# Need suggestion on buying a entry level DSLR



## niranjan49 (Jun 17, 2014)

Hi  ,

I am new to this forum, Can anyone tell me which is the best entry level dslr? . I would like to learn photography and i would like to start by buying a DSLR camera, read many reviews for dslr, many have said that nikon d3300 would be a best option to start....one of my friend told me that its better to go with d3200, since there isnt many difference between d3200 and d3300. Please let me know, if its better to go with d3200 and spend money on lens or go with D3300, since d3300 costs a bit more than d3200 or is there any other better dslr at the entry level price range? Kindly let me know my options. Thank you!


----------



## paulvgmip (Jun 17, 2014)

What is your price range?


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 17, 2014)

550 - 600 $, i.e 32000 - 35000 indian rupees


----------



## TheNevadanStig (Jun 17, 2014)

I went with the D3200 myself. To me, there isn't enough of a difference to warrant the nearly $200 extra for a D3300. The biggest difference is it's 25% lighter, and it's not like the D3200 is a big, heavy camera. It does BARELY improve on most things over the 3200, but just so. If you are going to spend the cash for a D3300, you might as well get a 5200.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 17, 2014)

Yes, the D3200 is the better "value" at this time. Good prices are available on it now that the D3300 has been released.


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 17, 2014)

Thanks for the replies, as you have said, i think its better to go with d3200 18 -55 mm std lens, later i plan to buy a prime lens, instead of going for d3300. since there isnt much of a difference between d3300 and d3200


----------



## goodguy (Jun 17, 2014)

My vote is also with the D3200

Good luck


----------



## shadowlands (Jun 18, 2014)

D7000 over any of those little small body cameras...


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 18, 2014)

I would pick a D3200 over a D7000....


----------



## shadowlands (Jun 18, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> I would pick a D3200 over a D7000....



I guess it depends on the individual. For me, I'd need to grip option, AF motor, button layout, etc... but if not needed, then he's all set.


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 18, 2014)

shadowlands said:


> TWright33 said:
> 
> 
> > I would pick a D3200 over a D7000....
> ...



Your are correct.

I am assuming he doesn't need these features since he is asking about D3200 and D5200 variants.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 18, 2014)

Welcome to the forum Niranjan 
I can see many people have already given very good info. But did you consider D5100? It's almost the same price, but some of my friends really love it. Also, what lens are you considering?



TWright33 said:


> I would pick a D3200 over a D7000....


Why? Any specific reason other than the cost? Just curious.. I know Niranjan doesn't need it, but why would 'you' prefer D3200 over D7000?


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 18, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> Welcome to the forum Niranjan
> I can see many people have already given very good info. But did you consider D5100? It's almost the same price, but some of my friends really love it. Also, what lens are you considering?
> 
> 
> ...



I am putting myself in the shoes of the person buying the camera.

He wants entry level.

The D7000 does have better user functionality.

The D3200 is new and cheaper than a used D7000.



It all depends on what the persons intentions are with the camera. I don't know what they want to do. They may just want a nice camera to take family pictures with. The D3200 would serve them well. The D7000 has features they would probably never use, but they payed for the features to have a "better" camera. The camera may never be shot in anything other than auto. There are so many factors.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 18, 2014)

Man you're fast! I edited my post in like 10 seconds after posting it to convey what I meant, and you still managed to respond to my initial post


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 18, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> Man you're fast! I edited my post in like 10 seconds after posting it to convey what I meant, and you still managed to respond to my initial post



LOL

I actually sat here and even made sure what I had typed made sense.

It may not even make sense after I proofed it!


To answer your edited question-

If I was buying a camera right now and could only chose between the d3200 and d7000- I would pick d3200 simply on cost and being new. 

However, if I was trying to stay under $1000 I would just go with the (refurb) d7100 and skip the d7000.

It seems like it's a hit or miss with d7000 focus systems, and I would hate to buy a used camera and find out it had this problem.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 18, 2014)

I so wish we had the refurb system in India, it saves a lot of money with zero risks..


