I would take the D3200 over a D5100. ONE HUGE problem is the D3200 is ONLY available with the 18-55VR kit lens which is quite hated by all the photographers I know. They try one of my several 18-105VRs and say it is 10X better. Within the 18-55 range of course the two lens are actually quite similar, but the sign off at 55mm and other factors has a lot of 18-55VR owners very bummed out. It is DEPLORABLE THAT THE D3200 is not available as body only. Personally I'd rather buy a prime lens for a light lens, have a 18-105VR lens also, and a number of the D3200 owners use the 70-300VR lens and get GREAT images with that and greatly enjoy using it. However the 70-300VR seems a little big on the D3200 and also the former D3100. I myself detest the articulating screen on the D5100. I am capbale of getting my eye in line with the viewfinder in almost any position. But if you were holding it well above your head......WOW! The articulating screen might be the ticket. I see it as a weak point but without owning and using that movable screen, my reservations have less validity EVEN to myself. I use cameras (especially cameras that get seriously used in high danger and high risk areas) like the D90 and that camera is a great tech camera. I tried the D3100 in the same settings and DID NOT even like it. I have never thrown the D3200 "to the wolves" but I am going to assume that I would find it better. But when it comes right down to all of these factors......give me a D7000.

More discussion of

rookieshot said:
Hello nikon users, I'm new to the world of photograhy and about ready buy a camera. Borrowed a friends camera and loved taking shots, so nnow I want my own. I figured I would buy something not too expensive to start with, just to make sure I truly like phography. I assumed the d3200 or the d5100 was the best bet for me. With all the knowledge and experience you members have, should i get one of those cameras, or something else? Thanks for the help guys, hope to be posting pics soon!

SORRY IF THIS WAS ALREADY POSTED!!!

I set mine to AEB as i shoot alot for HDR. its really handy for that,

NikonMick said:
Simply FYI for any reader/viewers who aren't aware of its existence, there is a Flicker group pool for users of D3100/D3200 bodies at:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond3100/pool/

The group has 9,000 members and there are about 150,000 pix in the pool.

Mick

Thanks Mick. I didn't know.

Simply FYI for any reader/viewers who aren't aware of its existence, there is a Flicker group pool for users of D3100/D3200 bodies at:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond3100/pool/

The group has 9,000 members and there are about 150,000 pix in the pool.

Mick

john18 said:
Speaking of learning, the Fn button does seem to be in a somewhat strange place. What do any of you set it to do?

On my D7000, it's set to go to the top item on My Menu. It provides a quick leap to the functions I don't want to have to dig for like auto-ISO, battery info, etc.

The Fn on my D5000 I usually have set for shutter release mode (if I am using a remote or what a timer set). I haven't found too helpful for anything else and there are only a few limited options.

I am going to jump in as the new kid on the block and from a general consumer point of view looking to improve my product and education.

A friend of mine, a Nikon user with multiple cameras, found out that I was looking to upgrade from my prior Olympus Evolt E-500 (non stabilized) and was considering dropping Olympus and my Four-Thirds lenses. He recommended the D3200 because he had heard really good things about it. I also had a high school classmate, now a professor of photography, give me a good opinion of the camera. So I did buy it and I come into the debate with a point-of-view of someone who has never previously owned a Nikon product.

I have now had two professional workshops, one on shooting and one on Lightroom 4 and I am already taking better photos then I was previously able to take, whether that is a function of the camera or some hands-on education from a professional.

Having taken the time to learn the camera, and coming from an entirely different manufacturer, I think I have absorbed most of what I initially need to learn. Now I just need to shoot shots, see the results and learn from them.

If I jumped in and diverted the thread I apologize, but the only way to get get in is to enter the discussion and learn.

Speaking of learning, the Fn button does seem to be in a somewhat strange place. What do any of you set it to do?

John

> Eric wrote: "Thanks!"

No probs, was good to have a more considered thinking session, thanks for the suggestion.

> tcole1983 wrote: "I still feel that you think I have attacked you or something because I don't care for the D3XXX cameras."

Untrue, I wrote a considered 600 words about form factors and camera useage. I didn't mention tcole 1983 at all.

I'm completely small-c "catholic", ie "universal" about people's choice of gear whether it be cameras, computers, hifi systems, cars, motor bikes, surf boards, hard books VS e-books, tablets, etc. Naturally I have my own preferences.

