I need your help!

[Trangela]

Hello everyone.
I am going to buy a new dslr and there are two options. I cannot decide which one is better, so I need your help.
Thank you.
1) Nikon d5200 | 18-55 VR II | 55-200 VR II
2) Nikon d5300 | 18-105 VR

And the first one is a bit cheaper. (Almost $130)

Which combination is better 18-55, 55-200 or 18-105. And is there significant differences between the two bodies?

I just need your opinion...

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

So with the D5200 combo you have 18-200, with the d5300 you have 18-105. I'm not a nikon guy but from quick glance the only major difference is the 5300 has wifi. Other than that most of the specs look the same. If just starting out, go with the D5200 in my opinion, you get two lenses and a bit more in the long end of focal length. They also came out 8 months apart so i'm sure the technology didn't explode in 8 months...

 

[fmw]

I recommend the first one. The zooms have a narrower range and should outperform the other one. The bodies are similar enough that they don't matter much in the decision in my view. The lenses are the key.

 

[Derrel]

I would go for the D5300 and the 18-105mm VR lens. The 18-55 lens is sort of a PITA as far as the range it has...the top end of the zoom is very limiting, and you will CONSTANTLY find yourself switching to a mediocre, slow-focusing 55-200 lens. The 19-105 lens is one I bought, and is a handy lens with good range: it is the lens people actually **wanted** the have after the 18-55 was kind of a dud, and the 18-70 was discontinued due to a similar lack of zoom range.

Let's be clear: the 18-55 is **not** a lens that has high performance, but was designed to be a $99 lens to make package prices as low-cost as was humanly possible, and the top end zoom range cuts off right as many photos are beginning to show some selective angle of view. IOW, the 18-55 "lets you down" constantly when you want a narrower angle of view. Nikon went to 18-70 next, and then 18-105mm, to alleviate this common issue.

The 5300 is subtly better regarding shutter release and motor drive modes, but it pretty similar to the D5200, but not identical. The 5300 is only about a year newer of a model. Nikon D5300 vs Nikon D5200 | DxOMark

Sensor-wise, the scores indicate no real performance difference; these differences are exceptionally minor, sensor-wise.

CONSTANTLY needing to switch zooms to get more than 55mm is gonna be, and IS, a major PITA.

 

[dunfly]

The only "significant" difference in the two cameras is the anti aliasing (low pass filter). The D5200 had it, the D5300 doesn't. I don't really think it makes a lot of difference in image quality.

 

[astroNikon]

The D5300 not only had the WiFi but also the GPS for the geotagging craze that went on for a while. The LCD is also 5.2" vs 5.0". The d5200's LCD had a little bit better resolution, battery life was a little bit better, it was slightly lighter (and slightly smaller).

I think the buttons on the D5300 are a bit better because they're not so flush.
But the rubber eyepiece cup on the D5200 is better.

I researched them in the past for a FullSpectrum conversion but didn't get one. I nearly got a d5500 for general use. They are nice and small and light too but then I shoot some of the bigger Nikon's anyways.

I like the 18-105 lens a bit better. The 18-105s were kit lenses for the D7000 & D7100 and were known to be pretty sharp for a kit lens.

You'll find the 18-55 and 55-200 combo on the low end D3x00 series cameras. I've found the 55-200 lens just soft (slightly fuzzy images) from 55 to 200. The 18-55 was okay when I had one. though as mentioned, I preferred the 18-105 and sold my 18-55 & 55-200 combo.

You can't go wrong with either one for a good price.

 

[Trangela]

Thanks a lot for your assistances. I bought D5200 tomorrow. There are no differences between the two bodies. I though that I try 18-55, 55-200. If I dislike this combination then I will sell one or two of them and buy 18-105.