Nikon D3100 or D3200?

[Perthie]

It's been many years since I dabbled seriously with photography, and I've been reasonably content with my little point and shoot

 

However, since I started travelling to LoS a couple of years ago I'm a little dissatisfied with the capabilities of my pocket cameras, and am getting more and more interested in being able to take more versatile photo's one again.

 

So, I'm looking at entry level DSLR's. It's been more than 20 years since I last put down my old Pentax SLR, and I doubt I'm ever going to be more than an amateur snapper.

 

So I'm really looking at something that an almost rank beginner will find easy to use but has some capability for more advanced photography as my skills redevelop.

 

Catching my eye at the moment are a couple of Nikons. And I'm dithering about which one to buy.......

 

Prices are good right now, and I can get a D3100 with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses for $579. It's a 14MP camera, which to my mind is quite adequate.

 

Alternatively, for $599 I can get the more recent D3200, however although this has a massive 24MP sensor it only comes with the 18-55 lens.

 

Obviously I can add lenses to my kit, however the camera itself is the important factor.

 

So, camera buffs, can I get some opinions here as the whether it's actually worth getting the D3200, especially in view of the price/component comparison? Is a 24MP camera really going to be that much superior for an amateur photographer to use?

 

I'll point out here that the things I find annoying about compact cameras are:

 

Poor scenic photography in view of the inability to attach filters.

 

Poor low-light photography.

 

No depth of field control.

 

All advice and opinions welcomed, but please don't get too technical, it has been a long time since I last used a good quality camera.

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[redfred]

Looking forward to some of your work perthie.

Sorry i cant help, im a terrible photographer even if i remember to bring the camera out i forget i have it with me

fred..

[Perthie]

Looking forward to some of your work perthie.

Sorry i cant help, im a terrible photographer even if i remember to bring the camera out i forget i have it with me

fred..

I'd like to spend less of my next trip semi-comatose and see what I can produce in the way of interesting shots and subjects....

 

There's so much happening in Pattaya all the time, and fewer of the better snappers posting their works. I'd like to be able to make some more interesting visual contributions.....

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[phowa1]

The D3100 is more than adequate for what you want to do, just casual photography. It is all about lenses. The lens makes the picture, the cameras are pretty much on equal footing. You won't be able to tell the difference between 14 MP and 24 MP unless your posting photos on a football stadium screen.

[mistkin]

The way I'd do this is to is look to invest more on the lenses than on the camera body.

Thats because the body will become obsolete in just a few years. Lenses not only keep their value, some of them actually appreciate over time if they are well maintained. Also, a average/poor lens paired with even a expensive camera body will give poor results.

 

The nikon 18-55mm is actually a pretty good lens but the 55-200mm is not that great.

 

I would instead try to get my hands on the nikon 70-300mm G lens, it gives you much larger range (300 vs. 200mm) AND its only $150 or there abouts.

 

I suggest you think about buying the camera body separately but zero-in the choices for the lenses.

 

Check out adorama. com for comparing prices. Its one of the best online photo stuff stores around.

You may be able to group all the purchases and get a discount as well.

[kingfisher_111]

I would recommend that you go for either Nikon D3100 or Canon 550D. If still planning for D3200, then go for D5100 instead. D5100 has in-camera HDR, flip out screen, larger sensor and that too in the same price range.

 

For landscapes and interior photography, go for wide angle lens like 50mm f/1.8.

 

Check out this wonderful Site - www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-digital-slr-lens.html

[Love_to_eat_Thai]

As everyone has said, it's all about the lenses. Pick your body after you pick your lenses as they're all going to give you great photos, the extra 10Mpixels won't show up as much of a difference as a good lens will over a cheapie.

[Spanky99]

Personally I would get the D3200 because as the others have said the 55-200 isn't that great. The D3200 does have a bit more detail to the images (really only a bit). If you want a bit of a laugh while watching a camera review watch http://www.digitalrev.com/article/nikon-d3200-hands-on-pre/MjMxODE0Mzk_A adn enjoy. If you want a pro's take on the D3200 http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-look-at-nikon-d3200-kirk-tuck.html.

