Nikon D3100 vs D3200

[jdeg]

Here are the main differences between the D3100 and D3200:

Feature	D3100	D3200
Price(USD)	$477	$597
Pixels	14.2	24.2
FPS	3	4
ISO	100-3200	100-6400
Expanded ISO	6400,12800	12800
Video	HD 1,920x1,080 / 24 fps HD 1,280x720 / 30 fps HD 1,280x720 / 24 fps VGA 640x424 / 30 fps Movie with sound	HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 fps HD 1,920x1,080 / 25 fps HD 1,920x1,080 / 24 fps HD 1,280x720 / 60 fps HD 1,280x720 / 50 fps VGA 640x424 / 30 fps VGA 640x424 / 25 fps
Movie Audio	Built-in microphone, monaural	Built-in microphone, monaural Optional external stereo mini-pin jack (3.5mm diameter) Microphone sensitivity can be adjusted
Monitor	3" - 230,000 dots	3" - 921,000 dots
Battery Life	550 shots	540 shots
Wi-Fi	EyeFi card	Nikon WU-1a

What's the same?

• 23.2mm x 15.4mm sensor size
• 16oz
• SD, SDHC, SDXC storage - 1 slot
• 11 AF points w/ 3d tracking
• No focus motor in body
• CLS supported
• Live view
• EN-EL14 battery
• Size is roughly the same with the D3200 being slightly thicker by a couple mm

http://nikonites.com/d3200/5672-nikon-d3200-vs-d5100.html

 

[Rick M]

They continued to leave auto bracketing off, one reason I upgraded to the D5100

 

[Eye-level]

"Ezawa explained that image quality at ISO 6400 is 'almost the same' as that on the D3100, despite the smaller pixels, though, in 'very specific conditions' the quality of the D3100 is 'slightly better'.

But, at the commonly used ISO 200, 800 or 400 levels, he said there is no difference in quality.

Nikon confirmed to AP that the D700 – which was announced almost four years ago – is still being manufactured, despite yesterday being omitted from a press presentation slide showing the firm's current DSLR line-up. "

I think amateur/weekend shutter bangers will come to rue these big megapixel rigs because they are gonna require much better lenses and much bigger storage devices and much faster processers...so unless you have the ghitas for the new camera and the newest micro technological marvel lenses (a few of the older ones are good enough but they are still expensive after all these years and models) and the computer too then stick with the D3000/D3100...

 

[Eye-level]

And then there is the when is enough enough factor?

Why we've reached the end of the camera megapixel race

 

[Sambr]

12MPS Is enough for me. My just purchased D3s does wonders with 12mps

 

[fotojack]

These new models are starting to look more like expensive point and shoot cameras.....albeit you can change the lenses.

 

[jdeg]

updated pics

 

[fotojack]

And then there is the when is enough enough factor?

Why we've reached the end of the camera megapixel race

This is an excellent article and should be read by any new camera enthusiast about the myth of the megapixel hype.

 

[Bester Fester]

fotojack, I agree with you on both accounts. The D3100 body was too small already and it's gotten even smaller with D3200. This is hardly a plus in the DSLR world. And the rediculous pixel count is just there to appeal to afluent youngsters trying to look like big shots with a Nikon camera. Looks like Nikon got onto the 36-megapixel Nokia phone bandwagon. Next they'll release a 48-MP D3300 with a SIM slot and people will start running around making phone calls with a big-ass DX lens pressed against their ears, LFMAO

 

[Eye-level]

That would be ROTFLMAO sir... LOL

 

[mart360]

Been following this debate for a while now

My "fickle" heart wants a 3200 in red, but my logical side says go for a 5100, (real struggle with the megapixel numbers though)
Cost wise the £650 odd sterling is a huge chunk of cash, whereas i can pick up the D5100 for £100 less

That said my local branch of JL are selling the (subject to me not have dropping a clanger) D7000 for £800

Mart

 

[TedG954]

I had the same dilemma, and I finally opted for the D3100. It is more camera than I am photographer. The additional pixels were not a selling point to choose the D3200.

 

[darrenberk]

Re: Nikon D3100 vs D3200
Been following this debate for a while now

My "fickle" heart wants a 3200 in red, but my logical side says go for a 5100, (real struggle with the megapixel numbers though)
Cost wise the £650 odd sterling is a huge chunk of cash, whereas i can pick up the D5100 for £100 less

That said my local branch of JL are selling the (subject to me not have dropping a clanger) D7000 for £800

Mart

You'll be fine with either camera. Invest more on the lens. These days, you can't seem to go wrong with any camera.

 

[stmv]

really comes down to either two issues, how large do you want to print and do you like the ability to crop an image, and still print a 11 by 14. Sometimes, you can never go back, and having some wiggle room around the image can be priceless.

I have compared my images between the D700 and D800, and I am so glad to say that Nikon succeeded in improving the image in color, range, and sharpness. I seem to have more edit range with the raw images. So, at least for this generation there is true gain with the pixel increase.

so, for so little money difference, I would personally pick the 3200.

With that said, you also have to consider the other functions, I am irratated when Nikon turns stuff off like auto bracketing, you so know that this is a pure market driven decision, just like when the D90 can't meter old glass, etc.

but, if you like the features of the 3100/3200, both are great choices, but..... 3200 seems like a great deal. wonder when the D7100 will come out.

 

[pistnbroke]

This is a pointless discussion ..the 3100 is old technology the 3200 new and those of you who have a 3200 will know that its very very quiet.....

 

[Aixa]

Well I went with the 3100 and I am not happy. This thing has a 2 bugs most ad sponsored reviewers fail to mention. On manual mode with the info display set to off changing the aperture will light up the lcd ignoring your settings. It is quite annoying. The second is that aperture on video will report it is changed but in reality it stays with the last setting you had before going to live mode. Nikon last and only firmware update for the camera itself was on 2010 and I am not naive enough to expect that they will look into this now that they have discontinued the model to promote the 3200.

Right now, delivering quality support on the software side to users who already have you product does not seem to be a priority to Nikon and it is a shame.

 

[gogo4qt]

Hello:

I have several questions:

If you set the D3100 and the D3200 to basic settings (image quality) for picture taking
Both camera have 16GB class 10 cards
Both camera take side by side pictures

1. what approx. quantity of pictures would each camera have taken. (due to the fact one camera has 14 and the other has 24 MP)
2. when sending pictures to someone via internet does it make a diff. if the D3200 has a higher MP rate, will it bog down on
the other person who is receiving the pictures
3. As the D3200 has higher MP rate will my own computer have to be adjusted to compensate for reviewing the pictures taken

Thank you

 

[marce]

I have had both cameras and now use the D3200. I have produced nice pictures with both, but do prefer the quality of the D3200. That said I am now printing my standard pictures at A4 or 8x10, I love the large format prints, they just give you more and with my terrible eye sight I dont have to squint as much. And when funds are available I am going to buy a Cannon A3 picture. The D3200 allows me to print basic photos out at A4 that look just the same as standard size prints. I have more invested in lenses than I do the Camera body with my favorites being the Tamron 60mm macro and the Nikon 50mm AF D.
As to processing time, I shoot RAW and use Lightroom 4 on a I3 core powered laptopwith 8G ram, processing is slower with the D3200 files as they are bigger, ut its not too bad. When I use my works I7 core machine things run along pretty smoothly. My next Camera will be the D600 though Same pixel count but larger senser cant wait. I shoot mainly in manual and aperture and hate not having bracketing features and have never used the auto functions on the D3200.
Conclusion, I do like the images from the D3200 lots of detail, and to my eyes a more pleasing result when viewed either on screen or print, I love it.

 

[ksrigg]

I own both cameras, only recently buying the 3200. Both camera are fantastic, and you would be happy with either. As has been said before...put your money into lenses. With the bargains out there today on the D3100, I would go with it. 14 megapixels is plenty, if the lens is there...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. I have had the 3100 for over a year, and the 3200 for less than a month. The major difference between the two is resolution, but to be totally honest, if I had lens equal to the camera, I don't know that the 24 megapixels are really needed. A lot of pros recommend setting the 3200 to "medium" resolution anyway, saying anything above 10 or 12 megapixels is really not needed.
Either camera is going to make you really happy, but you can buy a 3100 (either refurbed or used) with the 18-55m kit lens for under $400.00, while I have not seen the D3200 for less than around $700.00 (not many available on the used market yet). I think they are both fantastic cameras, capable of producing images which are indistinguishable from ones shot with a top of the line "pro" model..

 

[pistnbroke]

what you say is fine re 12mp BUT if you are in a fast moving situation and need to crop heavily 24 mp is a better place to start than 12 ,,,bring on the D7200 as I am sorry to say there are not many options on the D3200 dial ..eg no U1 and U2 which I find essential when the action is moving fast ..no time to fiddle about with settings or chimping.