# Nikon D3200 or D5100



## sivakishanv

I am planning to buy my first DSLR and I want to choose between D3200 which is new and the D5100.

I see that almost all the specifications are same. And even the price is same at Amazon. 

If you were me, what would you buy?


----------



## jaymitch

what I would suggest is to make a trip to your local camera shop and play around with both bodies.  See with one feels better to you.  You can check out the specs online and read tons of reviews that will just lead you in a big circle.  Honestly for someone buying there first DSLR they are both good choices.  One thing I would suggest if you plan on sticking with photography is to try to buy the body only instead of the "kit" and then get yourself a better lens...like Nikon 50mm 1.8g or something along those lines.  Good luck with your decision.


----------



## Solarflare

I had the same problem recently and I bought the D5100 because that one has a moveable monitor, which I find massively useful in many situations, and superior performance in bad light, which is much more important to me than more megapixels.


----------



## borisnikon

Personally I would go with the d3200 but it's up to how it feels in YOUR hands, and strongly recommend getting a 1.8 prime to start with...


----------



## OLDSKEWL

You can get a D5100 body and a 35mm prime for around the same price as the D3200 kit. That's what I ended up doing after buying the D3200 and returning it. I wasn't over all thrilled with the 3200 kit. I think it may have just been me wanting faster glass though.


----------



## belial

I wouldn't go with the 3200. Too much resolution. You're going to need pro glass to make full use of that many pixels


----------



## jrizal

jaymitch said:


> what I would suggest is to make a trip to your local camera shop and play around with both bodies.  See with one feels better to you.  You can check out the specs online and read tons of reviews that will just lead you in a big circle.  Honestly for someone buying there first DSLR they are both good choices.  One thing I would suggest if you plan on sticking with photography is to try to buy the body only instead of the "kit" and then get yourself a better lens...like Nikon 50mm 1.8g or something along those lines.  Good luck with your decision.



I've played with both and there's not much difference between the feel of the two (and you also include the D3100 which I own and the D3000). IMO, the most significant considerations would be the pixel count (note the pros and cons) and the tilt swivel LCD. For some, this is an important consideration. Personally if I had the budget, I would have gone with the D5100.


----------



## greybeard

I use a d5100 with the 18-55 kit and I love them both.


----------



## Markw

I've admittedly not played with either of them.  I went from a D90 to a D300s to a D800. But, from specs, I would say go for the D5100.  It has the same sensor as the D7000.  The D7000 is an incredible camera in all aspects.  I'd say D5100, hands down.

Mark


----------



## morganza

D3200 and from Amazon would be the best. Local shops usually have a higher price.


----------



## markj

One would think, more pixels the better. Then I read Nikon's flagship dlsr the D4 only has 16.2 megapixels. 
Can someone explain why Nikon didn't op for a larger pixel count for the D4? Even the D800 at half the cost has twice the pixels.
Advantages/disadvantages?


----------



## jrizal

markj said:


> One would think, more pixels the better. Then I read Nikon's flagship dlsr the D4 only has 16.2 megapixels.
> Can someone explain why Nikon didn't op for a larger pixel count for the D4? Even the D800 at half the cost has twice the pixels.
> Advantages/disadvantages?



Read/write speeds are a factor in cameras with a high burst speed IMO. Imagine a 40mb NEF/RAW file being buffered and written if you are shooting at 10/11 fps. Also, in-camera memory (not sd/cf cards) AFAIK is not cheap. Simply put the practicality of using that tech (high pixels) is not yet feasible.


----------



## Solarflare

markj said:


> One would think, more pixels the better. [...]


 Oh, so definitely not at all. There is a number of pixels that is the maximum that still makes sense. Any pixels beyond that only means greater filesize and more noise, but not more quality.

Thats why several camera models recently had less pixels than their precedessors. Still same picture quality, but less noise problems and less filesize of the RAW files.


----------



## Markw

Solarflare said:


> markj said:
> 
> 
> 
> One would think, more pixels the better. [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so definitely not at all. There is a number of pixels that is the maximum that still makes sense. Any pixels beyond that only means greater filesize and more noise, but not more quality.
> 
> Thats why several camera models recently had less pixels than their precedessors. Still same picture quality, but less noise problems and less filesize of the RAW files.
Click to expand...