 

In full disclosure I don't use Nikon's at all. I shoot with Canon's and Panasonic's. If you want something ligher with the capabilities take a look at the Panasonic G3 or GX1. For what you will pay for either NIkon's you can get a fully kitted Panasonic.

[jerry]

Get the Nikon 3100 or the Canon 550 with the 18-135 0r 18-200 lens as changing lenses everytime is a pain .

 

The extra pixels is not worth the extra money as it only makes bigger prints not better ones .

Edited August 23, 2012 by jerry

[eatRAMEN]

D3200 is just a marketing gimmick. You would never come close to using all those megapixels. You would be printing a huge poster if you decided to print your pictures. D3100 would be fine and the two lens combo is one of the best you can have. For the price of the D3200 I'd rather get the D5100 as it has a better sensor and will last you a good life of the camera.

[Highlander]

I had a D3100 (until i got pissed and lost it) but suffice to say it was a bloody good camera.

 

I bought a 50mm f1.4 lens and it took stunning portrait pics, it even made ugly BG's look like a model.

 

I believe JB Hi-Fi have them very cheap at the moment in Perth. ($544) with an 18-55mm lens and the D3100 with no lens is $544 WTF

 

http://www.jbhifi.com.au/photo/digital-cameras/dslr-camera/

[Perthie]

 

First of all, thanks to everyone for their responses. You've all confirmed what I've been reading in various comparisons between all the entry level cameras, which is basically that going to 24MP is purely a current gimmick. Of course, I anticipate that 24MP will now become the minimum acceptable sensor for all new developments.

 

You've confirmed my initial thoughts that the D3100 is more than adequate for my purposes, and I have already earmarked a couple of additional lenses to add to the kit.

 

I look forward to playing with my new toy upon delivery, hopefully you'll all enjoy the results in future posts.

 

Highlander, seriously, you lost your Nikon when you were pissed? That's exactly how I lost my Pentax far too many years ago!!

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[Highlander]

First of all, thanks to everyone for their responses. You've all confirmed what I've been reading in various comparisons between all the entry level cameras, which is basically that going to 24MP is purely a current gimmick. Of course, I anticipate that 24MP will now become the minimum acceptable sensor for all new developments.

 

You've confirmed my initial thoughts that the D3100 is more than adequate for my purposes, and I have already earmarked a couple of additional lenses to add to the kit.

 

I look forward to playing with my new toy upon delivery, hopefully you'll all enjoy the results in future posts.

 

Highlander, seriously, you lost your Nikon when you were pissed? That's exactly how I lost my Pentax far too many years ago!!

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

 

Yeah I was pissed off as i only just learned how to drive it.

 

Hopefully we can meet here in Perth some day soon, we have some good guys that come to the Perth meetings.

[Perthie]

Yeah I was pissed off as i only just learned how to drive it.

 

Hopefully we can meet here in Perth some day soon, we have some good guys that come to the Perth meetings.

 

I left my Pentax in a bar in Zeebrugge, by the time I'd remembered I'd left it behind the ferry home to England was already getting ready to depart. .

 

I'm sure I'll turn up unannounced at the Perth meet at some point. My shifts tend to get in the way of anything like a normal life.

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[NorCalKid]

I bought a D80 kit with 18-135 lens then picked up the 55-200mm. Since then I have changed out the lenses to a 18-270tamron and have a 50mm f 1.8prime(Nikor). IMO this is the perfect travel setup (though large). One large versatile zoom lens and a fast prime and it all fits in one small bag with a SB400 flash. I like this set up because it’s easy and small. I don’t have to change lenses a lot. If it wasn’t used and carried primarily when traveling I might go a different route.

 

 

If I had it to do over again I wouldn’t buy a kit. I would buy the box I wanted and an 18-200Nikor or a Tamron 18-270 lens used. Wouldn’t lose money selling the kit lens, wouldn’t have to change lenses, wouldn’t be paying the price of new, and could add a prime lens later(the 50mm f1.8 only cost me $120 new). If I had to pick one lens(for traveling) it would be one of these. I almost never use a flash and wouldn’t worry about that.

