First DSLR D3200 or D5100

V

villafan82

Messages
35
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

I know this has probably been discussed many times before! I am looking to buy my first DSLR and it is a toss up between the Nikon D3200 and D5100.

My photo habits include, days out, holidays (landscapes such as mountainous scenes), the Formula 1 Grand Prix etc.

So which of these 2 would provide me the flexibility for all these criteria.

I have been discussing this with a couple of Camera enthusiasts, one being a friend of mine and the other a guy in camera shop.

The friend recommended the D5100, moreso for the tilt screen. I have a tilt screen on my Nikon bridge camera and have only used it once and that was indoors!

The guy at the Camera store recommended the D3200 as it would be more suited to the F1 cars whizzing by and capturing the shot more confidently than the D5100.

I would purchase the twin lens kit 18-55mm + 55-300mm

Not too much techno language please as I am a keen ametuer at best!

Your advice and help will be much appreciated.

Kind regards

Steve

Steve
 
The d7000. About the same price as the d3200 these days and wayyyyyyy better camera.
But I have the d5100 (budget constraints) and its a great camera. The 3200 is entry level. But really the choice is yours. Ask the shop to have a go with all 3 and take it from there
 
Hi,

What's your budget?
I would also consider the D7000 as it would be better for F1 due to its high fps and AF tracking.

The problem is that you might want to upgrade your 55-200mm lens in the future if your going to want better/sharper telephoto shots.

Comes down to budget really.
I think the 70-300mm VR is a cracking lens for the prices.

I would definitely go with the D7000 though above the other two.

Riz :)
 
Another D7000 here too. Plus you can pick up a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for around £350. I know the focal distance isn't as far but the speed of the lens in excellent and you could always invest in a teleconverter if you find you need that little extra.
 
I would go for the D7000 too. It has the AF motor built into the body so opens up a large number of older designs and 2nd hand lenses which don't have the motor in the lens. Not only are there more of these older lenses available but they also tend to be significantly cheaper - just compare the prices of the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 with the older design AF G (and a second hand AF D or AF...) The saving you make on the cheaper entry level body can easily be wiped out in one lens purchase.
 
If you can get a D7000 then go for that. Between the two you mentioned, I would go for the D3200 (which I did) the folding screen of the D5100 is irrelevant to me as I don't use live view.

The D7000 has a focus motor built in so it can use any Nikon AF lens whereas the D3200 and D5100 need AF-S lenses with integral motors.

D3200 has 24MP compared with the D7000's 16MP - not as much difference as marketing people would have you believe.


Steve.
 
Get the D3200. It'll do everything you want. I think the D7000 would be overkill for a first SLR. The D3200 is a very capable camera. You'll save yourself a small fortune in the process. Don't forget that gear isn't everything. I use a D7000 regularly and bought a D3100 as a smaller, lighter second body. I'm happy with both.
 
Hi all

Mandy thanks for your replies and advice.

I am swaying in slight favour towards the D3200 as a few of you have mentioned.


I agree that the D7000 (£555 body olone) would be a better option but in budget constraints I am looking to spend around the £550 mark inclusive of a twin lens (both are AFS lens which have integral motors) kit which I have found for that price.

I am swaying towards the D3200 as a few of oyu have mentioned.

So which is the better equiped for my use?

Regards

Steve
 
The advantages of D3200 over D7000 are higher MP, newer sensor, smaller body. You give up more physical controls and better autofocus.

I don't suppose you'd be doing pro F1 work with either camera, so how important is the AF performance to you? Only you can answer that. I think AF is slow and can be inaccurate with the 35mm f/1.8 lens wide open on the D3200. The D7000 may be better for AF accuracy, speed and tracking although I haven't tried it myself. If you're wanting to get nice sharp photos of moving things especially kids, AF performance is the single most important feature of any camera, so in theory the D7000 wins here.

How important is it be able to print really big? If you're printing. A3 or above you will appreciate the increased MP of the D3200. It really is an excellent sensor in such a tiny package. But the rest of the package is consumer. In my opinion the D3200's prime market is the photographer that knows what they're doing, and can confidently work around the D3200's limitations to maximise the quality of that sensor. This means using legacy lenses in full manual mode if required.

If you work slowly and want maximum pixels - D3200. If you deal with anything that moves - D7000.
 
Hi Martsharm

Thanks for the post.

I am not a pro by any stretch, just purely for my enjoyment. Just want a half decent camera so I can snap the speed machines.

Would the twin kit lens for either D3200 or D5100 be good enough for Af. The lenses are Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens and Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 G ED VR ??

Please advise

regards

Steve
 
Steve - I had both those lenses up until recently and you will be fine with them. They work well together. Obviously given extra budget you do step up a level, but as a first camera package it is a good choice.
 
I don't understand why people suggest using legacy lenses with entry level Nikon cameras. Sorry but every lens you're realistically going to wish to use as a new DSLR user is going to be available in a current, AF-S version. The AF on the d3200 will be absolutely fine and will, to be frank blow what you're used to on a bridge camera out of the water
 
Thanks Milkfloat and boyfall down.

I agree it will be a major step up from my bridge. As it is very slow taking a shot of an F1 car without panning the camera. So just need an definative answer for this situation really.

So D3200 or D5100 with the twin lens kit that I mentioned in a previous post???

Regards

Steve
 
Oh dorry forgot to mention, the best of the 2 for the snowdonia landscape that I going to visit next month.
 
Get the D3200.