D3000: 10MP; D3100: 14MP; D3200: 24MP
D3s: 12MP; D4: 16MP
D5000: 12MP; D5100: 16MP
D90: 12MP; D7000: 16MP
D3x: 24MP; D800: *36MP*, and has been said to be the top overall sensor of any body, from any brand, in all of the industry.

Your statements seem a bit mislead, my friend.

Mark


----------



## Solarflare

Nope, it isnt.

For example, the Canon Powershot G11 had LESS MPixel than the G10 and improved in every way - _including picture quality_.

There are simply limits to quality you can reach at a certain fotochip size. If you want more mpixel, you have to increase the fotochip size.


----------



## greybeard

This is the best comparison I have read.
Nikon D3200 vs D5100 - Portrait SF


----------



## Markw

Solarflare said:


> Nope, it isnt.
> 
> For example, the Canon Powershot G11 had LESS MPixel than the G10 and improved in every way - _including picture quality_.
> 
> There are simply limits to quality you can reach at a certain fotochip size. If you want more mpixel, you have to increase the fotochip size.



Hopefully I did my math right:

1/1.7" sensor size = 7.6x5.7mm = 43.32mm2
APS-c sensor size = 23.7x15.7mm = 372.09mm2

372.09/43.32= 8.589

So, Nikon's APS-C sensors are roughly 8.6x larger than the 1/1.7" sensor.

So, if you were to bump up the G11's sensor to an equivalently resolved APS-C-sized sensor, you would have an 86MP sensor (10MPx8.6=86MP)

Now, I'm no pro at sensor physics or logistics, but the math and logic behind it seems right to me.  So, if you really think comparing a 24MP APS-C camera from Nikon to a 10MP 1/1.7" sensor from Canon still makes sense, please disregard everything I've said.

Mark


----------



## Solarflare

Markw said:


> Hopefully I did my math right: [...]


 Unimportant. My point was that more pixels doesnt always equal better, and your computation only helps my point, because you're trying to compute the upper limit after which more pixels wont help anymore with APS-C.


----------



## Markw

Solarflare said:


> Markw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully I did my math right: [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Unimportant. My point was that more pixels doesnt always equal better, and your computation only helps my point, because you're trying to compute the upper limit after which more pixels wont help anymore with APS-C.
Click to expand...


No.  You directly said higher pixel counts inherently means more noise and worse picture quality:



Solarflare said:


> ...Any pixels beyond that *only* means greater filesize and more noise, but not more quality.
> 
> Thats why several camera models recently had less pixels than their precedessors. Still same picture quality, but less noise problems and less filesize of the RAW files.



I showed that "several camera models recently" had, in fact, NOT had less pixels than their "precedessors" (predecessors), and still had increased image quality.  I did not try to find a limit to pixel size.  I was just trying to show that 24MP is definitely not it, and that the resolution of the sensor shouldn't be the main limiting factor to the OPs decision.  Sensor PERFORMANCE should be.  And, I don't think (and history doesn't prove that) higher resolution inherently means worse sensor performance i.e the D800.

Mark


----------



## jrizal

greybeard said:


> This is the best comparison I have read.Nikon D3200 vs D5100 - Portrait SF


Just by toying around with both at Best Buy, I feel that the D5100 offers more versatility as shown in its menu options. Aso like what was mentioned in the review, the tilt swivel screen though not critical is a nice plus. As for the resolution, I won't attempt to go into details. But AFAIK, the D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000. One may (logically or illogically) conclude that the D3200 is better than the D7000. (Of course not.) But whether or not I got my facts right, the D5100 still has a high IQ regardless of the arguments presented here and given its features and current price is a good value and in my IMHO would be perfect for noobs like me and for some advanced users.

I love my D3100!!!


----------



## Solarflare

Markw said:


> You directly said higher pixel counts inherently means more noise and worse picture quality:
> 
> 
> 
> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Any pixels beyond that *only* means greater filesize and more noise, but not more quality.
Click to expand...

 You even link the quote that proves that I did NOT say that. Note the "beyond that" part of the sentence.

What I said was that if you go beyond the limit physically possible for your current system, more pixels will not give you any advantage anymore.

