# What am I "giving up" on a d3300 vs. a d5200?



## mamaof4boys (Jul 10, 2014)

If I'm reading things correctly, it looks like the d3300 has the higher ISO at 12800 vs. 6400.  The 5200 has the flip screen.  Sensors are the same but 5200 has the better movie capability (not a selling point for me). Going back to look at a previous post one more time before I make the final decision.

I can't go higher than the 5x00 series right now. What else am I missing out on by getting the 3300?  Shooting small, busy children and want good low-light capability.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 10, 2014)

I have seen new D7000 for similar money to d5200. That was not your question, and I am not overly familiar with the differences, but if I was buying and the D7000 was an option I would pick it up over either of your 2 other models simply for build and the handy built in motor.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 10, 2014)

jaomul said:


> I have seen new D7000 for similar money to d5200. That was not your question, and I am not overly familiar with the differences, but if I was buying and the D7000 was an option I would pick it up over either of your 2 other models simply for build and the handy built in motor.



I am sure you would. But you are not a mother of four boys, aren't you? Why on earth would she need a much bigger, heavier camera with older sensor and much less cropping capabilities if all she wants is to take pictures of her boys? Do you really think she will fancy a built in motor and old non AF lenses? She just needs a good camera to take pictures of her children.  

I do not know D3300 or D5200, but I am very familiar with a D5100 which is a great camera. So, as more modern cameras these two should be very, very good. If kids are the main object i think you need to check the AF systems of these cameras. It needs to cope with restless boys. More expensive Nikons have better AF, but usually the AF on beginners Nikons is good enough when cross type points are used. Check how many cross type points the autofocus on D3300 and D5200 have. The more the better. As for low light, I would not expect a big difference between these two cameras if they have the same sensor. If you want really good low light indoor portrait of your kids, you will need a proper flash anyway (And I do not mean the one that is built in the camera). D3300 is a bit smaller and lighter, which is an advantage in my book.  I would say - as a beginner you should not worry too much and buy the one that feels better in your hands.  
What I would definitely advise is to buy a good fast prime lense - it will make much much more difference. I used Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8G for my kids pictures - it is not expensive at all, but you will not want to go back to your kit zoom for your kids pic once you will have used it for kids shots.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 10, 2014)

no doubt I'd pick the D5200 over it.  I think the only two advantages the D3300 has is the low-pass filter is removed and it has the new EXPEED 4 processor.


----------



## Parker219 (Jul 10, 2014)

I went with the d5300 and love it.  How much more is it over the d5200?

Then you get no aa filter and expeed 4, ect.

Just spend the little more,  you won't regret it. 

I don't think anyone has ever said,  "I wish I went for the cheaper model"


----------



## Designer (Jul 10, 2014)

I just read 4 different comparisons.  They were very close to each other in all areas.  The D5200 has a twisty screen was about the biggest difference.  

While I don't use live view very often, I do think the articulated screen is a nice feature, and can be handy at various times such as when chimping shots while the camera is on a tripod, shooting live view while camera is on the floor, and you can put the screen toward the camera for protection when packing a travel bag.


----------



## Warhorse (Jul 10, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> I went with the d5300 and love it. How much more is it over the d5200?
> 
> Then you get no aa filter and expeed 4, ect.
> 
> ...


Good advice!

I bought a D3200 a couple years ago, and wish now that I had gone for the D5200.


----------



## shadowlands (Jul 10, 2014)

Go D7000 or D7100 at least... move away from those small body cameras.... you'll thank me later...


----------



## Braineack (Jul 10, 2014)

D5200 Pros:
14-bit RAW vs. 12
39 point AFS; 9 cross vs. 11; 1
Flip Screen vs. standard
Microphone Jack
Bracketing Feature
GPS compatible
HDR Mode (whatever that is)

D3300 Pros:
EXPEED 4 vs. EXPEED 3
No AA filter vs. filter
smaller/lighter


Image quality will be identical; the D3300 having a slight edge in sharpness when shooting JPG or non-post-processed photos.  But the D5200 having an edge in DR.

ISO handling wil be identical; the D3300 having a slight edge due to the better image processor. AFAIK, this should really only matter if you're even using the NR feature.  Otherwise it's all pretty much a boost in video performance.

I still think the D5200 is a better camera.


----------



## mamaof4boys (Jul 10, 2014)

shadowlands said:


> Go D7000 or D7100 at least... move away from those small body cameras.... you'll thank me later...



