Anything better than a nikon D3200?
Any cameras along the same budget which is better than the D3200, the colour depth, and contrast interested me, but I read it has too many pixels for a very good quality picture (What's the deal with the pixel thing, what's classed as good?).
I'm looking to upgrade from my 350D, cameras i've been looking at seem to wipe the floor with it… I was leaning away from canon, being the cameras I've reviewed, canon came up short (for my price range).
Anybodies opinions, recommendations?
Like I said before, if you want a camera better than the Nikon D3200, go to the Nikon site and look at their lineup. Pick one that meets your budget.
http://shop.nikonusa.com/...D.43886800
I answered you the first time.
Canon 650D
Same price range?
Canon are fantastic cameras! Don't give up on them so quickly. Take a look at the EOS 7D body.
Besides, if you have a couple of lenses it makes sense to upgrade with the same make. If you change to Nikon, you will have to buy new lenses too.
Take a look at the Nikon D5100 - unless you care about video, in which case stick with the D3200.
http://snapsort.com/...ikon-D5100
The D5100 is lower resolution but has more advanced features, including the moving LCD, which is very useful for low-down macro or overhead shots. It also has in-camera HDR, which is limited, but a good introduction to HDR if you are interested.
Basically anything over 12MP is good enough for a large enlargement. The trend towards higher pixel counts doesn't really give much benefit as more pixels per inch just means each one is smaller, so effects like colour fringing become more likely. On the other hand, each generation of sensors is better than the last, so it probably doesn't make too much difference.
The other problem with larger pixel counts is storage space - you need bigger memory cards, more disk space, more backup and more RAM on a faster computer to process the larger files.
Most people never print out more than 8"x6" prints anyway - maybe 12"x8" for something really special. A 12"x8" print at 300x300 pixels per inch is only 8.6 megapixels. Even if you crop nearly half the frame on a 15MP camera, you would still get your 300 pixel per inch 12"x8" print - or 24"x16" at 150 pixels per inch. Just how big do you need to print or enlarge?
As far as colour depth and contrast go, I don't think you are going to see a massive difference between recent sensors on any of the brands at the budget you have. For a significant difference you would have to go to the full frame cameras, which would cost a lot more.
I'm not sure what Nikon has been taking these few years, but it's clearly got lost in this cram more megapixels and sell mentality that Canon used to do in the past. So yes 24 megapixels on an APS-C sized sensor is pointless, if D800 users are already coming across the problem that their 36 megapixel full frame sensor is out resolving many lenses, only some of the latest lenses such as the Carl Zeiss Distagon 55mm f1.4 are getting resolution to match. Now the pixel density of the D3200 is even higher than that of the D800, so you won't find lenses which can resolve that much, 24 megapixels well wasted.
The 350D is a perfectly fine if you're not looking for crazy ISOs, or fast AF, and your money may be better spend on getting lenses if you've not already. Besides if you jump ship to Nikon, you'll also have to change all your lenses.
If you need low light performance, then the Canon 5D (mark I) is the camera to consider, it's ultra low pixel density means despite it's age, it produces an impressive performance all the way up to ISO1600. However with the 5D any EF-S lenses you have will have to go, as they're not full frame.