D5300 vs D5200

[blueberryicedcoffee]

I've been trying to decide what camera to buy for quite some time now, and it has basically come down to these two. I just have a simple question: is the D5300 better?

The major differences are that the D5300 has no OLPF filter, plus it has built in Wi-Fi. It also has a expeed 4 processor compared to the D5200's expeed 3.

I just want to know if those differences are really worth it.

Thanks, oh experienced ones.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Also check out the banding issue on the D5200 and D7100, you might never see the banding but it`s best to check it out.

John.

 

[PropilotBW]

Also check out the banding issue on the D5200 and D7100, you might never see the banding but it`s best to check it out.

John.

Is this a problem with all 7100s?

 

[dennybeall]

Have a D5300 but not a 5200 but can comment on the 5300. It does a very good job and is faster at doing just about any job it has to do. The WiFi works with smart phones but not a pc or laptop. The built in GPS works well outside in the clear but not great indoors. With WiFi and GPS both on you better have a multi battery base on it (cheap on eBAy) or plan to change the battery often. The video is also very good. Limited usability since you can't use the viewfinder for video and it's hard to see the back screen in sunlight.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well I'm a D5200 guy myself. From what I've read the big differences between the Expeed 4 and the Expeed 3 is that 4 allows you to shoot video at 1080 at 60 FPS, 3 I think only does 1080 at 30 FPS.

It also gives you a max ISO of 12800 as opposed to 6400, and if you use the 14a version of the batteries you can get more life out of them. As for banding, well never seen it on either of my D5200's so I can't really speak to that as an issue.

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't do video - I stick strictly with still photographs. The built in GPS really didn't interest me much, and as for wifi I just bought an add on adapter for my 5200. The only thing I use the wifi for is when I'm previewing images while I'm at the shooting location, I use my tablet and connect it via wifi so I can see the images on a bigger screen and see if there is anything that I might want to reshoot. WiFi is too slow for me when I go to actually transfer images, and it eats the battery like crazy, so I use the USB cable for that.

So for me at least I found the D5200 to be a better choice at it's price point than the 5300 - but if the features the 5300 offers appeal enough to you to justify the price difference, well then maybe the 5300 would be a better buy for you. It just sort of depends on how much having those additional features is worth to you personally.

 

[ruifo]

I have the D5200 and it is amazing. If you have the D5200, there is no need to upgrade to the D5300. But if I was buying today, I'd go with the D5300, just because it is newer, and the new features add up well.


You cannot go wrong with any of them.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have the D5200 and it is amazing.
But if I was buying today, I'd go with the D5300, just because it is newer, and the new features add up well.

You cannot go wrong with any of them.

Well I got my first 5200 before the 5300 came out, when I got the 2nd 5200 I actually considered the 5300 - but for the price difference I just didn't really feel like I'd get enough use out of the features the 5300 offered to justify the price difference.

It's going to rapidly become a moot point though, I'm on my way to upgrading one of my 5200's to a 7100 shortly.

 

[ruifo]

Well I got my first 5200 before the 5300 came out (...)

Same here.
And I never regretted or wished to change it for a D5300 at all, after the D5300 release. The D5200 is an amazing camera, and because of that it is still being produced today, together with the D5300. The D5300 did not replace or stop the D5200 production line.

 

[PaulWog]

If I was buying a new crop body today for the first time with the knowledge I have, I'd be getting the D7100 over the D5300. But then I think full frame is better to go with over the D7100, so it's a whole endless upgrade path thing.

I've locked myself into DX and I really enjoy the D5200. It's a good camera. The D5300 doesn't offer a lot over it... the price difference is better spent on glass. If you want to do 60fps video, get the D5300. If the D5300 is $200 more, consider it I suppose... it's newer. Any greater price difference... go with the D5200. I'd rather put a $200 difference toward glass.

My opinion is go with the D5200 or the D7100, better value for your photos.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well I got my first 5200 before the 5300 came out (...)

Same here.
And I never regretted or wished to change it for a D5300 at all, after the D5300 release. The D5200 is an amazing camera, and because of that it is still being produced today, together with the D5300. The D5300 did not replace or stop the D5200 production line.