Differences of opinion occur, that's the world thankfully. Problems occur when people think their choice is the only choice that makes sense or is defensible, eg computer fanbois - mac, Windows or Android; image makers - Canon, Nikon; revheads - NASCAR or F1; cycling - track, road or mountain bike; surf - standups, boogie boards or body surfers; psychiatry - jungian, freudian, langian, etc, etc.

Mick

As a comment. The pixel pitch on the D3200 is pretty small, smaller than the D800 anyway. When considering the D3200, it should be more sensitive to vibrations etc than the D800. In other words, as with the D800, in order to get the most out of the camera, medium format technique may be necessary. It seems likely that (in all but bright light) the tripod and head necessary to actually use those 24mp could cost more than the body. ... Did you get that? That's pretty impressive.

For me, I like a bigger body and the exposure bracketing of the D5100 would matter. I like the control layout on the D3200 better, but I would prefer the the articulated LCD of the D5100. And (having stated that it will take some care to use), I prefer the sensor on the D3200. Between the two? Well I have been recommending the D3200. You simply cannot beat the price/performance.

On the other hand, I agree with tcole and msmoto in that for me both the D5100 & D3200 are not as seamlessly user friendly as the higher end bodies.

msmoto said:
My problem with different bodies is that the ability to use the manual adjustments, at least for me, is easier in the higher end pro bodies than the consumer bodies. My D200 was easier to use than the D90, yet had only 10MP. IN retrospect, I should have sold the D90 as the controls of the D200 were like the D4 more than the D90.

That was more of my point. When I purchased my D5000 I did so for 2 reasons. First was cost...I got mine for around $350 after I sold the 18-55 kit lens. Second was because it performed at about the same level as the D90 without the cost...the D90 was still around $800+ then.

Now as I have used my camera for several years I feel slightly limited by the controls. No commander mode for flashes, no easy buttons and nobs to change my ISO or focus modes. A limited quick key. Recently I have noticed I missed a shot or two because I was fiddling in menus to change these things. I also envy the better ISO performance of the newer bodies. Everything above the D5XXX line has a better focusing system with more focus points to choose from which would be really nice. These are just some of the reasons I want to "upgrade". I figure if I know why I want a new camera that makes it somewhat justifiable :)

Do I think I will all the sudden take better pictures...not really. Do I think it will allow me to expand what I can do as a photographer and make me more efficient...absolutely.

Oh yeah...and I like my AF-S lenses, but it would be nice to have the option of using other older lenses. I know there are some great more budget friendly lenses out there that I don't even look at now because of no autofocus with them.

Hanging around a lot here I am going to drop my comments. Most on NRF have seen my stuff on PAD. While it is difficult to substitute the very long tele shots, the basic shots could have been done with a D40 and it is doubtful one could have seen the difference. My D90 does an excellent job. However, I sold my D200, preparing for the D400, which I hope will be announced sometime soon.

My problem with different bodies is that the ability to use the manual adjustments, at least for me, is easier in the higher end pro bodies than the consumer bodies. My D200 was easier to use than the D90, yet had only 10MP. IN retrospect, I should have sold the D90 as the controls of the D200 were like the D4 more than the D90.

So, as this is about the D5100 and D3200, I looked at these and could not see any real difference except no bracketing on the 3200, but a few more pixels, which more likely than not would not be seen in 99% of shots.

I think I am of the opinion that a good photographer can take a good photo with almost any decent camera. A poor photographer generally does not recognize their own limitations.

@NikonMick...I still feel that you think I have attacked you or something because I don't care for the D3XXX cameras. My post was never to belittle the D3XXX line in any way. If you looked long enough you can find my comments about Rifqi's pictures in the PAD threads and he uses a D3000 and 85 F3.5 micro.

I shoot a D5000 so it isn't like I have this big expensive body and think I am so awesome. No doubt any camera is capable and it doesn't appear you have been here long enough, but I have mentioned several times before that I feel like any of the cameras at this point are capable of producing great images. I believe we have reached a point where even the lowest camera line are pretty good and outperform the pro level cameras from not too long ago. I think for a while digital photography wasn't up to par with film and a cheap digital camera just didn't cut it. Now I think it has improved enough to get great results from almost anything.

But this is way off topic. It is a thread of D5100 vs D3200. It would be a hard choice I think. I have actually looked at both recently as getting a second body to possibly try and shoot some events. Right now the D5100 seems like a steal (refurbished for <$500), but I am not sure if there is anything to gain by it over the D3200...the articulating screen maybe?

@NikonMick - Thanks!

> your opinion as to why the D3xxx series is your personal favorite.

