jgcparker46 wrote:6016x4000- does that only apply to jpegs then. And raw is bigger but in a different format?
No. 6016x4000 is the native/physical/maximum resolution of the imaging sensor array in the D3200. (Basically, there are 4000 rows of photosites -- light absorbing sensors -- with 6016 photosites in each row, or vice-versa in portrait orientation.)
The difference between jpeg and RAW is sort of like:
if you took a picture with the lens cap on, jpeg would say, "all the photosites are black"; whereas RAW would say, "the photosite in row 1, column 1 is black, and the photosite in row 1, column 2 is black, and the photosite in row 1, column 3 is black ... and the photosite in row 4000, column 6016 is black."
So for a picture like that, the jpeg file would be much smaller.
The downside (for sharpness/detail) comes in when you instead, for example, take a picture of a black wall where you have slight variations in blackness.
So in this case, the jpeg file might say, "the photosites in row 1, columns 1-5 are all black"; whereas RAW file might say, "the photosite in row 1, column 1 is black, and the photosite in row 1, column 2 is just a tiny bit lighter than black, and the photosite in row 1, column 3 is black, and the photosite in row 1 column 4 is a tiny bit lighter than black, and the photosite in row 1 column 5 is black..."
So while the jpeg file would again be smaller, it wouldn't have all the detail of the RAW file.
Now, when viewing the picture of the wall shrunk down on a computer monitor, you probably wouldn't be able to see a difference. But if you were to blow that picture back up to wall-size, you might be able to see details in the RAW image that aren't present in the jpeg.
There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell... - Mark