Wrong. Both are entry level cameras and image quality is next to equal/the same.
Which one to choose? Nikon d3300 or d5200?
- Thread starter Sean Benn
- Start date
Wrong. Both are entry level cameras and image quality is next to equal/the same.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I would say the D3300 would probably produce slightly better images than the D5200 based on the fact the the D3300 has had the OLPF removed. Both have the same 24MP resolution, but the D3300 uses the new Expeed 4 processor. The D5200 has a little bit better dynamic range however. It also has a lot more focus points (39 vs. 11 in the D3300) and while that doesn't actually affect image quality, per se, it also has more cross-type focus points which could, depending on how you want to look at it.
It's a tough call between these two but if it were me, I'd probably opt for the D3300 and simply re-lean to focus-and-recompose again.
....
I'd like to see the images with and without the OLPF. Like Eyelight has stated, so many things come into play as far as the final image. If such a big difference is established just from the presence of the filter it would seem many, many more people would state such a diff.
That is not really going to work unless you can compare the same image taken with the 2 cameras. Also post processing comes into play as well.
There are few more things to a body, than the sensor. A basic camera with same sensor and processor will have the same image quality, thus D3300 and D5300 image quality is same for all practical purpose. The D3200 and D5200 are a generation older because they have a low pass filter, the sharpness is a bit less.
What you pay for in a higher priced camera are the conveniences. Some which come to my mind are :
- More AF points
- More wheels and buttons, so that you need not go through as lot of menu options every time you want to change settings
- At times better rear LCD screen with more resolution and in case of the D5xxx series, swivel rear screen
- Motor in the body, so that you can use the older "D" lenses
- More rugged construction
- Tougher shutter, with more shutter actuation life
- Second LCD screen to display salient data
- Second card slot, so that you have more capacity and/or redundant storage
- Ability to meter older non CPU lenses
- Live view in tethered mode (D3xxx do have it)
So if you want a light no frills camera capable of sharp images and fast video, a D3300 is the best option. It is light, cheap and the battery lasts a long time. If you want other conveniences, then go for a more expensive body.
What you pay for in a higher priced camera are the conveniences. Some which come to my mind are :
- More AF points
- More wheels and buttons, so that you need not go through as lot of menu options every time you want to change settings
- At times better rear LCD screen with more resolution and in case of the D5xxx series, swivel rear screen
- Motor in the body, so that you can use the older "D" lenses
- More rugged construction
- Tougher shutter, with more shutter actuation life
- Second LCD screen to display salient data
- Second card slot, so that you have more capacity and/or redundant storage
- Ability to meter older non CPU lenses
- Live view in tethered mode (D3xxx do have it)
So if you want a light no frills camera capable of sharp images and fast video, a D3300 is the best option. It is light, cheap and the battery lasts a long time. If you want other conveniences, then go for a more expensive body.
Okay got it. d3300 it is.I have one final question. The d5200/d5300 has 14 bit Raw while the d3300 has only 12 bit Raw.I know its only a difference of two bits but considering the fact that I will also be shooting mostly in raw will this have a huge impact on the final image quality.Sorry for asking so many questions but since this is gonna be my first DSLR i want to make sure that I get all the aspects right and my doubts cleared.
Yes it will though marginally. The reason D3300 has 12 bit RAW is that the DR has been limited to 12.8EV, while that of D5300 is 13.9. But D3300 has marginally better ISO rating and a bit more colour depth.
Nikon D3300 versus Nikon D5300 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
In real life unless you have to pull out a lot from shadows it makes no difference. One advantage of 12 bits in RAW is that the files are that much smaller, so you get more images in your SD card.
Yes I understand that the difference will be negligible only if both were of the same raw types.But here in d3300 the raw file is lossy compressed while in the d5300/d5200 it's lossless compressed.So since the raw files already comes compressed with the d3300 I am not sure how much of a leverage one has with the files in lightroom.
Both are loss less compressed.
"Exclusive to Nikon cameras, the NEF is Nikon's RAW file format. RAW image files, sometimes referred to as digital negatives, contain all the image information captured by the camera's sensor, along with the image's metadata (the camera's identification and its settings, the lens used and other information). The NEF file is written to the memory card in either an uncompressed or "lossless" compressed form. "
Raw Photo Format for SLR Cameras | Nikon Electronic Format (NEF) from Nikon
NOTE :
1. In older cameras there was an option for having either lossy or lossless compression. With SD card storage costs plummeting and sizes increasing, there is no longer any rationale for lossy compression.
2. Though both D5300 and D3300 have the same sensor, the D3300 RAW file is available only in 12 bits. This in my opinion is just to justify the higher cost of the 5xxx series.
The confusion is there are many contradictory statements about Nikon's compression format.I have read in some other forums that the raw format in d3300 is loosely compressed and another one place it says its losseless compressed. So its confusing for a new DSLR buyer which claim should someone believe?And even Nikon official site doesn't make it clear which compression format is the camera using.