 

 

 

 

EDIT:One thing to note. I don't think the 3100 has a built in motor so it won't auto focus those cheap prime lenses. So if you want to auto focus you will have to buy more expensive lenses.

Edited August 25, 2012 by NorCalKid

[Perthie]

I bought a D80 kit with 18-135 lens then picked up the 55-200mm. Since then I have changed out the lenses to a 18-270tamron and have a 50mm f 1.8prime(Nikor). IMO this is the perfect travel setup (though large). One large versatile zoom lens and a fast prime and it all fits in one small bag with a SB400 flash. I like this set up because it’s easy and small. I don’t have to change lenses a lot. If it wasn’t used and carried primarily when traveling I might go a different route.

 

 

If I had it to do over again I wouldn’t buy a kit. I would buy the box I wanted and an 18-200Nikor or a Tamron 18-270 lens used. Wouldn’t lose money selling the kit lens, wouldn’t have to change lenses, wouldn’t be paying the price of new, and could add a prime lens later(the 50mm f1.8 only cost me $120 new). If I had to pick one lens(for traveling) it would be one of these. I almost never use a flash and wouldn’t worry about that.

 

 

 

 

EDIT:One thing to note. I don't think the 3100 has a built in motor so it won't auto focus those cheap prime lenses. So if you want to auto focus you will have to buy more expensive lenses.

 

Thank you for that NorCal. I think I'm content to start with the kit and work out what I need from there, although I have already earmarked an F1.4 or F1.8 lens as a necessary addition. I have a lot to re-learn about photography.......

 

Having done a quick check, neither the D3100 or the D3200 have an inbuilt motor, but I understand from some of the technical reviews that the other manufacturers also produce compatible lenses with built-in motors for focussing.

 

Looks as if I'll be splashing some cash for a new kit this week, god bless online shopping and discounts!!

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[Noud]

Unless you have already bought it, there is one more aspect that might want to be considered before deciding. And that is how the camera works at High Iso. The xMP might not be a selling point, but how about less noise in pictures taken in low light? Each generation gets better and the last generations of cameras has seen huge improvements. Now I don't know IF there is a big difference between the two cameras in question. I had a look at Dpreview.com and I could not spot any major difference. But then it was hard to spot compared to the D800 too, and there I know it IS a huge difference.

 

Any way, you should keep it in mind that even though you might not need the extra MP there are other things changed in it. Noise on High ISO aught to be one of them.

 

The D3100 was anounced in Aug 2010 the D3200 in Apr 2012 and the D7000 in Sep 2010

 

That's 1½ years, lots has happened.

 

I own a D7000 myself. My guess is that the D3100 is worse and the D3200 is almost as good if not better in low light conditions.

 

I'll add a picture from the D7000 to give you an idea of about where we are.

 

Taken at Iso 3200 f2.8 1/50s and no flash.

[Perthie]

Unless you have already bought it, there is one more aspect that might want to be considered before deciding. And that is how the camera works at High Iso. The xMP might not be a selling point, but how about less noise in pictures taken in low light? Each generation gets better and the last generations of cameras has seen huge improvements. Now I don't know IF there is a big difference between the two cameras in question. I had a look at Dpreview.com and I could not spot any major difference. But then it was hard to spot compared to the D800 too, and there I know it IS a huge difference.

 

Any way, you should keep it in mind that even though you might not need the extra MP there are other things changed in it. Noise on High ISO aught to be one of them.

 

The D3100 was anounced in Aug 2010 the D3200 in Apr 2012 and the D7000 in Sep 2010

 

That's 1½ years, lots has happened.

 

I own a D7000 myself. My guess is that the D3100 is worse and the D3200 is almost as good if not better in low light conditions.

 

I'll add a picture from the D7000 to give you an idea of about where we are.

 

Taken at Iso 3200 f2.8 1/50s and no flash.

 

Thanks Noud, i see your point. I still have some time before I hit the 'buy' button, so I shall re-check the specs on the cameras.