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

if it's your first DSLR, buy the D3100, not 3200 or 3300. Here's why. Only real difference between the 3100 and 3200 is the 3100 has like 14Mp, and 3200 24Mp. But that's not a big deal. 24Mp is only good for cropping, but you won't get into that kind of stuff for sometime still. So buy a 3100 because in a year you'll want to upgrade again. Then with the money you saved you can sooner buy the D5200 as your upgrade. People say that the 3200 is also better with ISO. nonsense. 3200 has a mic jack in the side, and more Mp, that's it. To me it's not worth the extra bundle of $$. You'd be saving money and still getting the same results as you would with the 3200. Long story short, buy the 3200 and you won't be upgrading to the 5200 fora long time. Buy the 3100 you'll get the same pictures as you would with the 3200 but you will be able to upgrade MUCH sooner because of the money you saved. Unless you are poor like me and have had the 3100 for 2 years and just have to find new ways to get past the hicups in lowend cameras. xD


----------



## Trainwizard (Jun 18, 2014)

If you are truly starting as entry level, then I'd recommend the D3200 or D5100. A D7000 may be too much camera for you, unless you know what you're getting. Save the money and get a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and a 55-200mm AF-S VR to go with your kit, and you'll be quite happy. 

I have a D5100 and I love it!  The swivel screen may not be for everyone, but I use it a lot. It may come in handy if you're shooting weird angles. The ISO performance is about the same as the D3200 if I recall correctly. But since you narrowed your choices between the D3200 and D3300, I say get the D3200.


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 18, 2014)

Hi life,

Thank you for your valuable reply! . I can understand your point, but seems the d3100 was released back in 2010, which is more than 4 years old, since it will be my first dslr, dont want to buy a old one. i plan to use it for the coming 2-3 years, once i get the knack of it, i may upgrade to better one. i think il go with d3200!  ...thanks again!


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 18, 2014)

Hi trainwizard, twiright and raj,

thank you for your suggestions, like many have said, i think its better to go with d3200 and learn the basics, once i reached a point, i think i can go for a better lens like you have mentioned. Im planning to buy it on the coming week!....


----------



## Braineack (Jun 18, 2014)

I'd probably buy a D5100 before even a D3200 or D3300...


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

niranjan49 said:


> Hi life,
> 
> Thank you for your valuable reply! . I can understand your point, but seems the d3100 was released back in 2010, which is more than 4 years old, since it will be my first dslr, dont want to buy a old one. i plan to use it for the coming 2-3 years, once i get the knack of it, i may upgrade to better one. i think il go with d3200!  ...thanks again!


 Completely your choice, but just know that 4 years old is nothing. Because it's not like computers. Computers, every year new programs games come out that require newer better parts. with a camera every year, it's still daytime night time portrait and so on photography, it never requires better stuff every year. Good luck anyways i'm sure you'll love the 3200!


----------



## TheNevadanStig (Jun 18, 2014)

Life said:


> if it's your first DSLR, buy the D3100, not 3200 or 3300. Here's why. Only real difference between the 3100 and 3200 is the 3100 has like 14Mp, and 3200 24Mp. But that's not a big deal. 24Mp is only good for cropping, but you won't get into that kind of stuff for sometime still. So buy a 3100 because in a year you'll want to upgrade again. Then with the money you saved you can sooner buy the D5200 as your upgrade. People say that the 3200 is also better with ISO. nonsense. 3200 has a mic jack in the side, and more Mp, that's it. To me it's not worth the extra bundle of $$. You'd be saving money and still getting the same results as you would with the 3200. Long story short, buy the 3200 and you won't be upgrading to the 5200 fora long time. Buy the 3100 you'll get the same pictures as you would with the 3200 but you will be able to upgrade MUCH sooner because of the money you saved. Unless you are poor like me and have had the 3100 for 2 years and just have to find new ways to get past the hicups in lowend cameras. xD



Complete and utter nonsense.
The D3200 is better in nearly every way, not just MP and a camera jack. It's screen has 4X the resolution. It has twice the maximum light sensitivity. It shoots video at a higher frame rate. It shoots stills at a higher frame rate. It has more dynamic range. Better color depth. It's WiFi compatable. It can shoot silently.


