I am planning to buy my first DSLR and since I have already used the Nikon coolpix range I thought of going with Nikon itself. I have zeroed in on two models the d3300 and the d5200 since these are the two cameras which fits in my budget.I am a casual hobbyist photographer but good video quality is also a priority since I also plan to make some short films with it.I am inclined towards d3300 because of 1080p 60p framerate while the d5200 only have a 60i option.Also speaking the d5200 allows recording uncompressed videos through HDMI which can be a great boon.Can somebody please tell me whether the d3300 supports this uncompressed hdmi video record feature or not?So finally please give your opinion on which camera will be suitable for my considering the fact that I will be sticking to the camera for another 2 or more years and I will be only investing in lenses and other accessories during this time.
Which one to choose? Nikon d3300 or d5200?
- Thread starter Sean Benn
- Start date
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
If it's between those two, I'd say the D5200. But... For only about $50 more you could get into the D5300 which would be a nice step up over the D5200. Nothing monumental but several very nice to have improvements.
...
...
I had a similar decision to make and I chose the D3300. As far as I'm concerned, it was the correct decision.
Check out examples at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/sets/72157639514885856/
BUT........... with video being a strong requirement for your needs, I suggest the D5300 due to the articulating screen. It's almost a necessity for easy videoing (is that a word?)
Check out examples at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/sets/72157639514885856/
BUT........... with video being a strong requirement for your needs, I suggest the D5300 due to the articulating screen. It's almost a necessity for easy videoing (is that a word?)
Last edited:
It doesn't have the focus motor. I've seen that description on the web and it's false.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The biggest difference is the lack of the low pass filter on the sensor.
It's not a big difference, but it'll be a little sharper. I want the d3300 for a lite kit when I'm not using my d610. I'd go for a d7100, but for the price this d3300 is perfect
If you are using snapsort to compare cameras... I wouldn't put too much trust in their ratings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The lack of a low pass filter is a huge difference.
And the D3300 has an entirely new processor.
The ISO limits of the D3300 are double that of the D3200.
The D3300 processes video better than the D3200.
And, it shoots faster than the D3200.
The D3300 has a battery that lasts almost 50% longer than the D3200 battery.
A lot of bad information gets circulated when the proper research isn't done before posting.
The D3300 is very different than the D3200.
If budget is your concern, the D3300 it is. As others have said, a D5300 is better for video as it is the D3300 with a lot of addons. The advantages of D3300/D5300 over the older models is the lack of low pass filter and the new faster processor. You get sharper images and faster burst/video rate. So I would not consider the D5200.
I would suggest that you get the D3300 with its kit lense. Use it for about 6 months and then decide whether the higher DR and swivel screen of the D5300 are really needed.
I would suggest that you get the D3300 with its kit lense. Use it for about 6 months and then decide whether the higher DR and swivel screen of the D5300 are really needed.
A low pass filter ( anti aliasing filter) is to eliminate the moire' effect caused by certain patterns like someones shirt that has very close stripes or lines in the fabric. When taking an image of these patterns it looks like the lines go every which way and looks distorted. The filter basically blurs the image to the point where the moire is gone. Some of the newer camera models coming out don't have the filter as their trying to give photographers the sharpest images possible. I've also heard because the technology in the newer cameras cleans the problem up enough so that it's not in issue when the filter is eliminated. If looking for a newer camera today, the fact that the filter is gone wouldn't effect my decision on it's purchase.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I've seen the difference first hand between shots taken with a D3200 (with an OLPF) and a D5300 (no OLPF) and TegG954 is correct, the difference is huge. I was shocked to see how much cleaner shots taken with the D5300 looked when compared to ones taken with the D3200 and I'm talking hundreds of shots taken over a period of a few months. Removing the OLPF is a very big deal in my experience.
I suggested the D5300 over the D3300 based on a feeling that video would be a big use of this camera, and if that's the case, I'll stand by that suggestion. It's neck and neck but if the main thrust of the camera will be stills, and video is less of a consideration, then I'd have a hard time choosing one over the other and could be swung over to suggesting the D3300 pretty easily. There really are no bad choices when it comes to these two cameras.
...
I suggested the D5300 over the D3300 based on a feeling that video would be a big use of this camera, and if that's the case, I'll stand by that suggestion. It's neck and neck but if the main thrust of the camera will be stills, and video is less of a consideration, then I'd have a hard time choosing one over the other and could be swung over to suggesting the D3300 pretty easily. There really are no bad choices when it comes to these two cameras.
...
!Dumb question alert! How is it possible to compare images from two distinctly different cameras with all the variables that are in play and know that the difference is the presence or absence of an OLPF? In an identical camera, there is a trade off between softness with an OLPF and moire or false colors without an OLPF. In the average image, I'm not sure the softness created by an OLPF is assignable to the OLPF as opposed to the lens, aperture, exposure, etc, etc. Hence, my dumb question.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
It helps the shooter in question is my girlfriend and that I can compare her old shots with her new. It's also convenient she rarely shoots with anything other than the 35mm f/1.8G she liberated from my camera bag. This being the case, it's relatively simple for me to compare images that are quite similar as far as things like lens, aperture and ISO are concerned. And, based on what I've seen, there's a mighty big difference. Yes, it could be attributed to something else, but it seems to me the biggest change in quality is probably precipitated by the biggest change in the two cameras that would affect image sharpness and that would be the removal of the OLPF to my way of thinking. I fully admit this line of thought is not scientifically "air tight" but I'm talking solely about overall image sharpness and nothing else.
...
...
Last edited:
Film cameras didn't have the olpf and moire wasn't a huge problem until you started shooting lines and patterns. Now with the advance software and processors in cameras it really isn't needed anymore
I test shot a wild striped shirt in a camera store that should have produced the moire effect but it was clear, sharp and didn't have any weird effects. I'd say these new sensors, even in entry level cameras, are getting even better than film... And even closer to the medium format cameras. I wouldn't worry about whether or not it has an olpf and just go shoot them for yourself. If movies, d5300. If you just want quality photos in a light and inexpensive kit, d3300. If you want more... D7100 or of full frame.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I test shot a wild striped shirt in a camera store that should have produced the moire effect but it was clear, sharp and didn't have any weird effects. I'd say these new sensors, even in entry level cameras, are getting even better than film... And even closer to the medium format cameras. I wouldn't worry about whether or not it has an olpf and just go shoot them for yourself. If movies, d5300. If you just want quality photos in a light and inexpensive kit, d3300. If you want more... D7100 or of full frame.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, your girlfriend takes better photos and you give the credit to the camera?? What were you thinking!
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Well between the two of us, she has the better, more artistic, "eye" in my opinion. Which partially explains why I paid for her D5300, her D3200 just wasn't doing her shots justice.
My gawd what *was* I thinking?? She's already the better photog so I get her better equipment...
Excuse me a moment.
*beats head against wall*
....
Thanks for all your replies and suggestions.I am now more inclined towards the d3300.Video is a priority but as well as good quality images too.The main reason why I didn't include d5300 as an option is the fact that it costs a lot more than my budget and at that price I can include a good glass in my kit.
Now the only thing I want to know is does the d3300 really perform well or atleast match upto the d5200 in terms of image quality since one is an entry level dslr and the other a midranger.
Now the only thing I want to know is does the d3300 really perform well or atleast match upto the d5200 in terms of image quality since one is an entry level dslr and the other a midranger.
Last edited: