Nikon D3100 vs D3200

N

nikonikon

New member
ksrigg said:
.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. ..
Click to expand...

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.
 
O

osman77

New member
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...:)
 
R

ryanp

Senior Member
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.
 
M

marce

Senior Member
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.
 
J

jayradio

Senior Member
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! :)
 
O

osman77

New member
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...
 
P

paul_b

Senior Member
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?
 
M

marce

Senior Member
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.)
 
Mycenius

Mycenius

Senior Member
paul_b said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
M

marce

Senior Member
My view on the higher pixel count is that its great, the pictures have more texture, tone and IMO resemble more the look of a photo I want to achieve.
When you look in magazines there are so many images taken with the D800, and it did win European Camera of the year.
I can print big which does give your pictures (images) impact
 
P

paul_b

Senior Member
marce said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Your picture of the owl is amazing, so impressed :)

I'm not a pro photographer by any stretch of the imagination and really only want to take pictures of my family and mostly my child. She never sits still especially when the camera comes out as she thinks it's funny to spoil every shot as much as possible!

My current camera is not too bad (Lumix G3 compact system camera) BUT now that I'm getting more and more into photography I'm realizing is not quite good enough for what i want. Indoors on iAuto mode it always tries to take images at around a 60th second. For me thats not quite good enough because either my child is slightly moving and a bit blurred or there's a bit of movement blur from me at that speed. Yes i can use shutter speed mode and increase the speed but the images tend to become too dark. Yes i can increase the iso but it doesn't make that much difference except introducing noise. I've tried using aperture mode to let in more light and still the shutter speed indoors wants to be around 60th second, except this time focusing becomes more and more hit and miss. The flash on the G3 always seems to white out her face and when i turn it down the images just get darker rather the camera intelligently compensating. It's all a bit too much to get my head around when all i want to do is take some nice indoor photos. I bought a flashgun too but often i'm a bit disappointed with the distribution of light coming down from on top of her.

So, after doing research I've realised it's time to buy my 1st DSLR with a bigger and more light sensitive image sensor. This is why the bigger mega pixel count of the D3200 was confusing me as a few people have said the pixels have to be smaller to fit them all in and thus less sensitive to light again.

I've settled on Nikon as my choice of DSLR that i want to buy as i like the ViewNX and CaptureNX dedicated software that i've tried with some sample Raws that i downloaded, and also the reputation of Nikon is second to none.
 
M

marce

Senior Member
That is one reason I got back into photography, to snap the Kids (7) and Grandkids (8), there are a few sample photos of these critters on my flickr. I would still recommend a reasonable flash, though you can use the on camera one. I use the Yangu I mentioned earlier and when using it on camera bounce it off some surface or use a mini softbox. This helps eliminate red eye and gives a less harsh light than direct flash, in fact I try never to use direct flash, they can look ghostly. With the little darlings I set the flash manually (£58 no TTL) and shoot in Manual mode using 1/160 -1/200 shutter speed, it avoids camera shake and any movement by the kids, for the younger ones I will use continuous AF and set drive mode to constant and try an get 3 or 4 shots as they usually move.
For the really fidgety ones Velcro is useful:) (only joking, no kids have yet been velcroed to a chair in any of my photos yet!)
Have Fun
 
C

Crystalclearimages

Senior Member
I am a newbie and am not sure what the bracketing function you guys are talking about. I have the d3200 and love it. How ever know no different it's my first one and am going working on getting some better lenses.
 
M

marce

Senior Member
The bracketing function isn't available on the D3200 (I wish it was), its main use is for 3 exposures (or more) a few steps apart so you can choose the best exposure or create a HDR image. HDR stands for high dynamic range and is made up by merging 3+ exposures a few steps apart, to capture more contrast in a scene. They can be subtle or they can be more extreme, I love them all, though many boo at the extreme ones. I use HDR Effex pro, here is an example of a slightly more extreme one, but for me it catches the scene as I saw it (D3100 18-55 kit lens):
HDR-3-4_HDR.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I agree with lenses, I like primes and use the 35mm, 50mm f1.8 and a tamron 60mm macro, my only zoom now is the 55-300mm, these pretty much cover what I need, though a faster zoom is on the books as I am starting to enjoy photographing nature and for that it is indispensable.
 
Top