be using a tripod and the lowest possible ISO

Post the image you took? It might have just been bright from the moon or light pollution

i guess canon are trying to stall for time whilst they working on something a LOT better we can dream, i guess :v:

[QUOTE=Trogdon;41265069]Post the image you took? It might have just been bright from the moon or light pollution[/QUOTE] I already deleted it but it just turned out as a bright sky with lots of grain , and with the lower ISO it only turned out as a bright dot, in a black sky , sadly. I will try again tonight, if the sky is clear enough. Thanks again for replying

use spot metering + exposure compensationon the moon if you want any surface detail for stars and stuff you need to do a long exposure - point camera away from moon, focus on infinity, turn iso down to 100, set shutter for 30 seconds (or more, if possible with one of those remote shutter releases which you can set a bulb timer on)

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;41265273]i guess canon are trying to stall for time whilst they working on something a LOT better we can dream, i guess :v:[/QUOTE] I want to believe

[QUOTE=Raygen;41277439]I want to believe[/QUOTE] They just announce something about the sensor tech, looks to be pretty slick if you ask me. Phase detection on sensor without dedicated pixels, hopefully we will see how it pans out soon.