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

The d3100 does all the same. I dunno where you got your facts but the only thing true is the video which I forgot to mention. But for taking pictures D3100 shoots silently too ( if wanted ), and is wifi compatible, and the rest is all nonsense. 

(I've compared both hand to hand)


----------



## TheNevadanStig (Jun 18, 2014)

Life said:


> The d3100 does all the same. I dunno where you got your facts but the only thing true is the video which I forgot to mention. But for taking pictures D3100 shoots silently too ( if wanted ), and is wifi compatible, and the rest is all nonsense.
> 
> (I've compared both hand to hand)



All nonsense? Someone might want to tell Nikon themselves then because you can compare all the specs here:
D3100 from Nikon
D3200 Nikon HDSLR Camera | Digital SLR Camera from Nikon

Or here:
Nikon D3200 vs D3100 - Our Analysis

Or here:
Nikon D3300 vs D3200 vs D3100: which camera should you choose? | Digital Camera World

Maybe you should try backing up a rubbish post with facts before trying to call someone out.


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

Those sites are there so people spend more money. They make everything they post seem so huge and sometimes not even true. Don't believe everything you read


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 18, 2014)

Life said:


> Those sites are there so people spend more money. They make everything they post seem so huge and sometimes not even true. Don't believe everything you read


True, but that doesn't mean you should disregard everything you read. I'm pretty sure an MNC like Nikon can't get away by posting wrong config for their cameras these days. Irrespective of who believes what, 4X Resolution, more fps shooting, higher resolution, better light sensitivity isn't "nonsense".

@Niranjan I would still get D5100 over D3200, it's your money but research properly before making the purchase.


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> Life said:
> 
> 
> > Those sites are there so people spend more money. They make everything they post seem so huge and sometimes not even true. Don't believe everything you read
> ...


True that, but last time I checked Nikon themselves never actually compared the 2. Iso is minimally better in the 3200. "True, but that doesn't mean you should disregard everything you read." Correct, but I was only pointing out you cannot just  look at something you like the looks of and believe it because it's nice.. Lets say for a moment, a comparison on one of those sites said ISo was much better on the 3200. Those words are still useless if someone goes out and tests to of the same exact pictures at (lets say night) with both cameras. If there is hardly a difference, then it just ins't factual. I did the same Iso, same shutterspeed, Ap, tripod, at the same time, with many pictures. Difference is just hardly there. very minimal. That's just what I think though, everyone can see it how they want to, it's not an issue. But I believe what I do because of what I've seen. If someone can show their results with both cameras, without editing the pictures, then sure I will have no problem admitting I was wrong.


----------



## TheNevadanStig (Jun 18, 2014)

Life said:


> Raj_55555 said:
> 
> 
> > Life said:
> ...



No one is saying noise looks better in one than the other at the same ISO. The 3200 has better ISO handling, because it can go to 6400 ISO. The d3100 can only handle half of that at 3200 ISO max. If you think that double the handling isn't much of a difference, you must only shoot at noon.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 18, 2014)

I personally would prefer 3200 to 7000 for one reason - size and weight. Some guys prefer bigger bodies. Every time I pick up a 7xxx or 6xx body I think: this is very well made and has a good buttons layout, but it is RIDICULOUSLY big and heavy. (I can hear D3 owners laughing) 
I just can not justify buying such a big and heavy camera. I am not a pro, why should I carry all that weight?? But that is me. I am in minority here, to put it mildly. Nikon baby DSLRs are a perfect fit for my hands. They lack a couple of direct controls, that is true.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 18, 2014)

Life said:


