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

[SCraig]

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.

Yeah, but I suppose you could compare the D5100 and D5200 in a manner similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4. Since the f/4 is cheaper why don't you just get that one as opposed to the f/2.8? The simple answer is that the image quality and capabilities are better with the f/2.8, and that's the same difference between the D5100 and D5200. You're going to pay more for the f/2.8 and the person buying a D5200 is going to pay more than the D5100 for the same reason.

 

[robbins.photo]

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.

Yeah, but I suppose you could compare the D5100 and D5200 in a manner similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4. Since the f/4 is cheaper why don't you just get that one as opposed to the f/2.8? The simple answer is that the image quality and capabilities are better with the f/2.8, and that's the same difference between the D5100 and D5200. You're going to pay more for the f/2.8 and the person buying a D5200 is going to pay more than the D5100 for the same reason.

Lol - well I'm on a fairly limited budget myself so "bang for my buck" is always a big part of the equation for me personally. I opted for the D5100 originally because at the time that's what my budget could reasonably afford since I also need a good telephoto lens. The 5200 would have put the telephoto out of my price range. Now that I have a halfway decent setup I can take the time and put some money aside for the 2.8 200 mm. Once I get that purchased, then I'll look at upgrading to the 7100.

As I recall I think the OP listed several camera choices originally, I'm guessing he already did some research and determined those were the best options in his price range. Since he didn't list the 5200 I'm assuming that was for budget reasons. Might have been an incorrect assumption on my part. But all in all I've been very pleased with the 5100, in fact so much so that I might not even sell it after I upgrade. Might be worth hanging on to just to have a backup.

 

[SCraig]

Lol - well I'm on a fairly limited budget myself so "bang for my buck" is always a big part of the equation for me personally. I opted for the D5100 originally because at the time that's what my budget could reasonably afford since I also need a good telephoto lens. The 5200 would have put the telephoto out of my price range. Now that I have a halfway decent setup I can take the time and put some money aside for the 2.8 200 mm. Once I get that purchased, then I'll look at upgrading to the 7100.

As I recall I think the OP listed several camera choices originally, I'm guessing he already did some research and determined those were the best options in his price range. Since he didn't list the 5200 I'm assuming that was for budget reasons. Might have been an incorrect assumption on my part. But all in all I've been very pleased with the 5100, in fact so much so that I might not even sell it after I upgrade. Might be worth hanging on to just to have a backup.

Understood. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing at all wrong with the D5100, it's a very good body. I just like having additional resolution because when it's needed there is nothing that will take its place. I shoot a lot of birds and always wind up cropping my images. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes I crop more than I leave. Having 50% more resolution means that every element of detail that I leave in the cropped area has higher resolution, and that's important to me. I agree that not everyone has those needs but it's an important consideration to me. Enough so that I bought a D7100 to back up my D7000.

It's also the reason that I don't want a full-frame camera body. I like having a lot of resolution packed in a smaller area as long as the high ISO performance is decent.

 

[robbins.photo]

Lol - well I'm on a fairly limited budget myself so "bang for my buck" is always a big part of the equation for me personally. I opted for the D5100 originally because at the time that's what my budget could reasonably afford since I also need a good telephoto lens. The 5200 would have put the telephoto out of my price range. Now that I have a halfway decent setup I can take the time and put some money aside for the 2.8 200 mm. Once I get that purchased, then I'll look at upgrading to the 7100.

As I recall I think the OP listed several camera choices originally, I'm guessing he already did some research and determined those were the best options in his price range. Since he didn't list the 5200 I'm assuming that was for budget reasons. Might have been an incorrect assumption on my part. But all in all I've been very pleased with the 5100, in fact so much so that I might not even sell it after I upgrade. Might be worth hanging on to just to have a backup.

Understood. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing at all wrong with the D5100, it's a very good body. I just like having additional resolution because when it's needed there is nothing that will take its place. I shoot a lot of birds and always wind up cropping my images. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes I crop more than I leave. Having 50% more resolution means that every element of detail that I leave in the cropped area has higher resolution, and that's important to me. I agree that not everyone has those needs but it's an important consideration to me. Enough so that I bought a D7100 to back up my D7000.

It's also the reason that I don't want a full-frame camera body. I like having a lot of resolution packed in a smaller area as long as the high ISO performance is decent.

No argument there - that higher resolution can sometimes mean the difference between getting the shot and just not having enough to work with - especially with those pesky birds. They have an almost uncanny ability to screw up your shot no matter how careful you are.. lol. I'm with you on the FX format - the improved low light would be nice but for me the DX format just suits my style of photography better. Not to mention that I can get some really nice glass for what I'd end up dumping into a good FX body.

 

[ruifo]

If you can save a little bit more and/or find a good deal for a refurbished D5200, buy it instead all these four initial options.

It has the best sensor among the entry level DSLR. Check this page for comparison and further details:
Ratings - DxOMark

 

[czarben]

[/Quote] As I recall I think the OP listed several camera choices originally, I'm guessing he already did some research and determined those were the best options in his price range. Since he didn't list the 5200 I'm assuming that was for budget reasons. [/QUOTE]
Ya $400 is about my max and the D5200 seems a few hundred dollars above that. What kind of flash would you recomened for the D5100 for doing night club photography? The area can be poorly light but at the same time have lots of laser lights in the background and other weird lights that add light but in the way a normal light adds lights, if you know what I mean.

 

[Braineack]

For this price ?

Seams like a no brainer for me get this D5100

cough, see sig, cough...

 

[goodguy]

For this price ?

Seams like a no brainer for me get this D5100

cough, see sig, cough...

Might be thick but I don't think I understand what you are trying to hint.
Don't you think for 379$ a refurbished D5100 by Nikon + kit lens is a killer deal ?

 

[Braineack]

That is a pretty good deal, but I'm also saying I think a D5100 with 4000 clicks, non-refurbished, with a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 and two nikon batteries and all accessories for $600 is a good deal as well. That's like getting the Simga for $200; I paid $350 for it in June.

 

[goodguy]

That is a pretty good deal, but I'm also saying I think a D5100 with 4000 clicks, non-refurbished, with a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 and two nikon batteries and all accessories for $600 is a good deal as well. That's like getting the Simga for $200; I paid $350 for it in June.

I hear ya, I think its not bad but now we are talking about personal preference.
I don't like this Sigma lens, I am not saying its a bad lens I am just saying I wouldn't get it because there are other lenses I would rather have so I would go with the refurbished one and get the lens I would rather want.
And from reading the OP it looks to me like 600$ is over the budget so the refurbished one is doable while yours isnt.

Again nothing against I am not saying the Sigma lens is rubbish I simply have other lenses in this price range I personally rather have.

 

[Braineack]

I'd keep the lens if it was a DG lens; I'm been very pleased with it--I'm just whoring my stuff out.

But i do agree the D5100 is a great camera for the price. I just shot this with it like 2 minutes ago: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/345904-hungry-cardinal.html

 

[goodguy]

I'd keep the lens if it was a DG lens; I'm been very pleased with it--I'm just whoring my stuff out.

But i do agree the D5100 is a great camera for the price. I just shot this with it like 2 minutes ago: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/345904-hungry-cardinal.html

Very nice picture
Let me guess, you shot this with your 70-300mm ?