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[Rockman]

D5100 with the 18-55 and 55-200. The 70-300 is a good lense as well and gives you some extra focal length. All 3 are good lenses for the money. Sharp and have VR. If you want a fixed lense for semi-wide angle look at the 35mm F1.8 G AF-S DX lens. Its about 200 dollars new. 50mm isnt anywhere close to wide angle on a DX or even FX sensor camera..

 

I have had my D5100 for about a year now and I love it. It has good ISO range, good dynamic range and shoots HD video with a very very handy flip out swiveling screen.. I'm impressed with the lowlight performance especially coupled with a nice fast lens like the 35 F1.8..

[kingfisher_111]

Unless one is a professional, it does not make any sense to carry so many lenses while traveling. For amateur like me, I would look for 1 lens that would serve the purpose. After doing lot of research online, I think it's better to carry 1 superzoom lens like 18-200mm or 18-270mm. Thx...

[Perthie]

D5100 with the 18-55 and 55-200. The 70-300 is a good lense as well and gives you some extra focal length. All 3 are good lenses for the money. Sharp and have VR. If you want a fixed lense for semi-wide angle look at the 35mm F1.8 G AF-S DX lens. Its about 200 dollars new. 50mm isnt anywhere close to wide angle on a DX or even FX sensor camera..

 

I have had my D5100 for about a year now and I love it. It has good ISO range, good dynamic range and shoots HD video with a very very handy flip out swiveling screen.. I'm impressed with the lowlight performance especially coupled with a nice fast lens like the 35 F1.8..

Unless one is a professional, it does not make any sense to carry so many lenses while traveling. For amateur like me, I would look for 1 lens that would serve the purpose. After doing lot of research online, I think it's better to carry 1 superzoom lens like 18-200mm or 18-270mm. Thx...

 

Thanks guys for your input.

 

Having checked ISO ranges on the models I'm looking at, the D3100 has a max of 3200 and the D3200 runs up to 6400.

 

I could get totally lost in all the different brands and models that are available, so I'm trying to focus on entry level gear that's going to let me get my hand back in. At this point therefore I'm balancing utility and price, not intending to go overboard on costs right at the start - I can always upgrade my equipment later on if I remain enthusiastic.

 

Of course, now I'm considering the extra few hundred dollars it would cost to get the D3200 twin lens kit to begin with........

 

Decisions decisions..........

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[Noud]

Having bringing my dslr to Thailand and other places for many years now let me give you my opinion on things.

 

Go for the D3200. The reason behind that is that it is a newer model. That should mean less noise at high ISO. Better and faster AF. If you end up in a position that you want a more advanced camera later on, the choice now probably does not make any big difference.

 

For the lens situation it is a bit trickier? Do you remember what you used back on your Pentax? If you still have it, go have a look. If it is/was a 24-75mm, or similar to that it is the equivalent of an 18-55 on the cameras you are looking at now. If that was good enough then, maybe it will be now too?

 

I've brought quite a few lenses with my on my trips. But the last few I've ended up leaving a few at home. These days I bring a cheapo 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. It's a standard kit lens and will do ok most of the time. I also bring a 24-76mm f2.8 to have a fast lens to play with. Bare in mind that 24mm is not always wide enough, so that alone would not work very good. The first trips I also brought an 80-200mm f2.8 but it was left collecting *fuck I just burnt the food* dust. I had it out a few times, but it never got much use. So these days I leave it home.

 

My suggestion is that you go for and 18-55mm lens. They are cheap, but surprisingly sharp. You could go for one of those megazoom thingys. They are ok, but will not be as good int the 18-55mm range as a lens made for that range. And as long as you are not going to shoot candid then my guess is that you will not use the extra range of the megazooms very much. There is a middle way. 18-135 or something like that.

 

So in essence my suggestion is go for a D3200 with an 18-55mm lens. In the end it is all up to you. I'll give you two links to look around though

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

There is some interesting reading on there in case you have not already found them.

