[GreenMachine]

I'd prefer less mp and cleaner pixels.

Yep . . . Not to mention the competition, but Canon made the right choice by keeping MP's down and working on image quality, where Nikon missed the memo about clean images and is still riding the MP wave.

[dylansalt]

Straight out of D5100 jpeg with Nikon 18-55 kit lens - one of my young son's first shots with his camera - the lens easily resolves the 16mp sensor so I doubt it will struggle with the 24mp in the D3200

[tuco]

How big are those files from D3200? I guess most users will have a kitlens and shoot in jpg.

Biggest problem with al those megapixels is that every lovely girl turns into a very hairy bunny again

Your computer would have to be crawling to edit current 16MP files before 24MP would be a problem. I'd think your system would have really old hardware to find 24MP an issue. Before my last upgrade I edited 500MB scanned negative DNG files on a 2004 computer acceptable enough.

[eddie1960]

Yep . . . Not to mention the competition, but Canon made the right choice by keeping MP's down and working on image quality, where Nikon missed the memo about clean images and is still riding the MP wave.

Yep but after 25 years of electronics retail I can tell you that at the entry level Nikon will win this round. entry level buyers like something simple to grab onto like MP

[paulh]

Yep but after 25 years of electronics retail I can tell you that at the entry level Nikon will win this round. entry level buyers like something simple to grab onto like MP

The "more is better" theory at work - esp. for the first-time buyer.

[eddie1960]

The "more is better" theory at work - esp. for the first-time buyer.

yep, when i sold audio a ton of people bought junk receivers from sony technic et al at the same price or slightly less than a really good entry level receiver from someone like NAD. the reason it has 100 WPC so it must be better (the NAD would have been 30WPC but it sounded way better)
People also like flashing lights and displays in my experience )
Brand is also a huge factor but nikon is as good as canon in that respect (Pentax OTOH meh not so much now days)

[JohnBee]

The "more is better" theory at work - esp. for the first-time buyer.

Never fails.
Worst part is... it likely never will.
The entire scheme rests on human nature and there's nothing we can do about it. - more will always be better, always. :ugh:

[eddie1960]

Never fails.
Worst part is... it likely never will.
The entire scheme rests on human nature and there's nothing we can do about it. - more will always be better, always. :ugh:

Rule #1 of retail
you can never really go broke underestimating the intelligence of the Public

[Eulogy]

Straight out of D5100 jpeg with Nikon 18-55 kit lens - one of my young son's first shots with his camera - the lens easily resolves the 16mp sensor so I doubt it will struggle with the 24mp in the D3200

That's stopped down, and still not as sharp as it *should* be with the 16MP sensor from the 5100.

Only time I got "great" results with mine was when I used a lens from a friend in town(85mm)

No one really makes a perfect kit lens, because at the end of the day, it's all about cutting costs.

[eddie1960]

No one really makes a perfect kit lens, because at the end of the day, it's all about cutting costs.

Why would you make a perfect Kit Lens - you'd just kill sales on the better stuff

and as you said it's driven by price, not a chance of making perfect and still selling it for $100 with a body. Arguably it needs to be about 20X that selling
to approach perfect (see the new Canon 24-70 or the Nikon 24-70 for examples - both are near perfect but cost an arm and a leg)
Because of the ease of design at the FL the easiest to make close to perfect kit lenses were the old fast 50's

[luftfluss]

Not K-5's 16mp? Would both K-r replacement and the more distant K-5 replacement have the same 24mp sensor?

Will Sony even continue to make the 16mp sensor?

[deadwolfbones]

Yep . . . Not to mention the competition, but Canon made the right choice by keeping MP's down and working on image quality, where Nikon missed the memo about clean images and is still riding the MP wave.

Complete BS, IMO.

The D800's sensor, for instance, outdoes the much lower-res sensor in the 5DmkIII in virtually every category at DXOMark.

Canon's sensor tech hasn't progressed much over the last five years, while Nikon has hitched their star to Sony's sensor magicians, who are doing excellent work (as seen in the K-5, for instance) regardless of the pixel density.

[eddie1960]

Complete BS, IMO.

The D800's sensor, for instance, outdoes the much lower-res sensor in the 5DmkIII in virtually every category at DXOMark.

Canon's sensor tech hasn't progressed much over the last five years, while Nikon has hitched their star to Sony's sensor magicians, who are doing excellent work (as seen in the K-5, for instance) regardless of the pixel density.

this is canon's real challenge. up till 5 years back they were the top without a doubt. they seem to have stalled big time

[tuco]

Complete BS, IMO.

The D800's sensor, for instance, outdoes the much lower-res sensor in the 5DmkIII in virtually every category at DXOMark.

I just saw the DXO Mark comparison between the 5DMIII and D800. Pretty impressive for Nikon. Goes to show that more MP is always worse is out the window.

[Rondec]

Complete BS, IMO.

The D800's sensor, for instance, outdoes the much lower-res sensor in the 5DmkIII in virtually every category at DXOMark.

Canon's sensor tech hasn't progressed much over the last five years, while Nikon has hitched their star to Sony's sensor magicians, who are doing excellent work (as seen in the K-5, for instance) regardless of the pixel density.

But in comparing the 24 megapixel sensor to the 16 megapixel sensor, it seems like the 24 megapixel sensor does better in resolution (debatable with kit lens), but doesn't do quite as well with dynamic range and high iso performance (this is based on DXO Mark data -- Nex 7 versus K5 performance. To me, the difference in resolution is mostly theoretical, as with pixels that dense, everything has to really fall into place to take advantage of it, while the difference in dynamic range/high iso is more usable.

Anyway, I sort of think 24 megapixels is overkill for entry level users, but then again, I think that 14 megapixels in a point and shoot is too much too.