> The d3100 does all the same. I dunno where you got your facts but the only thing true is the video which I forgot to mention. But for taking pictures D3100 shoots silently too ( if wanted ), and is wifi compatible, and the rest is all nonsense.
> 
> (I've compared both hand to hand)



Ok, well the resolution on the D3200 screen is 921K dots per inch.  On the D3100 Screen 230k Dots per inch.  Source of fact - Nikon.
The dynamic range on the 3200 is 13.2 EV.  On the 3100 it's 11.3 EV.  Source of Fact - Nikon.
On low noise to high ISO, the D3200 scores 1,131 - the D3100 only 919 - Source of Fact, DXOMark
The D3200 has 24.1 bit color depth.  The D3100 22.5 - source of fact, Nikon.
The D3200 can shoot 4 frames per second, the D3100 only 3.  Source of fact, Nikon.
The D3200's maximum ISO is 6400.  The D3100, 3200 ISO.  Source of Fact, Nikon.
The D3200 shoots video at 30 fps, the D3100 at 24 fps - source of fact, Nikon.

I have nothing against the D3100 mind you, but the 3200 does have multiple advantages over the 3100 as someone else mentioned.  Me I'm a huge fan of my 5200's - as far as price vrs performance is concerend I think they are pretty much impossible to beat in their price range.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2014)

What I see is the D3300 has the highest-magnification viewfinder ever in a D3xxx series model. And it has the fastest firing rate, 5 frames per second, of any of the D3xxx series models. I know it does not have a big buffer, but the 5 frames per second speed **used to be** state of the art professional-level when the D2x hit the market in late 2004, with a 12.2 MP sensor...now that firing rate and twice the megapixels are available in the lowest-ranked Nikon d-slr model, not a $4,999 camera body.

The Thom Hogan review of the D3300 really gave me a positive impression of what the D3300 can do.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 18, 2014)

Derrel said:


> What I see is the D3300 has the highest-magnification viewfinder ever in a D3xxx series model. And it has the fastest firing rate, 5 frames per second, of any of the D3xxx series models. I know it does not have a big buffer, but the 5 frames per second speed **used to be** state of the art professional-level when the D2x hit the market in late 2004, with a 12.2 MP sensor...now that firing rate and twice the megapixels are available in the lowest-ranked Nikon d-slr model, not a $4,999 camera body.
> 
> The Thom Hogan review of the D3300 really gave me a positive impression of what the D3300 can do.



unlike _*some*_ camera companies, (whose names we wont mention...) Nikon has really poured a ton of research and resources into fairly significant upgrades to all of their consumer and pro-sumer cameras at pretty much every price level. the D3xxx, D5xxx, and D7xxx series have _*all*_ seen some pretty nice upgrades with every new model. 
you really cant go wrong with any entry level camera when you are just starting out, _*but*_... if you can budget in a camera with Nikon's  24MP sensor, you are waaaaay ahead of pretty much every other brands cameras in the same price bracket as far as straight image quality and dynamic range go. 

but hey, I still do a fair bit of shooting with my ooooold Nikon D200 and even oooooolder 35-70 f/2.8 AF or 180mm f/2.8 AF lens and still get great results with them.


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

I see. I stand corrected. However there still is not much difference in the picture quality.. But I stand corrected, about some of the things I said. Point well taken


----------



## greybeard (Jun 18, 2014)

The problem I have with the d3000-d5000 series camera bodies is the smallish ergonomics and the lack of dedicated buttons and manual controls.  This will mean that the serious armature will quickly out grow them and will be looking to upgrade.  With that said I would recommend you look at a D7100.  If that is out of your price range look into a used D7000 of even a used D90.  These camera bodies have much better ergonomics and have the manual controls to let you get the shot when you see it and makes creative controls much easier.  The D7100 has the latest and greatest sensor but the D7000 is still holding its' own and even the D90 is no slouch.  (jmho)


----------



## Life (Jun 18, 2014)

greybeard said:


> The problem I have with the d3000-d5000 series camera bodies is the smallish ergonomics and the lack of dedicated buttons and manual controls.  This will mean that the serious armature will quickly out grow them and will be looking to upgrade.  With that said I would recommend you look at a D7100.  If that is out of your price range look into a used D7000 of even a used D90.  These camera bodies have much better ergonomics and have the manual controls to let you get the shot when you see it and makes creative controls much easier.  The D7100 has the latest and greatest sensor but the D7000 is still holding its' own and even the D90 is no slouch.  (jmho)


True that my friend! I've been looking to upgrade for quite some time now ^^


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 18, 2014)

greybeard said:


> The problem I have with the d3000-d5000 series camera bodies is the smallish ergonomics and the lack of dedicated buttons and manual controls.  This will mean that the serious armature will quickly out grow them and will be looking to upgrade.  With that said I would recommend you look at a D7100.  If that is out of your price range look into a used D7000 of even a used D90.  These camera bodies have much better ergonomics and have the manual controls to let you get the shot when you see it and makes creative controls much easier.  The D7100 has the latest and greatest sensor but the D7000 is still holding its' own and even the D90 is no slouch.  (jmho)



Well I've never shot the 3x series, but with a few minor menu adjustments the 5x series is very easy to control.  I have the function button set to adjust the ISO, so if I need to adjust the ISO at any point all I have to do is press and hold the function button and move the scroll wheel.  I usually shoot in shutter priority mode, so I can adjust the shutter speed with the command wheel, then if needed adjust the ISO by pressing and holding the function button and moving the command wheel.  If I want to stop down the lens, I can raise the ISO - if I want to open it up, I can lower the ISO or raise the shutter speed.  Pretty much gives me all the control I need without ever accessing the menu systems.

If I really want a specific aperture I can switch to aperture priority, and again then adjust my shutter speed by adjusting the aperture and ISO - again all without accessing the menu system.  Granted I wouldn't mind have the extra command dial and some of the external buttons of the 7000 or 7100 - but honestly I get by just fine without them.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 18, 2014)

greybeard said:


> The problem I have with the d3000-d5000 series camera bodies is the smallish ergonomics and the lack of dedicated buttons and manual controls.  This will mean that the serious armature will quickly out grow them and will be looking to upgrade.  With that said I would recommend you look at a D7100.  If that is out of your price range look into a used D7000 of even a used D90.  These camera bodies have much better ergonomics and have the manual controls to let you get the shot when you see it and makes creative controls much easier.  The D7100 has the latest and greatest sensor but the D7000 is still holding its' own and even the D90 is no slouch.  (jmho)


I agree, but I am pretty sure he won't be spending more than 40K INR or about 665$ for the camera (even that's a stretch). A used D90 could be a good idea, but I have no knowledge of that particular camera.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 19, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I have with the d3000-d5000 series camera bodies is the smallish ergonomics and the lack of dedicated buttons and manual controls. This will mean that the serious armature will quickly out grow them and will be looking to upgrade. With that said I would recommend you look at a D7100. If that is out of your price range look into a used D7000 of even a used D90. These camera bodies have much better ergonomics and have the manual controls to let you get the shot when you see it and makes creative controls much easier. The D7100 has the latest and greatest sensor but the D7000 is still holding its' own and even the D90 is no slouch. (jmho)
> ...


The D90 is similar in ergonomics and controls to the D7000 with a 12 MP sensor. They are still a very capable camera.
One of the biggest advantages the D90/D7000 has over the D3000/5000 is the viewfinder.  50% bigger and 50% brighter.


----------



## crpowell67 (Jun 20, 2014)

I am also really really new to dslr cameras I bought a Nikon D3100 So far I am happy with it seems to be a good entry level camera I bought mine from a pawn shop I got

Nikon D3100,
 AF-S DX NON-VR 18-55MM, Nikkor 55-200MM Lenses
and good sturdy tripod
case
extra battery
and 2 8gb memory cards

All for $300

so check you pawn shops might be able to find a good deal on a good camera.