Out of my price range at the moment. I have to stick with a d3xxx or possibly a d5xxx. I also have very small hands, am balancing four kids ages 3 and under, and am coming off a point and shoot so I think the smaller body cameras are a better fit for me physically as well.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> D5200 Pros:
> 14-bit RAW vs. 12
> 39 point AFS; 9 cross vs. 11; 1
> Flip Screen vs. standard
> ...



That's pretty much it in a nutshell, while most folks think the D5200's main advantage is the flip screen, I own the 5200 and frankly it's not a feature I use much at all.  Really for me the biggest advantage would be the better autofocus system.  As a mom of 4 boys I would imagine at some point that will become important as they start getting active in sports (if they are not already) and having the better AF system is great when your attempting to take pictures of moving targets.


----------



## mamaof4boys (Jul 10, 2014)

sashbar said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen new D7000 for similar money to d5200. That was not your question, and I am not overly familiar with the differences, but if I was buying and the D7000 was an option I would pick it up over either of your 2 other models simply for build and the handy built in motor.
> ...



Exactly my thinking sashbar...no way do I want to lug around something heavy with a baby and three toddlers.


----------



## mamaof4boys (Jul 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > D5200 Pros:
> ...


That is a good point, and one that somebody made in another post. That or a tranquilizer gun. lol  Yes, not in sports yet but very, very active and on the move all the time.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 10, 2014)

Being the dad of 4 kids I feel your pain.
But I've been taking photos of my kids sports and it takes built up skill and money (for equipment).  
See my Soccer albums here --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/100677477@N08/sets/

At this point I think you would be better off with size, smaller size.  So you can take the camera with your around to places and not feel uncomfortable with the camera's size.  I know on a few field trips I wish I had something much smaller than my d7000 with kit lens  but better quality than my pocket Point & Shoot.

To get really good in outdoor sports requires some good skill and good equipment (camera/lens and post processing software), which gets big in size and the pocketbook.
To get nice photos as memories of your kids playing sports just really needs a basic camera.

As you get more into it and time goes on, then maybe think about upgrading.
But the flipscreen on the 5200 comes in handy for various shots.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 10, 2014)

mamaof4boys said:


> That is a good point, and one that somebody made in another post. That or a tranquilizer gun. lol  Yes, not in sports yet but very, very active and on the move all the time.



A tranquilizer gun?  Huh.. wow.. that guy must have been a genius!   Lol.

Seriously though I think you'd most likely be happy with either camera, pound for pound though I think the 5200 is actually more camera for your money.  The 3300 has some nice features, don't get me wrong, but the 5200 would be my choice for the long haul.  If you don't object to buying used, you can get some pretty killer deals on refurbished D5200's.  I bought one of mine as a refurb, the other used - both have been going strong since they day I got them with no issues.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 10, 2014)

I don't really understand the infatuation with smaller size in cameras, but that's just me.  If size is an issue I'd recommend looking into a mirrorless body rather than the D3xxx series.  That series is called "Entry Level" for a reason, and odds are good in a few months you'll be wishing for something better or something with this or that feature.

My personal opinion: I'm with Jaomul.  I wouldn't get either and would go with the D7000.  However, if I were limited to one of the two I'd go with the D5xxx series every day or look at a used D90.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 10, 2014)

what about the D7000 and/or D90 would be your reasoning over the D5200?


----------



## sashbar (Jul 10, 2014)

mamaof4boys said:


> shadowlands said:
> 
> 
> > Go D7000 or D7100 at least... move away from those small body cameras.... you'll thank me later...
> ...



Exactly 

Most of the guys here are photo enthuisiasts. They look at the cameras from slightly different perspective to put it mildly. They would not mind spending another two grand to get two extra direct control buttons. 

The fact is - modern entry level DSLRs represent the best value for money, are capable of stunning image quality and basically are all you need and then some, if your aim is to photorgaph you children and have good, high quality family albums. These cameras capabilities are far beyond the needs of a casual shooter and most amateurs. 

A lot of amateurs buy prosumer cameras because they do not want to be seen as beginners. If you do not care about it, I really do not see any reason for a prosumer brick of a camera for family shooting. Lenses is a completely different matter. You will need some. So save your money for a couple of good fast primes.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> what about the D7000 and/or D90 would be your reasoning over the D5200?



Metal weather-sealed construction as opposed to plastic construction (not certain the D90 is weather-sealed but I think it is); built-in autofocus motor allows use of a wider selection of lenses; built-in flash commander; etc.  Bottom line, just a better overall camera body.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 10, 2014)

SCraig said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > what about the D7000 and/or D90 would be your reasoning over the D5200?
> ...