And this limit has already been reached with certain point and shoot cameras, where going back to a smaller number of pixels actually made the camera better. My own little point and shoot only has 6 megapixels and I'm fairy certain thats the limit of that system. Higher resolutions would require a larger fotochip.





Markw said:


> I  was just trying to show that 24MP is definitely not it, and that the  resolution of the sensor shouldn't be the main limiting factor to the  OPs decision.


 And I was pointing out that "more pixels is better" is not an universal rule.


----------



## domu221

Buy the 5100 body then buy the 18-105mm lens VR!


----------



## Markw

Nikon D3200 DxOMark score: second best APS-C camera ever | Nikon Rumors 

Just sayin' :thumbsup:
Mark


----------



## Solarflare

Hmm.

That looks pretty random. The D5100/D7000 are better in 2 categories where I actually know what that is (dynamic range and low light). But what exactly is "color depth" ? The precision with which colors are measured ?

Also, this only refers to some technical parameters, not in how well the camera handles.


----------



## Alan92RTTT

The 3200 is newer and has a better sensor. 

The 5100 is older but it a better camera. 

If I were in the market today I'd buy...


Neither of them. 

The 5200 is coming and it will bring the better features from the 5100 with the 3200's higher MP sensor.  For the time being I'd search craigslist/ebay/the forum for a older d40 or d60 and use that to get for feet wet.


----------



## hussain143

Go with D5100
:thumbup: It has advanced features Like HDR


----------



## Solarflare

I'm sorry ?

The D3200 doesnt have the better sensor.

Even the above list shows it clearly: the only category where D3200 is  better is color depth. Thanks to the noise of the D3200, I would expect  this advantage to be gone above ISO 100 rather quickly.

If you would offer me to exchange the current D5100 for the "newer" D3200 chip for free, I would definitely refuse.




@hussain143: Err ... 

1. HDR is done best on the computer with programs, not inside the camera.

2. The D5100 doesnt allow HDR with RAW files, you have to enable JPEG. Also, my D5100 is pretty random about when it bothers to allow HDR and when it thinks I dont need it at may gray out the option.

3. Also, for HDR you need a Tripod and a good tripod (low weight etc) costs as much as the D5100 itself. Finally, HDR is really a crutch. What you want is really a high dynamic range of the chip itself, which leads to:

4. The really important feature of the D5100 is full 12 stops of dynamic range at ISO 100. Most other cameras, including the D3200, have like 9 or 10, at best. So basically you can already have a kind of "lesser" HDR with this camera without using any HDR at all, on any picture, without any tripod, and even on action shots.


----------



## darrenberk

Hi sivakishanv, I would suggest you check out Nikon D3200 vs D5100 to help you decide between the two. IMO, it still depends on what the camera and pictures are for (hobby? Business?).


----------



## Solarflare

I dont think that links is very useful. It barely discusses any detail.

You can get an external microphone for the D5100 as well, so I dont get that part of the comparison.


----------



## Gandalfsson

No, he is not misleading, our friend, Solarflare, but this is a HUGE discussion - and very technically, and we have to talk about interpolation (all Bayer chips does that = That will say all Nikons) , photochip size, and we have for example D3/D700 12 mp - 8.5 micron CMOS (that is huge, much more than todays cameras), therefore my A3+ printed pictures from D700 has a certain "clarity" ( I know this is hard to discuss, but I see, what I see in my prints from a lot of cameras) - this clarity you will also find in the foveon sensor cameras, where the pixels are NOT interpolated.

And I would go for the D5100 because of the screen, - this is very practical, but if you will not use this much, then go for the D3200, then you can crop a lot = As I recall Thom Hogan wrote very good about it, and I think you can trust his findings, but he wrote also very good about the D7000, and it is the same IQ from the D5100 (but not the same handling).

---

You do not need a tripod for HDR if your frame rate is about 6 frames pr. second (as the D7000, and you can also come along with 5 fps as the D700 without grip) , and the light is not too dark (it is normally not when you shoot HDR), then you can handhold it fine - there is a huge site about the technique= Outback photo had some articles about it years ago, and it works.


----------



## mrtomcruise

Both would be fine for starting out you can't go wrong with either one. In looking at the specs and similarities I get a feeling Nikon was trying to give you the Nikon D5100 in the D3200 but without the swivel LCD...........


----------

