Nikon D3200 Vs. Nikon D5200

[PaulWog]

Hi,

I am looking into purchasing a new DSLR camera, I have been checking out two Nikon models (3200 & 5200). I have been told by a store that there is no difference between these two models except video capabilities. I am looking for recommendations or reviews on both or either model.

I am looking to do stop motion, scenery, portrait, digital zoom and something that is not hard to focus and has anti-shake.

Anyone?

Well actually what you were told isn't exactly accurate. The D5200 has in camera HDR for one, which is nice for landscapes and such. It shoots a little faster (5 fps as opposed to 4), has the articulating screen (not a feature I use but for shooting video or lining up a still shot on a tripod it can be very handy), it has a better autofocus system and a little bit better image quality thanks to an improved dynamic range. It's also a bit better in low light but not by a huge margin.

The D3200 really is designed for beginners and I generally recommend it for people who are wanting a DSLR but it's not something they are going to use often. The D5200 is something I recommend for folks that may be new to photography or who have some experience but are really looking to go to the next level - it's a camera you can grow into rather than something you'll grow out of if that makes any sense.

The in-camera HDR on the D5200 is Jpeg only. I find it to be a useless feature

With that said, the only reason I think anyone should get a D3200 over a D5200 is if money is a major factor. The swivel screen on the D5200 alone has been huge for me -- it has allowed me to get shots that I couldn't otherwise have gotten.

 

[hamlet]

Get the cheapest body and invest the remaining cash into a good lens.

 

[PaulWog]

Get the cheapest body and invest the remaining cash into a good lens.

*facepalm*

 

[robbins.photo]

Hi,

I am looking into purchasing a new DSLR camera, I have been checking out two Nikon models (3200 & 5200). I have been told by a store that there is no difference between these two models except video capabilities. I am looking for recommendations or reviews on both or either model.

I am looking to do stop motion, scenery, portrait, digital zoom and something that is not hard to focus and has anti-shake.

Anyone?

Well actually what you were told isn't exactly accurate. The D5200 has in camera HDR for one, which is nice for landscapes and such. It shoots a little faster (5 fps as opposed to 4), has the articulating screen (not a feature I use but for shooting video or lining up a still shot on a tripod it can be very handy), it has a better autofocus system and a little bit better image quality thanks to an improved dynamic range. It's also a bit better in low light but not by a huge margin.

The D3200 really is designed for beginners and I generally recommend it for people who are wanting a DSLR but it's not something they are going to use often. The D5200 is something I recommend for folks that may be new to photography or who have some experience but are really looking to go to the next level - it's a camera you can grow into rather than something you'll grow out of if that makes any sense.

The in-camera HDR on the D5200 is Jpeg only. I find it to be a useless feature

With that said, the only reason I think anyone should get a D3200 over a D5200 is if money is a major factor. The swivel screen on the D5200 alone has been huge for me -- it has allowed me to get shots that I couldn't otherwise have gotten.

Interesting - HDR is one of those features I don't use myself because I'm just not much on landscapes, wasn't aware that the 5200 only did that with JPG. Have to make note of it. I do shoot jpg on occasion but I guess I could see particularly with a landscape how you would prefer to have a RAW file of the shot.

 

[Braineack]

I don't like the idea of automatic in-camera HDR processing anyways. The D5x00 series bodies do auto bracketing, I'd much prefer that and process the HDR myself.

 

[PaulWog]

I don't like the idea of automatic in-camera HDR processing anyways. The D5x00 series bodies do auto bracketing, I'd much prefer that and process the HDR myself.

It's what I've been doing. Although it's a pain when I realize I forgot to turn autobracketing off, get into some shots, and wonder why my exposure is all over the place. >_<; Happened the other night.

 

[robbins.photo]

Lol well I haven't really used either myself but some folks just love the hdr thing. It's like the articulating screen, it's a feature that many love but not one I personally us

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Lol well I haven't really used either myself but some folks just love the hdr thing. It's like the articulating screen, it's a feature that many love but not one I personally use

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

Lol well I haven't really used either myself but some folks just love the hdr thing. It's like the articulating screen, it's a feature that many love but not one I personally use

It's nice to have when you have a reason to use it

although, considering the menu system of the D3x00 and D5x00, im wondering if it's actually easier to take a -1, 0, +1 shot manually, as opposed to going into the menu and selecting bracketing then taking the three shots...

 

[robbins.photo]

Lol well I haven't really used either myself but some folks just love the hdr thing. It's like the articulating screen, it's a feature that many love but not one I personally use

It's nice to have when you have a reason to use it

although, considering the menu system of the D3x00 and D5x00, im wondering if it's actually easier to take a -1, 0, +1 shot manually, as opposed to going into the menu and selecting bracketing then taking the three shots...

I'm thinking manual would be easier. As i recall the bracketing thing is a bit buried in the menu

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Coasty]

Go for the cheaper of the two because this way you'll have more money in your pocket for when you want to upgrade to a D7100.

From what I&#8217;ve heard, anything short of FF is not an upgrade.

 

[SCraig]

From what I&#8217;ve heard, anything short of FF is not an upgrade.

I would say that this depends on what you want to do with the camera. Personally I would consider going to a full-frame body a downgrade.

 

[robbins.photo]

From what I&#8217;ve heard, anything short of FF is not an upgrade.

I would say that this depends on what you want to do with the camera. Personally I would consider going to a full-frame body a downgrade.

Not really that interested in switching to full frame myself - the low light would be nice but not so nice that it would be worth the cost of the upgrade. And since most of what I do involves telephoto the loss of the crop factor would be a bit of a bummer. So when the time comes to replace my trusty D5100 I'll be going the D7100 route.

 

[SCraig]

Not really that interested in switching to full frame myself - the low light would be nice but not so nice that it would be worth the cost of the upgrade. And since most of what I do involves telephoto the loss of the crop factor would be a bit of a bummer. So when the time comes to replace my trusty D5100 I'll be going the D7100 route.

Yep. I personally like having all 24mp in an APS-C sized frame. Gives me a lot more resolution where I need it when I crop images significantly.

 

[amolitor]

The 24mp APS-C sensors are actually the highest density sensors in common usage these days. They're significantly more tightly packed than the much-vaunted D800 sensor, which has the same pixel pitch as the previous generation of APS-C sensors.

The D3200, D5200, and D7100 all have more or less similar sensors. That's not a reason to upgrade, unless you're right on the edge of some performance window -- if the ISO3200 is almost but not quite good enough for you, an upgrade might -- might -- push you over to being able to use it. The differences are small.

Other than that it's ergonomics and AF system.

D3200: 11 point AF
D5300: 39 point AF
D7100: 51 point AF

These are the lousy, medium, and excellent AF modules, respectively. If your photography is mainly about AF performance, the ability to do 3D tracking, and so on, than the D7100 is a clear winner. If you pretty much leave it on single-point AF, then the main reasons to not just buy the D3200 and be done with it are ergonomics and (maybe) physical robustness of the body.

I assume there's more flexibility using legacy lenses as you go up the chain as well, but that's often a somewhat minor point for many people.