Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Replacing a Nikon 3200 (2004 era)

Jul 15, 2011 6:52AM PDT

I have an aging Nikon Coolpix 3200 (2004 era). I'd like to replace it with a smaller digital point & shoot but can't find one that produces an image quality even close to this older camera. So far I've tested the Nikon Coolpix S3100, S8100 and the Samsung WB210... but none of them has as good as image quality as my older 3200. I'd like to stay under $200. Any ideas?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
Nikon 3200
Jul 15, 2011 10:34AM PDT
- Collapse -
Still looking
Jul 24, 2011 5:48AM PDT

Thanks snapshot2... I took your advise and test drove the Canon Powershot Elph 100 HS. I shot roughly 100 pics using the same settings (or as close as I coud get) to my old Nikon Coolpix 3200... exact same pic from the exact same location. Created 2 folders on my computer and transferred the images to the respective folder. Then compared each image, flipping back & forth from Nikon to Canon folder... advancing the images and comparing. The Nikon 3200 images are noticably sharper/crisper than the Canon images. So far, I've tested the Nikon S8100, Nikon S3100, Samsung WB210 and the Canon Powershot Elph 100 HS... I've not been able to get as sharp as images on any of them. So... I think I'm stuck with the Nikon 3200. I think my only out is to find a Nikon that has the same 'guts', lens, etc. as the 3200. Thanks again for your help.

- Collapse -
Same size image?
Jul 24, 2011 1:47PM PDT

Your old 3200 is a 3.2 megapixel camera. All the cameras you have tested are 12+ megapixels. Are you comparing the images in their native size? If you are, then it is not really an accurate test, because the 12+MP image is much larger. You should instead print them at the same size and then compare.

- Collapse -
Nikon 3200
Jul 25, 2011 1:45AM PDT

PistonCupChampion... Thanks for your response. You may have misunderstood my previous post. I did not "print" any of the images. I only transferred them to my computer and displayed them. I rarely print photos anymore. I generally store them on my computer. I often email some of them and sometimes transfer them to my web page for others to view. It's not a printed image quality issue. I still have some of the images I compared on my computer and would be happy to share them. Thanks for your help.

- Collapse -
Understood
Jul 25, 2011 2:16AM PDT

I understood that you were comparing them on your computer monitor. Even so, they need to be compared at the same size. The Nikon 3200 produces images sized 2048 x 1536 pixels. A Nikon 9100 produces images sized 4000 x 3000...twice as large as your current camera. You need to view both camera's images at the same or similar size for the comparison to be fair.

- Collapse -
Being fair
Jul 25, 2011 5:13AM PDT

My 3200 image mode has 5 settings. 3M High 2048+, 3M 2048, 2M 1600, PC Screen 1024, and TV Screen 640. I set it on 3M 2048, and used a similiar setting on the Canon 100 HS. The only real difference I noticed, besides the image quality, was that the Canon had a wider lens. So I stepped forward with the Canon to frame the image, as much as possible. Outside of the image quality, I would much rather have the Canon. Much easier to pack around and has a georgous viewing screen, LiOn battery, etc. My thinking is that they put so much into all the 'bells & whistles' that they shorted the image quality. If I could find a compact point & shoot digital that produced great images I'd sure take a look at it. My old Nikon Coolpix 3200 has a couple problems. The lens cover doesn't close all the way, and when taking short movie clips, it has a click,click,click sound that winds up on the movie.

- Collapse -
Try a different price range
Jul 25, 2011 8:34AM PDT

Maybe $200 doesn't come with a sharp lens any more.
I was fishing in that pond a few months ago and ran into the wide-angle lens problem.
All the camera makers jumped on the wide-angle lens bandwagon a little over a year ago.
Marketing said make wide-angle lens cameras, so they rushed out new lenses.
It costs more to make a good wide angle lens and the cost cutting won out over quality.

I did notice that, as the camera price got higher the lens sharpness got better.


Take a look at the Canon SX130IS (approx $250).
Sharp in the middle and on the edges.

It does have a sharper lens than the Canon Elph 100 HS.