[Rockman]

The 18-55 VR lens is actually very good lens for the money. The only problem I see with it is its kind of slow with a variable aperture. With that said though it's definately worth having as a kit lens. One thing to consider if you are thinking about the D3200 is it doesn't have a flip out swivel screen. The D5100 does and it makes it sooooo much easier if your shooting video...

 

Whichever camera you get. If you get the 18-55 and the 55-200 (usually as a package deal, they usually sell the 55-200 for 150 dollars) you will have a good start start and a wide focal length of lenses to get you going.. I'm partial to the D5100 myself..

[Perthie]

Having bringing my dslr to Thailand and other places for many years now let me give you my opinion on things.

 

Go for the D3200. The reason behind that is that it is a newer model. That should mean less noise at high ISO. Better and faster AF. If you end up in a position that you want a more advanced camera later on, the choice now probably does not make any big difference.

 

For the lens situation it is a bit trickier? Do you remember what you used back on your Pentax? If you still have it, go have a look. If it is/was a 24-75mm, or similar to that it is the equivalent of an 18-55 on the cameras you are looking at now. If that was good enough then, maybe it will be now too?

 

I've brought quite a few lenses with my on my trips. But the last few I've ended up leaving a few at home. These days I bring a cheapo 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. It's a standard kit lens and will do ok most of the time. I also bring a 24-76mm f2.8 to have a fast lens to play with. Bare in mind that 24mm is not always wide enough, so that alone would not work very good. The first trips I also brought an 80-200mm f2.8 but it was left collecting *fuck I just burnt the food* dust. I had it out a few times, but it never got much use. So these days I leave it home.

 

My suggestion is that you go for and 18-55mm lens. They are cheap, but surprisingly sharp. You could go for one of those megazoom thingys. They are ok, but will not be as good int the 18-55mm range as a lens made for that range. And as long as you are not going to shoot candid then my guess is that you will not use the extra range of the megazooms very much. There is a middle way. 18-135 or something like that.

 

So in essence my suggestion is go for a D3200 with an 18-55mm lens. In the end it is all up to you. I'll give you two links to look around though

 

http://www.kenrockwe...ech/reviews.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

There is some interesting reading on there in case you have not already found them.

The Pentax (which got left in a bar in Zeebrugge....) had a standard kit lens on it, although that was over 30 years ago. Obviously it would have been a small compact item, so probably comparable to the 18-55mm.

 

I'm not overly worried about lenses (as in, numbers of) which are supplied with the camera. One lens, two lenses, it doesn't matter as they're all relatively cheap to purchase. Getting a basic camera body that'll keep me occupied for a few years is the aim.

 

I had a look at quite a lot of reviews, and no matter what the reviewer says everything gets bogged down by the readers comments. The arguments that follow remind me of the discussions here about what's a fair price to pay for LT.......

 

Now, having almost convinced myself to go for the 3200, another camera gets mentioned:

The 18-55 VR lens is actually very good lens for the money. The only problem I see with it is its kind of slow with a variable aperture. With that said though it's definately worth having as a kit lens. One thing to consider if you are thinking about the D3200 is it doesn't have a flip out swivel screen. The D5100 does and it makes it sooooo much easier if your shooting video...

 

Whichever camera you get. If you get the 18-55 and the 55-200 (usually as a package deal, they usually sell the 55-200 for 150 dollars) you will have a good start start and a wide focal length of lenses to get you going.. I'm partial to the D5100 myself..

 

Not that I'm that fascinated by a flip-out lens, but when I read the Specs and Reviews of the D5100 it does look like a very good camera (although "only" 16MP) and was obviously originally pitched at an intermediate level photographer.

 

And the D3200 is compared to the 5100 by many commentators who say that the features of the 5100 are superior, and then again some argue that a 24MP sensor makes the 3200 a much better deal.

 

Aaaargh!!

 

Noud and Rockman, thanks again for your input. As I sit here today I'm now dithering between the 3200/5100, and I'll probably only make a decision as I sit down to make the purchase - and then I'll probably worry about what I've done for a few days.

 

Cheers

 

Perthie

[Rockman]

I'm sure you will be happy with whatever camera you chose. Let us know.