Nikon D3200 or D5100

sivakishanv · May 21, 2012

I am planning to buy my first DSLR and I want to choose between D3200 which is new and the D5100.

I see that almost all the specifications are same. And even the price is same at Amazon.

If you were me, what would you buy?

jaymitch · May 21, 2012

what I would suggest is to make a trip to your local camera shop and play around with both bodies. See with one feels better to you. You can check out the specs online and read tons of reviews that will just lead you in a big circle. Honestly for someone buying there first DSLR they are both good choices. One thing I would suggest if you plan on sticking with photography is to try to buy the body only instead of the "kit" and then get yourself a better lens...like Nikon 50mm 1.8g or something along those lines. Good luck with your decision.

Solarflare · May 24, 2012

I had the same problem recently and I bought the D5100 because that one has a moveable monitor, which I find massively useful in many situations, and superior performance in bad light, which is much more important to me than more megapixels.

borisnikon · May 24, 2012

Personally I would go with the d3200 but it's up to how it feels in YOUR hands, and strongly recommend getting a 1.8 prime to start with...

OLDSKEWL · May 24, 2012

You can get a D5100 body and a 35mm prime for around the same price as the D3200 kit. That's what I ended up doing after buying the D3200 and returning it. I wasn't over all thrilled with the 3200 kit. I think it may have just been me wanting faster glass though.

belial · May 24, 2012

I wouldn't go with the 3200. Too much resolution. You're going to need pro glass to make full use of that many pixels

jrizal · May 26, 2012

jaymitch said:
what I would suggest is to make a trip to your local camera shop and play around with both bodies. See with one feels better to you. You can check out the specs online and read tons of reviews that will just lead you in a big circle. Honestly for someone buying there first DSLR they are both good choices. One thing I would suggest if you plan on sticking with photography is to try to buy the body only instead of the "kit" and then get yourself a better lens...like Nikon 50mm 1.8g or something along those lines. Good luck with your decision.

I've played with both and there's not much difference between the feel of the two (and you also include the D3100 which I own and the D3000). IMO, the most significant considerations would be the pixel count (note the pros and cons) and the tilt swivel LCD. For some, this is an important consideration. Personally if I had the budget, I would have gone with the D5100.

greybeard · May 26, 2012

I use a d5100 with the 18-55 kit and I love them both.

Markw · May 26, 2012

I've admittedly not played with either of them. I went from a D90 to a D300s to a D800. But, from specs, I would say go for the D5100. It has the same sensor as the D7000. The D7000 is an incredible camera in all aspects. I'd say D5100, hands down.

Mark

morganza · May 26, 2012

D3200 and from Amazon would be the best. Local shops usually have a higher price.

markj · Jun 2, 2012

One would think, more pixels the better. Then I read Nikon's flagship dlsr the D4 only has 16.2 megapixels.
Can someone explain why Nikon didn't op for a larger pixel count for the D4? Even the D800 at half the cost has twice the pixels.
Advantages/disadvantages?

jrizal · Jun 2, 2012

markj said:
One would think, more pixels the better. Then I read Nikon's flagship dlsr the D4 only has 16.2 megapixels.
Can someone explain why Nikon didn't op for a larger pixel count for the D4? Even the D800 at half the cost has twice the pixels.
Advantages/disadvantages?

Read/write speeds are a factor in cameras with a high burst speed IMO. Imagine a 40mb NEF/RAW file being buffered and written if you are shooting at 10/11 fps. Also, in-camera memory (not sd/cf cards) AFAIK is not cheap. Simply put the practicality of using that tech (high pixels) is not yet feasible.

Solarflare · Jun 2, 2012

markj said:
One would think, more pixels the better. [...]

Oh, so definitely not at all. There is a number of pixels that is the maximum that still makes sense. Any pixels beyond that only means greater filesize and more noise, but not more quality.

Thats why several camera models recently had less pixels than their precedessors. Still same picture quality, but less noise problems and less filesize of the RAW files.

Markw · Jun 2, 2012

Solarflare said:
markj said:

One would think, more pixels the better. [...]

Click to expand...

Oh, so definitely not at all. There is a number of pixels that is the maximum that still makes sense. Any pixels beyond that only means greater filesize and more noise, but not more quality.

Thats why several camera models recently had less pixels than their precedessors. Still same picture quality, but less noise problems and less filesize of the RAW files.

D3000: 10MP; D3100: 14MP; D3200: 24MP
D3s: 12MP; D4: 16MP
D5000: 12MP; D5100: 16MP
D90: 12MP; D7000: 16MP
D3x: 24MP; D800: 36MP, and has been said to be the top overall sensor of any body, from any brand, in all of the industry.

Your statements seem a bit mislead, my friend.

Mark

Solarflare · Jun 3, 2012

Nope, it isnt.

For example, the Canon Powershot G11 had LESS MPixel than the G10 and improved in every way - including picture quality.

There are simply limits to quality you can reach at a certain fotochip size. If you want more mpixel, you have to increase the fotochip size.