Thanks for the request, and the opportunity as to why ....

Simply put, I'm a fan of the Bauhaus principle that "less is more", a maxim that can/could be applied to many aspects of our lives.

Firstly regarding size, the D5100 is marginally larger, by a few mm only, in each dimension (LXWXD) than the D3100.

Second, having used the D60 as my first DSLR, after 8 years of CoolPixes (990, 995 and 4500), the improvement in resolution (ie the D60) was noticeable, but the the image composition was unchanged, except the move from 4:3 to 3:2. Many fine pix were produced with the tiny, finger-nail size sensors in the CoolPixes.

I sorta agree with Ken Rockwell that 6-10MP on a APS-C size sensor is more than enough to produce excellent repro at 30"x20".

As to form factor, I've argued here before that the small form factor of the D3XXX series (and its precursors) is an advantage to all but the very large-handed person, for whom a D7XXX series may be big enough with its increased dimensions compared to the D3XXX series.

As to back buttons, to each his or her own. I'm familiar with the D60/D3XXX series physical setup, and in fact, found the D5100 setup less comfortable, but to each his/her own. The movable screen on the D5XXXs are an advantage, one that I had with the split body CoolPixes, but the rearrangment of buttons on the D5XXX series I found a bit clunky.

Lenses always seemed more important to me than sensors and their "MegaPixiCalityNess", so I've acquired good quality lenses (some secondhand) to complement my bodies, sometimes buying FX lenses to get the so-called sweet spot when used with DX format.

My most used lenses are: 12-24/f4 (DX), 24-85 AF-S (FX), 35/f1.8 (DX).

Six months ago I was asked to shoot the Australian National track cycling championships by the coach of a group of young Korean cyclists who were training in my home city of Adelaide, Australia.

Not having shot high speed sport for years, and not having a fast mid-range zoom, I hired a Sigma 70-200/f2.8 zoom, not stabilised as the current version is, and went to work.

I managed to get some good, sharp high-speed action shots in an arena that was notoriously underlit and with mixed lighting circumstances.

As much as my commission was to document the event for the Koren Cycling Federation, I also wished to be able to show that an "amateur", "consumer" DSLR body can get very acceptable results, while all around me were professional photogs with Canon Mk5DII and D3 Nikons.

The two pix below are first an inadvertant shot of the velodrome ceiling, taken accidentally as I hoiked the 1.5kg Sigma lens, attached to the 500g D3100 body from waist to eye level. This has been printed for the client at 30"X20" (75X50cm).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6790853822/in/photostream

And second, a panning shot of SungHoon Park travelling at 70 km/hour (45mph) which is sharp and a realistic rendition of the colour sources in play at the time.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6845194433/in/photostream/

Both photos are straight off the card, no PShop, no nuttin'.

That's my story, and to reiterate, the gear these days is always good enough, it's what we do with it.

Michael

Eric said:
@NikonMick - I think that you may have misunderstood the point the tcole1983 was making. I do not believe that he was suggesting that the D3xxx series cameras were not capable of capturing great images. Nor do I believe that he was suggesting that the hardware defined the ability of the photographer. What he did say was that the feel of the camera was not to his liking. Nikon has a full range of DSLRs. Whether or not an individual believes that the value represented by any given model is reasonable is a matter of personal preference.

Rather than stooping to personal attacks, I think we would all prefer to hear your opinion as to why the D3xxx series is your personal favorite. Given your experience with the series, I'm sure you have some valuable insights that would be helpful to others.

+1

I don't think I commented anything on how it wasn't a capable camera and that was not my point. I have held, snapped pictures and looked at the D3000 and D3100. I didn't like how they fit in my hand, I didn't like the buttons/setup and I didn't like the somewhat basic options of them. I don't think anyone will argue the D3000 was/is very basic, it had a weaker sensor and well it was almost a point and shoot. I think the D3100 and now especially the D3200 are much different and have gone from the very basic to like the D5XXX line.

I am no pro by any means, but I do even take pictures with my cell phone from time to time although I feel slightly limited by no flash, 3 MP and 2 second shutter delay.

@NikonMick - I think that you may have misunderstood the point the tcole1983 was making. I do not believe that he was suggesting that the D3xxx series cameras were not capable of capturing great images. Nor do I believe that he was suggesting that the hardware defined the ability of the photographer. What he did say was that the feel of the camera was not to his liking. Nikon has a full range of DSLRs. Whether or not an individual believes that the value represented by any given model is reasonable is a matter of personal preference.

