Nikon d3200

[slicer]

So just bought the D3200. replaced a dx40. hope the 6400 iso does the job for me. could not afford the f2.3 300 mm

[WRon]

Well, there's no doubt that shots taken at ISO 6400 on the 3200 will show less noise than similar shots taken by the D40x. You may also wish to look into purchasing a plug in for Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or Lightroom called Noiseware. It's published by Imagenomic and it works like a charm in that it suppresses noise without taking away too much sharpness.

[MarkD]

What's acceptable is up to the individual. I have a D3100 and I find iso 6400 to be very usable. According to Pop Photo's test the D3200 is a little better at iso 3200 and 6400 than the D3100. If you want a less expensive f/2.8 tele look at the new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM and new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. Less expensive are used non-stabilized Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8's. I believe the used Sigmas and Tamrons run $700-800. New stabilized ones run around $1200. They're not Nikon 300mm f/2.8's, but they are good lenses and you don't need a second mortgage to buy one.

[BlurMyReality]

Yeah, one's level of acceptance in regards of high ISO vary quite a lot. My D800's ISO6400 is not acceptable IMO and D3200 isn't stellar performer in terms of high ISO. Still, it is miles better than your previous camera, so I am sure you'll be happy. D3200 is especially good on low ISO and that's where that camera really shines.

[BobF]

I love discussions like this. In 'the good ol' days' we only had a few options that were even 1600 ISO and they were full of grain. And if you needed more you underexposed and pushed and dealt with the boulder-sized grain. Now all the digital 'johnny come latelys' want 248,000,000 ISO that's cleaner than 100 ISO film. Perspective (aka get a frickin' reality check).

[MarkD]

I love discussions like this. In 'the good ol' days' we only had a few options that were even 1600 ISO and they were full of grain. And if you needed more you underexposed and pushed and dealt with the boulder-sized grain. Now all the digital 'johnny come latelys' want 248,000,000 ISO that's cleaner than 100 ISO film. Perspective (aka get a frickin' reality check).

Bob, I remember shooting with GAF 500. Talk about grain. Maybe that's why I don't complain about noise at iso 6400 with my D3100. Even iso 12,800 is better than any film I used at iso 1600. Even my D50 was noisy at iso 1600. I think we should be more concerned with composition and light and less concerned with a little bit of noise.

[mrchile]

I love discussions like this. In 'the good ol' days' we only had a few options that were even 1600 ISO and they were full of grain. And if you needed more you underexposed and pushed and dealt with the boulder-sized grain. Now all the digital 'johnny come latelys' want 248,000,000 ISO that's cleaner than 100 ISO film. Perspective (aka get a frickin' reality check).

That being said Bob, the amount of noise,(grain), control available today is amazing. Not to mention being being able to change ISO, (ASA or DIN in those days), on the fly instead of having to change rolls of film.

[BobF]

That being said Bob, the amount of noise,(grain), control available today is amazing. Not to mention being being able to change ISO, (ASA or DIN in those days), on the fly instead of having to change rolls of film.

Oh, no question. It's fabulous.