I have to agree about the operator error issue. It might be an entry level DSLR but mine takes some pretty damn good pictures. Learn the tool and it will reward you.
jguessrn wrote:
I have taken 35 millimeter photographs since 1968 shooting mostly Kodachrome and fujichrome slides. About 6 years ago I decided to make the switch to digital . I have regretted it since. I originally bought a Canon Rebel which serviced fairly well a point and shoot. as my focus was elsewhere I wasn't real serious just recording events. Somebody liked my Canon more than I did or it grew legs and walked off so I decided I would replace it with something more serious that I could manipulate the camera and the images. After talking to my camera guy he assured me the Nikon D 3200 would fit the bill so I bought one. to say I was disappointed is being mild. I have had the camera for 3 years now and I think that I'm fairly familiar with the menu and the manipulation of the lenses and the camera. I will start this conversation with the focus of the camera. I shoot Birds and I shoot macro mostly flowers so I set the camera up with fairly small f stops and slow shutter speeds and shoot with a tripod and electronic release. I used live Focus and zoom in on my focus point. on my screen it looks sharp. the finished image looks more like a cloudy piece of mud no matter what I do with the image I have tried different computers to see if the screens were the problem and the images are just not Sharp. the stamen in the flowers are not Sharp.. I focus on the bird's eye and the eye is fairly sharp although it looks dull but when looking at the head there is no definite definition to the feathers. the overall effect of the picture is like I'm shooting through a mild fog. I have thought for a while now that my camera guy was BSing me and the Nikon D 3200 is nothing more than a glorified point and shoot. I have thought about buying a new camera but as I'm retired on it fixed budget I'm leery to do that so I would like to get a little input as to things to try or to scrap the camera thank you
I have taken 35 millimeter photographs since 1968 ... (
show quote)
...Ron Dudley...aka the feather photographer has a web site that you should visit...he is all about taking great photos of birds...1/4000, f/6.3, ISO 800...are his typical settings...notice how fast his shutter speed is and how relativity high his ISO is set at...you may need to use a much faster shutter speed because small birds are constantly moving and flowers sway in the breeze...stick with the tripod but consider changing your exposure settings and see if that makes a difference...good luck!
I have the D3200 and still use it as a backup today to the D7100. The 3200 is a nice entry level camera and takes some incredible shots using the right settings and lens. Not so good for low light though. A lot of people like the 3200 and for the price it does a fine job.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Three pages and still no sample images. I guess he either figured it out, sold the camera, or decided he is on his own . . .
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
I bought a used D3200 to feed a live TV and was surprised it could also take decent photos, and that it works with my oldest NIKKOR lenses. However, it was very difficult to focus manually and shoot at slow shutter speeds due t excess shutter shake, at least compared with my Nikon F, Pentax, and Minolta SLRs. I had to learn to use autofocus and Live View zoom when there is time. The jpg photos are quite noisy in low light. I also tried a D3300 and found the jpg images much better when I don't have time for RAW. The difference processors between the D3200 and D3300 are like night and day. The D3300 is also hard to focus manually and it shakes, but I have learned its limits and find the D3300 quite acceptable for what I use it for. It still sounds like there is something wrong with your D3200. I would consider getting it checked out by someone who knows this line in case it is defective or needs a cleaning, although it doesn't sound like a dirty sensor. I read where some of the early 18-55mm lenses are not very good, but not be as bad as you describe. Maybe the lens is slightly fogged. Please post some photos with the upload original option checked..
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.