Rather than stooping to personal attacks, I think we would all prefer to hear your opinion as to why the D3xxx series is your personal favorite. Given your experience with the series, I'm sure you have some valuable insights that would be helpful to others.

TCole wrote:

> I never personally liked the D3XXX series just because it felt really point and shoot/basic.

You have obviously never used this series of cameras or you don't understand how to use any camera, whether digital, film, smartphone or throwaway underwater camera - any of which can be used to produce very sophisticated pictures.

It's the snapper not the tool.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6790853822/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6936966419/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6845194433/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6281707721/in/photostream/

Mick

Well I am not really sure how they can compare with the D3200 being a generation ahead. That being said there doesn't seem to be all that much difference anymore. I never personally liked the D3XXX series just because it felt really point and shoot/basic. I haven't held a D3200 so I don't know what the difference is now. When they started out the D5000 and D90 were somewhat comparable with less options on the D5000, but the D5000 was fairly different then the D90. At that point I felt there was a fairly big difference in the D3000 and D5000...the D3000 with lots less options and a CCD sensor instead of the CMOS and overall less of a camera. I thought the D5100 and D3100 weren't all that different and the D7000 was pretty different, but they performed about the same. Now you have basically the D3200 that equals or outperforms the D5100....I have always maybe felt like Nikon would dissolve one of the lines in there somewhere (most likely the D5XXX). Now that they keep adding to the D3XXX line there isn't that much difference anymore in the lines.

If they keep the D5XXX line in there I am curious to see what they will do with it next (I won't get one, but the 24 MP D3200 makes you wonder).

I can see it like this:
D3200 ---> Entry DX
D7100 ---> Prosumer DX
D400 ---> Pro DX
D600 ---> Entry FX
D800/800E ---> Pro FX
D4 ---> Pro FX

roombarobot said:
So as we all learn more about the D3200, I'd like to start a discussion about that vs. the D5100. How is the new Sony sensor compare to the one in the D7000/D5100? That's my main interest, of course

It seems that many of the D3200 specs got a bump up from the D3100 and are closer to the D5100, e.g. 11 AF points, 4 fps. How do the features compare?

On a side note, I wasn't expecting the D3200 until the fall, so I bought a D5100 recently.

ok, i've been telling people this as I've followed this debate for quite a while now. there is little difference between the two. you'll be fine getting either camera. people should worry more about their lenses than with their camera because really, cameras these days are so advanced... just my two cents.. :-)

D800 (high rez) vs D4 (performance), D3200 (high rez) vs D5100 (cough, cough, consumer performance)

The main hiccup with Dx and Iso is just that. It is Dx...

Gabbb said:
The d3000 is using the d200 sensor (it's ccd not cmos as in the d90). The d5100 is identical, not just nearly identical, jpg egines may differ. The D90 and D5000 I'm pretty sure share the same sensor, not sure about the d300s.

The d300s/d90/d5000 all share the same 12MP sensor , while the D300 uses a slightly older version of that...

What I'd really like to see - is if Nikon could make DX D400 with about the same high iso performance as the D3/D700 and at least 8 fps but I'm not holding my breath.

jablko said:
I would assume the answer is "yes," as the D5100 and D7000 have identical (or nearly identical) image quality scores, and the previous generation's scores for the D300s, D90 and D5000 on DxOmark were within three points of each other. However, when I look at the D90 in comparison to the D3000, which I think share the same sensor, the DxO scores are six points apart--not a huge difference, but not negligible either.

The d3000 is using the d200 sensor (it's ccd not cmos as in the d90). The d5100 is identical, not just nearly identical, jpg egines may differ. The D90 and D5000 I'm pretty sure share the same sensor, not sure about the d300s.

Here are a couple of High ISO with candles. 1600 and 3200. Not sure if you could say noise is better or worse, there is more detail and more dynamic range though. Noise you can deal with, lack of color you can't. Candle light is one of the hardest for a sensor to capture.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6818503645_5a39626eb0_b.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2318/5749474308_836a05b8cc_b.jpg

I'm trying to be very careful not to assume what we see out of this camera would be the same as say a D400 with a 24mp sensor. Historically we there has been some IQ difference with the 3200 being the lowest (sometimes not by much.)

donaldejose said:
Is it just me or do others think the D3200 ISO 1600 image looks worse than my (their) D7000 images at ISO 1600?

Its not all *THAT* bad if you only do a 10x8" print with it from the full size image.

[says me spluttering all the way to the fridge for another beer]