+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    Junior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    Quote Originally Posted by ksrigg View Post
    .If I remember correctly the digital camera sent to Mars on the Rover was something like a 1 or 2 megapixel camera with probably one of the most precise lens ever produced. Look at some of those images... WOW is all I can say. ..
    Yes, you do rememer correctly, the only thing is that those wonderfull panoramic pictures of mars are composed of hundreds of small pictures arranged into a larger picture via computer software. So yes, among other things the size of the picture in megapixels does matter, provided the increase in megapixels does not mean an increase in noise or other artifacts.
    Of course we are all speaking of picture size in terms of megapixels when we should focus on sensor size, lenses and so on, but I am afraid that would not please manufacturers.


    › See More: Nikon D3100 vs D3200



  2. #22
    ^ broke something
    Admin
    jdeg's Avatar

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    updated prices
    John

  3. #23
    Junior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    Hi Everyone,

    I am not a photographer or have any knowledge regarding DSLR cameras. But I would like to get there and so far all digital cameras I have owned were disappointing at some point.

    So now after some desk research I have decided to go for Nikon D3100. It has great reviews and also fits in my budget. Now...I saw there is the D3200 available as well and I am not sure if with my skill or the lack of it and the price difference it would be a good decision to get the D3200.

    I can get the D3100 for $405 CAD or pay $596 CAD for the D3200. That's a $190 or 47% difference. What would you recommend? I would also use the camera to take videos...but mostly pictures.

    Any recommendations please?

    Thanks,

    Buy the way...planing a trip to Istanbul soon and will share pictures back here, with the 3100 or 3200...

  4. #24
    Senior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    Hi, I've owned both, not for very long though. Had the D3100 for a month then took it back and got the D3200.

    Both are equally as good IMO; don't let the higher Megapixel count blind you; the only reason that would matter is if you're going to be printing huge (as in lifesize) prints. That being said, I do find it handy knowing that with the D3200 I can crop quite freely without any real fear or quality loss.

    As a new photographer myself, sometimes I don't get the framing right and being able to sort it out after without having a negative effect on the photo quality does give me peace of mind.

    I did prefer the live view switch on the d3100 instead of the button on the d3200 but I suppose that just means one less thing to theoretically go wrong. Same can be said for the shoot mode dial switch.

    Having the option to have a wireless receiver on the D3200 is a plus, also, I did feel the grip was a bit better on the D3200.

    All that being said, both camera's are fantastic out of the box but if you really want to see a big improvement, invest in a good lens, I personally bought both the 35mm 1.8g and the 50mm 1.8g and the difference is very noticeable. If you're budget is tight and buying the D3200 would mean not being able to afford either of these lenses (particularly the 35mm as that is very handy as a general purpose fixed prime); then go for the D3100 and that would hopefully give you the spare cash needed.

    I'm sure someone may also pipe in with the argument of buying a D5100 but having no experience of that camera I can't comment.

    Truth is, budget is big thing when choosing a camera and for the money, you can't really go wrong with either the 3100 or the 3200; investing in good glass seems to be a lot of people's advice on here, one which should be heeded.

    Hope that helps.

  5. #25
    Senior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    I would concurr with ryanps' comments above. I started with the D3100 and upgraded to the D3200 after 5 months.Also consider what size pictures you want to print. I do A4/A3 prints as standard and goup to A2 quite often.

  6. #26
    Senior Member

    Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    I always advise people to get a little more camera than they think they need if they can afford too. The will get comfortable with the features of the camera they think they need and wish they could do more.

    Good luck!
    Jason
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #27
    Junior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    Thank you ryan p, marce, and jayradio for your advice. I was today at a store and held both cameras in my hand...and still can't decide. Instead of narrowing it down I even put in a 3rd option which would be a D5100 as ryan p suggested... for $529.
    So here the choices I have to make tomorrow:
    d3100 = $405
    d3200 = open box item $550
    d5100 = $529

    totally confused...

  8. #28
    Senior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    Hi

    I've already made the transition from a compact camera user to my current camera which is a compact system camera (micro 4/3's 16 megapixels). I'm now about to buy my first ever DSLR.

    I've narrowed my selection down to 2 models, the Nikon D3100 and Nikon D3200.

    I'm finding i cant make my mind up between the two of them, and is how I've ended up finding your brilliant website.

    The D3200 has a much higher megapixels count. However, after reading posts on your website I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. Why? One of my main reasons for wanting to upgrade to a DSLR is the better image quality that the bigger image sensor gives (especially and importantly in low light/indoors conditions). I've read that bigger megapixels count means smaller pixels on the sensor and can lead to poorer image quality in low light conditions. I usually do find myself cropping most of my images and sometimes quite a bit can come off. Has anybody owned both models? If so, when in low light conditions (i.e indoors) is there a significant difference in performance i.e shutter speed, noise and image quality etc, or does the newer technology in the D3200 somehow compensate?

    So in a nutshell:

    - I'm a cropper.
    - Want better low light performance from a new camera compared to my current camera.
    - Is the D3200's bigger megapixel count a good or a bad thing for me?
    - Price difference isn't really that significant.
    - So, D3100 v D3200?

  9. #29
    Senior Member

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    What sort of shots are you going to take in low light?
    Though having had both cameras I can say the low light performance is pretty similar. Though for non flash low light I use a tripod and a remote release. For both cameras I only rarely went above 400, and then only to 800 if I had to. When shooting in low light with both cameras I would recommend exposing to the right (brighter if possible) without blowing highlights. Or in my case I have a couple of YN-506 flash guns, stands, snoots, etc brolly's and remote triggers. Cheap via ebay, and some stuff like the snoots home made.
    If you want to crop or print large go for the D3200, I did and love the picture you can take.
    Here is a recent picture taken with my D3200, a 55-300 Nikon lens and in woodland so light was interesting, bright areas with lots of shadows:
    if you could see what i have seen with your eyes | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
    I am not on my home system so I couldn't upload a version.
    I tend to print out pictures as large as possible on A4 for the majority, but also do numerous prints on A3 paper and the picture are great, even with cropping.
    I also found using the higher resolution and thus less forgiving sensor has helped me improve my technique, though I still have a lot of further to go, but I am enjoying learning and occasionally getting a good shot.
    More details of what you want to photograph would help. In my case I am biased, I love the D3200 and my next upgrade will be to the similar pixel count D600 (though I dream of a D800, but need to nail the technicalities of good cameramanship first.)

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Mycenius's Avatar

    Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200

    Quote Originally Posted by paul_b View Post
    The D3200 has a much higher megapixels count. However, after reading posts on your website I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. Why? One of my main reasons for wanting to upgrade to a DSLR is the better image quality that the bigger image sensor gives (especially and importantly in low light/indoors conditions). I've read that bigger megapixels count means smaller pixels on the sensor and can lead to poorer image quality in low light conditions.
    That has traditionally been true the first 10 years or so of DSLRs, but just recently the last couple of years I think its becoming less significant, the D7100 certainly seems to go contrary to this (24MP on DX Sensor and no Noise Filter)...

    I think the D5200(?) which has the same(?) 24MP sensor (albeit with a Noise Filter) is pretty good too...?

    Sent from my iPad 3 using Tapatalk HD
    Thanks/Like paul_b Thanks/liked this post
     
    John
    Kiwi Nikonite
    Fujifilm X-E2 | Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R | Fujinon XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro | FujiFilm EF-42 Shoe Mount Flash





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •