1st DSLR: D5100 vs D3200 vs Rebel T3 vs D 3100

[czarben]

I am looking to get my 1st dslr for shooting a variety of types of scenes, landscapes, portraits, night, black & white, HDR, light painting etc. I have a few choices I am wondering about, New Canon Rebel T3 w/18-55mm IS for $300, factory reburbished Nikon D5100 w/ 18-55mm VR DX lens for $380, factory refurbished D3200 w/ 18-55mm VR for $400, or factory refurbished D3100 w/ 18-55mm VR lens for $290. I am looking to really learn how to use a dslr in its manual mode for shooting a variety of scenes and doing trick/special effect photography. Which one is the best deal and will allow me to do what I want? Any other DSLR's around this price that would be better? I am open to buying used if its a good deal. If I can save $100 by buying the Canon vs the D3200 and use that money toward an upgraded lens in the future and get the same/better results then that sounds like a good deal to me. What's your opinion? Since this is my 1st DSLR and I dont really know how to use it, will the extra money really get me better results? Are factory refurbished a safe bet to buy? Thanks

 

[matthewjer18]

Just out of curiosity, where did you find a refurbished 5100 for $380? Is it an online deal?

 

[czarben]

Nikon D5100 16 2 MP Digital SLR w 18 55mm DX VR Refurbished by Nikon 25478 B 0018208254781 | eBay

 

[robbins.photo]

I am looking to get my 1st dslr for shooting a variety of types of scenes, landscapes, portraits, night, black & white, HDR, light painting etc. I have a few choices I am wondering about, New Canon Rebel T3 w/18-55mm IS for $300, factory reburbished Nikon D5100 w/ 18-55mm VR DX lens for $380, factory refurbished D3200 w/ 18-55mm VR for $400, or factory refurbished D3100 w/ 18-55mm VR lens for $290. I am looking to really learn how to use a dslr in its manual mode for shooting a variety of scenes and doing trick/special effect photography. Which one is the best deal and will allow me to do what I want? Any other DSLR's around this price that would be better? I am open to buying used if its a good deal. If I can save $100 by buying the Canon vs the D3200 and use that money toward an upgraded lens in the future and get the same/better results then that sounds like a good deal to me. What's your opinion? Since this is my 1st DSLR and I dont really know how to use it, will the extra money really get me better results? Are factory refurbished a safe bet to buy? Thanks

Factory refurbished are great, just make sure you get one from an authorized Nikon dealer - such as Adorama, B&H, etc. Of all the cameras you mentioned my recommendation would be the D5100 - it will give you the sort of capabilities you want and it will be something that you can really grow into over time. It has better image quality than the Canon, and while the D3200 is a nice camera and has a slightly higher mp sensor, I think the D5100 will be your best bet. I use a D5100 myself, if you'd like to see some sample images you can check out my Flickr account, it's marked in red in my signature line. As far as price vrs performance your hard pressed to beat the D5100.

 

[czarben]

It is through adorama. Is there a specific reason(s) you would choose the D5100 over the D3200? I am just trying to learn what to look for in determining what makes a camera better.

 

[robbins.photo]

It is through adorama. Is there a specific reason(s) you would choose the D5100 over the D3200? I am just trying to learn what to look for in determining what makes a camera better.

The 3200 has the higher MP sensor which gives it a slight edge in image quality, but to be honest it's probably not a difference most people would notice. The D3200 does have a guide mode that is helpful for beginners - the 5100 has an articulating screen which is very helpful for lining up difficult shots and weird angles. The 5100 has in camera HDR, which can be really nice for landscape shots, it also has a little bit better high iso/low noise performance which is a nice edge for low light shooting. The 3200 is really designed more for the total beginner, whereas the D5100 is still usable by a beginner but it's really designed more for someone who will eventually be moving up and using more manual settings.

So of the two I'd recommend the D5100 for you, if it were something you were only going to be using occasionally the 3200 might be a better option but of the two I think you'll be happier with the 5100. Thing is though even if you decide on the 3200, it's still not a bad choice at all. Both are very capable cameras and there really isn't a bad choice between the two.

 

[czarben]

Thank you very much! So even though the D3200 has a higher MP, the D5100 can "potentially" get better shots because of settings/features when I learn how to use it? Any necessary accessories I need off the bat? Already have a tripod. Again I want to do a variety of scenes. Some portrait/model photography, but not really looking for studio accessories like lights, reflectors, back drops, I can borrow that stuff if needed. Also looking to do landscapes, black & white, HDR, star trail, light painting, etc. A little of everything. Flashes, filters, or anything like that that will not break the bank? I already know about memory cards, cases, chargers.

 

[goodguy]

For this price ?

Seams like a no brainer for me get this D5100

 

[SCraig]

The D3200 is a 24mp camera whereas the D5100 is a 16mp camera. That's more than a minor difference, it's a 50% increase in resolution which can be significant in heavily-cropped images. Personally if I were to purchase anything in the D5xxx series I'd look long and hard at the D5200 since it's also a 24mp body.

Despite that I would certainly agree that the D5100 is an overall better body than the D3200 although I don't see the articulating monitor as a benefit.

 

[robbins.photo]

The D3200 is a 24mp camera whereas the D5100 is a 16mp camera. That's more than a minor difference, it's a 50% increase in resolution which can be significant in heavily-cropped images. Personally if I were to purchase anything in the D5xxx series I'd look long and hard at the D5200 since it's also a 24mp body.

Despite that I would certainly agree that the D5100 is an overall better body than the D3200 although I don't see the articulating monitor as a benefit.

I don't use it much myself, prefer the viewfinder - but some folks go ga ga over it, I guess for folks that do the pictures of the stars/moon thing really love it. Buddy of mine says he can't live without it because he shoots video as well - but for me, eh, was never a selling point. I do agree that the 24 mp sensor is of course higher resolution than the 16 - but at least from what I've read that isn't always an advantage - in fact a lot of times it's actually a disadvantage for many in that errors in technique are a lot more pronounced on the higher resolution images. Also if your not cropping heavily or printing in very large formats for most people they really won't notice the difference, so for me I really think the 24 mp is really not as huge a selling point as it might be for someone else - at least not when you compare the other advantages the 5100 has over the 3200.

I will eventually be upgrading to the 24 mp sensor myself, but when I do it will be a D7100 - Honestly with the price differences between the 5100 and the 5200 I really think they are better off going with the 5100 and getting better glass rather than the 5200, just my humble opinion of course, YMMV.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you very much! So even though the D3200 has a higher MP, the D5100 can "potentially" get better shots because of settings/features when I learn how to use it? Any necessary accessories I need off the bat? Already have a tripod. Again I want to do a variety of scenes. Some portrait/model photography, but not really looking for studio accessories like lights, reflectors, back drops, I can borrow that stuff if needed. Also looking to do landscapes, black & white, HDR, star trail, light painting, etc. A little of everything. Flashes, filters, or anything like that that will not break the bank? I already know about memory cards, cases, chargers.

For flash, well on the rare occasion where I actually use a flash, I use an Yongnuo YN-565EX. It's not top of the line by any means but does what I need it to do and I really didn't need anything more than that for the sort of photgraphy I do since I don't really use a flash much. As far as filters some folks like having a UV filter to "protect" the lens but opinions vary on that one, some folks like having one on, other folks say it degrades image quality. If your shooting landscapes a CPL (Circular polarizing filter) or ND can be nice to have, you can look them up on google for a long winded explanation as to what they do and how best to use them. For memory cards I'm a huge fan of the Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 mbs cards, they are a bit more expensive than the standard 30-45 mbs Class 10 cards but personally I think they are well worth it. The fast write speed makes a big difference when your shooting in continuous mode - but of course if your not planning on doing much continuous shooting your standard Class 10 should work just fine.

 

[SCraig]

I don't use it much myself, prefer the viewfinder - but some folks go ga ga over it, I guess for folks that do the pictures of the stars/moon thing really love it. Buddy of mine says he can't live without it because he shoots video as well - but for me, eh, was never a selling point. I do agree that the 24 mp sensor is of course higher resolution than the 16 - but at least from what I've read that isn't always an advantage - in fact a lot of times it's actually a disadvantage for many in that errors in technique are a lot more pronounced on the higher resolution images. Also if your not cropping heavily or printing in very large formats for most people they really won't notice the difference, so for me I really think the 24 mp is really not as huge a selling point as it might be for someone else - at least not when you compare the other advantages the 5100 has over the 3200.

I will eventually be upgrading to the 24 mp sensor myself, but when I do it will be a D7100 - Honestly with the price differences between the 5100 and the 5200 I really think they are better off going with the 5100 and getting better glass rather than the 5200, just my humble opinion of course, YMMV.

I see the articulated monitor as just another point of failure. Something hanging out that sooner or later is going to hang on something and break off. Even when folded against the body it still sticks out a little bit. My D7000 has a protective shield over the monitor that sticks out maybe 1/16" or so and I've hung that a time or two and popped it off.

I just can't use a monitor for taking a photograph. My bridge camera, that I still use occasionally, has an articulated monitor and it has never once been turned, twisted, moved, or even used for taking a photograph. I use the viewfinder even on that camera. I will admit that if I shot video it might be a benefit though. Emphasis on "Might" since I've never shot any video and don't really know for sure.

A 50% increase in resolution is significant. Anyone who thinks it isn't should adjust their computer monitor so it has 50% less resolution and then see how long it takes them to go back to what it was.

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't use it much myself, prefer the viewfinder - but some folks go ga ga over it, I guess for folks that do the pictures of the stars/moon thing really love it. Buddy of mine says he can't live without it because he shoots video as well - but for me, eh, was never a selling point. I do agree that the 24 mp sensor is of course higher resolution than the 16 - but at least from what I've read that isn't always an advantage - in fact a lot of times it's actually a disadvantage for many in that errors in technique are a lot more pronounced on the higher resolution images. Also if your not cropping heavily or printing in very large formats for most people they really won't notice the difference, so for me I really think the 24 mp is really not as huge a selling point as it might be for someone else - at least not when you compare the other advantages the 5100 has over the 3200.

I will eventually be upgrading to the 24 mp sensor myself, but when I do it will be a D7100 - Honestly with the price differences between the 5100 and the 5200 I really think they are better off going with the 5100 and getting better glass rather than the 5200, just my humble opinion of course, YMMV.

I see the articulated monitor as just another point of failure. Something hanging out that sooner or later is going to hang on something and break off. Even when folded against the body it still sticks out a little bit. My D7000 has a protective shield over the monitor that sticks out maybe 1/16" or so and I've hung that a time or two and popped it off.

I just can't use a monitor for taking a photograph. My bridge camera, that I still use occasionally, has an articulated monitor and it has never once been turned, twisted, moved, or even used for taking a photograph. I use the viewfinder even on that camera. I will admit that if I shot video it might be a benefit though. Emphasis on "Might" since I've never shot any video and don't really know for sure.

A 50% increase in resolution is significant. Anyone who thinks it isn't should adjust their computer monitor so it has 50% less resolution and then see how long it takes them to go back to what it was.

Well I don't use the monitor for the "live view" feature either, I'm a viewfinder fan - but like a said a lot of other folks really love it as a feature so I mention it and will let the OP decide if it's something he/she is really interested in having. As for the MP increase from the 5100 to the 3200 - well it is a higher resolution to be sure - but that has both good and bad points when it comes to photos. Higher resolution does not automatically guarantee better pictures, in fact sometimes it does just the opposite. The 16 mp sensor on my D5100 is not the latest, greatest, highest resolution out there to be sure. It is however more than sufficient for the vast majority of people, in fact I would have to reduce the standard image it produces by something close to 1/3rd it's size to match my computer monitor's resolution so there is a lot of room to work with for cropping, etc. Does the 24 mp give you some more options in this regard? Sure. But is it really worth losing the advantages the D5100 has over the D3200 - well IMHO no, it isn't. As I stated earlier, YMMV.

 

[SCraig]

... But is it really worth losing the advantages the D5100 has over the D3200 - well IMHO no, it isn't. As I stated earlier, YMMV.

I agree. As I said in my post I would still take the D5100 over the D3200, however given a choice I would opt for the 24mp D5200 over either.

 

[robbins.photo]

... But is it really worth losing the advantages the D5100 has over the D3200 - well IMHO no, it isn't. As I stated earlier, YMMV.

I agree. As I said in my post I would still take the D5100 over the D3200, however given a choice I would opt for the 24mp D5200 over either.

Well I sure wouldn't mind a D5200 - lol. But when I do finally go to upgrade I've pretty much got my heart set on a D7100. My plan is to add at least one extra lens to the arsenal first, I really want a 70-200 mm F/2.8 for some of the sports shooting I do, but after that I'll be saving my pennies for the 7100. The only reason I recommend the D5100 over the 5200 is that right now you can practically steal a D5100 - the price on the things is just outrageous:

Nikon D5100 16 2 MP Digital SLR w 18 55mm DX VR Refurbished by Nikon 25478 B 0018208254781 | eBay

Makes it a real hard option to turn down.