All these factors are not really relevant for a mother of four taking pictures of her kids. Less weight and smaller size are much more practical.


----------



## KmH (Jul 10, 2014)

SCraig said:


> I don't really understand the infatuation with smaller size in cameras...


Nikon created their 'compact' DSLRs (D40/40x, D60, D3XXX, D5XXX) specifically to appeal to women and their smaller hands.
Doing so worked very well too.
The D40/40x is likely Nikon's second best selling DSLR after the all time best selling D90.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 10, 2014)

sashbar said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen new D7000 for similar money to d5200. That was not your question, and I am not overly familiar with the differences, but if I was buying and the D7000 was an option I would pick it up over either of your 2 other models simply for build and the handy built in motor.
> ...



Wow. I hope I never jump down someones throat here for an opinion. I won't even bother giving you a smart answer


----------



## sashbar (Jul 10, 2014)

jaomul said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



No offence intended. Please do not take it personally. I am just trying to help the the OP.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 10, 2014)

sashbar said:


> All these factors are not really relevant for a mother of four taking pictures of her kids. Less weight and smaller size are much more practical.


So, this mother of four is never going to take photographs of her kids in the snow?  Nor is she going to take indoor shots using a flash?  Nor is she going to want to save money by purchasing lenses without AF motors?  Doesn't sound like any mother I've ever known.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 10, 2014)

Post # 10 attunes to her limited budget.

There's nothing that says as she gets better and possibly much more into photography, that she can't upgrade.

Everyone has to start somewhere.  And she may never upgrade.  It may take exactly the photos that she wants it to take in JPEG.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 10, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Post # 10 attunes to her limited budget.
> 
> There's nothing that says as she gets better and possibly much more into photography, that she can't upgrade.
> 
> Everyone has to start somewhere.  And she may never upgrade.  It may take exactly the photos that she wants it to take in JPEG.



Nikon D5200 at B&H: $596.95
Nikon D7000 at KEH: $599 to $619


----------



## hamlet (Jul 10, 2014)

The flip screen alone on the d5200 makes it a much better camera for family usage. I would say that it is the ultimate camera for family occasions.


----------



## Emelsak (Jul 30, 2014)

I know this is a bit of a dated thread, but out of curiosity, which did you choose?  And how has it worked out?   I'm also trying to choose between the two, with my kiddos being my primary subjects.  Thanks!


----------



## ruifo (Jul 30, 2014)

D5200, no doubt about that!


----------



## mamaof4boys (Aug 1, 2014)

Emelsak said:


> I know this is a bit of a dated thread, but out of curiosity, which did you choose? And how has it worked out? I'm also trying to choose between the two, with my kiddos being my primary subjects. Thanks!



I'm embarrassed to say I haven't pulled the trigger on anything yet. I am very possibly the world's most indecisive person. I was leaning toward the d3300, but the AF points are really pulling me toward the d5200.  My boys just never hold still, they're always all over the place and I think the AF points would be very helpful in that regard. It's only going to get worse as they get older, so I think that's my big selling point right now.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 1, 2014)

mamaof4boys said:


> Emelsak said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is a bit of a dated thread, but out of curiosity, which did you choose? And how has it worked out? I'm also trying to choose between the two, with my kiddos being my primary subjects. Thanks!
> ...



Lol, well I can speak very highly of the D5200, I love both of mine.  I shot the D5100 for a while, and believe me the improved AF system of the 5200 is well worth it, just makes a world of difference on moving targets.

A couple of older shots, but a good example or two I hope:



20140316_ 453 by robbins.photo, on Flickr



20140629 265 by robbins.photo, on Flickr


----------



## PaulWog (Aug 1, 2014)

hamlet said:


> The flip screen alone on the d5200 makes it a much better camera for family usage. I would say that it is the ultimate camera for family occasions.



Precisely this.

Here's an example: What makes a tablet different from a touchscreen laptop? Ergonomics. The way you interface with the device changes its uses drastically, even if you end up getting similar tasks done.

The D5200's tilt/swivel screen allows for easier shooting. Quite a few of my favorite shots were made possible by the tilt screen, and otherwise would have been much more difficult to get (and in many cases pretty much a shot in the dark if I didn't have the tilt screen). For home video, the tilt screen can be pretty much essential (filming pets, children, or even regular activites from the chest or stomach can be nice & can't really be done efficiently/at all if you can't tilt the screen up).


----------