----------



## shadowlands (Jun 20, 2014)

crpowell67 said:


> I am also really really new to dslr cameras I bought a Nikon D3100 So far I am happy with it seems to be a good entry level camera I bought mine from a pawn shop I got
> 
> Nikon D3100,
> AF-S DX NON-VR 18-55MM, Nikkor 55-200MM Lenses
> ...




Great deal. You scored.


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 21, 2014)

Hi guys!...thank you all for your timely suggestion, I bought the nikon d5100 model. Initially thought of buying nikon d3200 model, since many of you pro's told me to go with the d5100, did some research and finally settled with nikon d5100!.... i hope i made the right decision


----------



## Pejacre (Jun 21, 2014)

Another noob here and I also went for the D5100 as my first DSLR after loads of research. I found it a great camera to help me migrate from film over to digital as the combination of image quality and features was really good for the price. Personally I don't think you'll regret the decision at all and there are loads of fantastic AF-S lenses available if you start to get the (almost inevitable) hunger for grabbing a bumload of them in all shapes and sizes - because I wanted to learn as much as possible about digital photography I scoured the internet whenever I couldn't get out to take photos, which was brilliant for gathering free advice & information but can also encourage you to become a bit of a gear head. Or maybe that's just me! Anyway, good luck with the D5100 - I know mine really made it fun to get back into photography.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 21, 2014)

niranjan49 said:


> Hi guys!...thank you all for your timely suggestion, I bought the nikon d5100 model. Initially thought of buying nikon d3200 model, since many of you pro's told me to go with the d5100, did some research and finally settled with nikon d5100!.... i hope i made the right decision


Congratulations..  Now what lens are you getting? And when will we see the pictures? :er:


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Jun 21, 2014)

niranjan49 said:


> Hi guys!...thank you all for your timely suggestion, I bought the nikon d5100 model. Initially thought of buying nikon d3200 model, since many of you pro's told me to go with the d5100, did some research and finally settled with nikon d5100!.... i hope i made the right decision



That's the DSLR I started with.  I highly recommend that you purchase David Busch's Guide to the D5100.  It will go into detail not only about the 5100, but a ton of info on the DSLR world.  A wealth of information.  It's a great camera, and I see you making an upgrade within or near a year out.


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 21, 2014)

Hi raj,
Thank u for the suggestion earlier  ...... I have the kit lens 18 - 55. And regarding the photos, il do that , once I get familiar with dslr..... Don't want to go ahead of myself;-)


----------



## niranjan49 (Jun 21, 2014)

Hi sonic,
Sure il look into it....thx


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 21, 2014)

niranjan49 said:


> Hi raj,
> Thank u for the suggestion earlier  ...... I have the kit lens 18 - 55. And regarding the photos, il do that , once I get familiar with dslr..... Don't want to go ahead of myself;-)



You're most welcome bud! The kit lens is very good lens and it's a very good approach you've taken.  Enough talk, go out shooting and post some pictures now..


----------



## jkzo (Jun 21, 2014)

Good  decision.....for a beginner....  Enjoy with the new camara.....


----------



## sashbar (Jun 24, 2014)

Yes, good decision.  It is a very good camera.


----------



## ibrahimbeno (Jun 29, 2014)

hello, for beginners, i always suggest Nikon D3200 because it's simple to use and provide a great image quality better then all Canon DSLR camera under 700$.
the Nikon D3300 it's upgrade of Nikon D3200 especial in body and some other option, but i think they make same image quality (they are both 24.2 MP).
the good thing about Nikon D3200 is it's low price, this mean you can get a bag + memory card + invest in lenses. also you can find much tutorial about how use at internet.
a good investment can be also the *Nikon D3200 guide for dummies*. more then this, Nikon D3200 is #1 best seller Dslr camera for Nikon company, and you can read here customer reviews about Nikon D3200.


----------