For the price the D5200 almost impossible to beat, just nothing else in it's price range really comes close, especially if you do what I did and go refurbished. Never regretted purchasing either, and only sold the one to help finance the 7100 upgrade. They really are great cameras. But you know I can understand why some folks might choose the 5300 - I mean for me the GPS thing would just be a way to waste batteries, but some folks just love features like that and get a ton of use out of them.

 

[PaulWog]

Well I got my first 5200 before the 5300 came out (...)

Same here.
And I never regretted or wished to change it for a D5300 at all, after the D5300 release. The D5200 is an amazing camera, and because of that it is still being produced today, together with the D5300. The D5300 did not replace or stop the D5200 production line.

For the price the D5200 almost impossible to beat, just nothing else in it's price range really comes close, especially if you do what I did and go refurbished. Never regretted purchasing either, and only sold the one to help finance the 7100 upgrade. They really are great cameras. But you know I can understand why some folks might choose the 5300 - I mean for me the GPS thing would just be a way to waste batteries, but some folks just love features like that and get a ton of use out of them.

Or if you do what I did and get it for $560 (Canadian) because I got a 20% discount that was supposed to be a $20 discount. That was over a year ago too.

 

[fotomonkey]

Have a D5300 but not a 5200 but can comment on the 5300. It does a very good job and is faster at doing just about any job it has to do. The WiFi works with smart phones but not a pc or laptop. The built in GPS works well outside in the clear but not great indoors. With WiFi and GPS both on you better have a multi battery base on it (cheap on eBAy) or plan to change the battery often. The video is also very good. Limited usability since you can't use the viewfinder for video and it's hard to see the back screen in sunlight.

I was disappointed in both of these points. I would really like to be able to create an ad-hoc network to transfer images straight to the computer. As a test, though, I took some birthday pics and was going to try texting them to my brother. I pulled them up on the phone but got an error that it was an unrecognized file. Not sure why. I'm shooting jpg only and it showed me the image. Just wouldn't send it. Go figure. I guess the remote control is perhaps a little more useful.

I also wish you could shoot video through the viewfinder but I guess I'll get used to it.

I've been away from photography for a few years so my 5300 was an upgrade from my now defunct D2H and D70. Since I don't shoot professionally anymore I don't really need the additional features of the 7100 and the 5300 does a nice job. It's a little corny with some of the modes they put on it but I realize it's made for the soccer mom type crowd.

I do find I keep looking for features I was familiar with on the D2H (dual shutter release/command wheels, etc) but I just have a little retraining to do. I miss the frame rate too.

 

[goodguy]

D5300 is a slightly upgraded D5200, wouldnt bother to get the D5300, the D5200 is already a very powerful tool and for the money I think its a much better deal then the D5300.
If I would seriously consider the D5300 then splash just a bit more cash and go for the DX heavyweight the D7100, it has about same IQ but the body has a lot more to offer and is worth the small extra cash.

So I would either go with the D5200 or D7100

 

[greybeard]

The differences I can see from comparing them seems to be the GPS and the display screen. Being the 5300 has GPS which the 5200 doesn't and the display screen being 3.2" on the 5300 vs 3" on the 5200. Also the 5300 display screen is 1,037k dots and the 921k dots on the 5200.

 

[photospher]

Well, here are the differences:

Nikon D5300: has built-in Wireless, GPS, No AA filter (more details butscan become a disadvantage in some conditions), Larger LCD screen (3.2" vs 3"), higher resolution LCD(1,037k dots vs 921k dots), faster fps (5fps vs 3fps), lighter body and slightly better high ISO (according to DxO Mark).

Nikon D5200: cheaper

These are all significant advantages but is it worth the $350 price difference?
For me, none of these differences are worth such a big price dif, I would definitely go with the D5200 and spend the money on a Prime lens, and focus on my technique instead of gimmicks like GPS and Wi-fi.

By the way, I use this site frequently to compare cameras, you may want to have a look:

Nikon D5300 vs Nikon D5200 Detailed Comparison