It does make a difference.Right now I am a hobbyist photographer but I want to take my photography level a little far.I have selected these entry level DSLRs since I can't afford a semi pro or a full frame camera right now.But I will be planning to buy mostly a full frame about two years from now when I would have learned enough experience with the entry level camera.Since I am also doing my filmmaking diploma currently I know some good things about photography and video.And that's the basic reason I have decided to go with these Nikon models since it helps me with my photography learning experience and also horne my short movie making skills.
If I'm not mistaken, the data lost in lossy compression really only affects the light areas of the photo... And then really only in Lightroom. Lightroom gives even more compression when converted so the data loss is more pronounced.
Like I said, for the majority of us, unless your pixel peaking the gray scale, human eyes won't be able to tell the difference. Especially with these newer sensors.
I use dxo or pse 12 to convert raw. Post is usually just a sharpening and maybe white balance adjustment. I usually save the jpg in Photoshop format so if I need to adjust again I don't lose any data... And I always keep the raw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Best general explanation I've read...
Quote:
The whole issue is complicated partly because of JPG files. Every Time you save a JPG file it reapplies the compression. Withe other formats like TIF, PSD and a host of other formats there is no compression. With JPG you are talking 8 bit files and that is what most monitors and printers work with. The concept of editing making images worse is clear to see with JPG.
When you work with uncompressed files like say merging a 7 bracket set into an HDR finished image you'll along the way generate a 32 bit file to hold the extra dynamic range then use a process. You can artistically remap the colors pace down to something that looks fantastic using tone mapping.
You can't see or display or print a 32 bit file. The better wide gamut monitors only display 10 bits and so you see (in my eyes) two extra stops of black and two more of white compared to the best made 24 bit monitors. In a 32 bit color file more than 1/2 of all the color space is shades of white the human eye can never see.
As you edit uncompressed files they process mathematically and need to round off the end digits. Using 12 bit NEF file rounding still leaves a LOT of room inside 12 bits that you can never see. Unlike JPG processing it's not a recompression process when you save a file.
The arguments with JPG files getting worse are pretty well founded and easy to see but it's not what raw processing is about. The extra bits in a raw file isn't really why they are better it's the lack of recompression with each saved generation.
The debate between 12, 14, and 16 bit raw files seems to go on all the time. In my mind even with 12 bits you have two orders of magnitude to lose before you could see it then a third one that you can't print or otherwise reproduce. A factor of 1000 for rounding should be enough but if you shoot 14 bits it bumps to 100,000. 16 would boost it to one million. At 16 bite you could lose more than you had and never see it. We face a mathematical challenge in that we can process more bits than we can see. We eventually will capture more but we will never see any more. I shoot 14 bits because I can. I used to shoot 12 and can't tell the difference now.
None of this will make a crappy shot better.
Unquote
Granted, 14 bit lossless gives you a little more wiggle room. But the question is whether or not you need it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
The whole issue is complicated partly because of JPG files. Every Time you save a JPG file it reapplies the compression. Withe other formats like TIF, PSD and a host of other formats there is no compression. With JPG you are talking 8 bit files and that is what most monitors and printers work with. The concept of editing making images worse is clear to see with JPG.
When you work with uncompressed files like say merging a 7 bracket set into an HDR finished image you'll along the way generate a 32 bit file to hold the extra dynamic range then use a process. You can artistically remap the colors pace down to something that looks fantastic using tone mapping.
You can't see or display or print a 32 bit file. The better wide gamut monitors only display 10 bits and so you see (in my eyes) two extra stops of black and two more of white compared to the best made 24 bit monitors. In a 32 bit color file more than 1/2 of all the color space is shades of white the human eye can never see.
As you edit uncompressed files they process mathematically and need to round off the end digits. Using 12 bit NEF file rounding still leaves a LOT of room inside 12 bits that you can never see. Unlike JPG processing it's not a recompression process when you save a file.
The arguments with JPG files getting worse are pretty well founded and easy to see but it's not what raw processing is about. The extra bits in a raw file isn't really why they are better it's the lack of recompression with each saved generation.
The debate between 12, 14, and 16 bit raw files seems to go on all the time. In my mind even with 12 bits you have two orders of magnitude to lose before you could see it then a third one that you can't print or otherwise reproduce. A factor of 1000 for rounding should be enough but if you shoot 14 bits it bumps to 100,000. 16 would boost it to one million. At 16 bite you could lose more than you had and never see it. We face a mathematical challenge in that we can process more bits than we can see. We eventually will capture more but we will never see any more. I shoot 14 bits because I can. I used to shoot 12 and can't tell the difference now.
None of this will make a crappy shot better.
Unquote
Granted, 14 bit lossless gives you a little more wiggle room. But the question is whether or not you need it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Better to have and not use than to need and not have. Shoot the highest you have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
While this is true, the OP is trying to decide whether if it's worth the extra money to be able to shoot with 14bit RAW as opposed to 12 bits.