Yes it is a nice pic and at 1600 nothing seems to suffer in terms of shadow detail. Now you might argue that this is to be expected as given its true speed of 1000 it is just over half a stop underexposed whereas HP5+ is by the same token 2 stops under exposed so you'd expect the same shadow area to be down by 2 stops which ought to be really noticeable by comparison and yet in numerous YouTube videos testing D3200 against HP5+ the differences are much less noticeable in the shadows than the seeming 1.5 stops difference ( 2 v 0.5)It should be no contest and yet it doesn't seem to be the case
I have always been puzzled by this This same scene with everything the same except for the film should be a good test
Not by choice, tbh. I was returning from shooting some dark interiors and this house just came up in front of me on my way back home. No other camera with me and no film besides this 3200, already set at 1600.