It has a way better sensor and processing than a d5100, in fact is pretty much the same camera as the new d5200. The only features you might miss are the folding screen, bracketing options and slightly better autofocus. These don't make up for the better sensor/processing in the 3200, especially at a £200 premium.


boyfalldown said:
I don't understand why people suggest using legacy lenses with entry level Nikon cameras. Sorry but every lens you're realistically going to wish to use as a new DSLR user is going to be available in a current, AF-S version. The AF on the d3200 will be absolutely fine and will, to be frank blow what you're used to on a bridge camera out of the water
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this, entry level bodies haven't had an integrated AF motor since the D40 ditched it. That must be over 5 years ago. Unless you actually have some older lenses kicking about that you want to use then it's fine. So long as you understand the limitation of the system and buy compatible lenses its not a problem.
 
Hey Spudey

Wouldn't the better autofocus be benenficial for shooting fast moving F1 cars?
 
boyfalldown said:
I don't understand why people suggest using legacy lenses with entry level Nikon cameras. Sorry but every lens you're realistically going to wish to use as a new DSLR user is going to be available in a current, AF-S version. The AF on the d3200 will be absolutely fine and will, to be frank blow what you're used to on a bridge camera out of the water
Click to expand...

I agree the AF on the d3200 will be fine, but personally I use a couple of legacy lens and find them very useful. I have the 50 AFD and the 60 AFD macro, botht of which can be bought cheaply used. So the ability to use legacy lens can save a few pounds and for me allowed me to make the most of my first dSLR, a d300.
 
martsharm said:
This means using legacy lenses in full manual mode if required.
Click to expand...

I bought a D3200 because I wanted to use my pre AI lenses on it. The only AF lens I have which works on it is the 18-70 I had for my D100 ten years ago.

I like the compact size of the D3200 over a full size DSLR and with it in either manual mode or aperture priority with the exposure compensation button near the shutter and the Fn button set up for ISO, I don't need any other features


Steve.
 
villafan82 said:
Hey Spudey

Wouldn't the better autofocus be benenficial for shooting fast moving F1 cars?
Click to expand...

In theory yes, but the d3200 af should be able to handle an occasional f1 race from the stands no problem. You will have your 300mm racked out but you might still want to crop in there and that's where the d3200 has a big advantage.
People will tell you you need to compose properly in camera (and they are right), but if you *need* to crop in post then megapixels are your friend.

You may also find that the high MP count is not very forgiving to your lenses, especially at the longer end of the 55-300 it will show it's weaknesses, but to paraphrase my boss "you can only pee with the willy you've got". All this means is that when you do move on to better lenses they will let your camera really shine.

If you we're looking for dedicated sports camera I'd be recommending a used d300 or d7000 for your budget for the better AF and FPS.
But you are looking for a good all-rounder with 2 kit lenses for holidays and landscapes, the d3200 fits the bill and will do everything you want it to better than any other new camera in budget.
 
Kaolin said:
I agree the AF on the d3200 will be fine, but personally I use a couple of legacy lens and find them very useful. I have the 50 AFD and the 60 AFD macro, botht of which can be bought cheaply used. So the ability to use legacy lens can save a few pounds and for me allowed me to make the most of my first dSLR, a d300.
Click to expand...

The 50 AFD has been superseeded by the AF-S, so while its doubtless a useful lens there is a more recent lens that replaces it.Its the same with the 60, theres an AF-S replacement.

Its a little bit of a bugbear that people complain old, superseeded Nikkor lenses won't AF on entry level bodies when there is a replacement nowdays for pretty much everything your likely to want to use on an entry level body. Theres a few more exotic pieces of glass aren't replaced, but will you really be using them on an entry level body
 
boyfalldown said:
I don't understand why people suggest using legacy lenses with entry level Nikon cameras. Sorry but every lens you're realistically going to wish to use as a new DSLR user is going to be available in a current, AF-S version. The AF on the d3200 will be absolutely fine and will, to be frank blow what you're used to on a bridge camera out of the water
Click to expand...

Silly. You know as well as I do that there's no 24mm AF-S DX. The actual, rather than self-professed expert Thom Hogan complains about the lack of primes, wide or otherwise, for the DX system.

Have you used the D3200 AF?
 
villafan82 said:
Hi Martsharm

Thanks for the post.

I am not a pro by any stretch, just purely for my enjoyment. Just want a half decent camera so I can snap the speed machines.

Would the twin kit lens for either D3200 or D5100 be good enough for Af. The lenses are Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens and Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 G ED VR ??

Please advise

regards

Steve
Click to expand...

I guess at f/5.6 there's not such a great demand on the AF system to be accurate. I'd really go for better AF if I was doing F1, personally. However it's true the d3200 gives you more pixels to crop later, although I would have thought 450mm equiv would be enough for most things.

You mentioned Snowdonia - this is where the D3200 would be perfect, you'll get lovely detailed files for landscape work.
 
martsharm said:
Silly. You know as well as I do that there's no 24mm AF-S DX. The actual, rather than self-professed expert Thom Hogan complains about the lack of primes, wide or otherwise, for the DX system.
Click to expand...

So?. I'm not sure about the relevance to my point about legacy lenses?

There is a 24 and 28 AF-S though. The 24 AF-D is superseded. How many people actually want to use those fast wide primes on their new entry level cameras? If you really want 24 mm use that although doubtless you'll say you want something cheaper

martsharm said:
Have you used the D3200 AF?
Click to expand...

Yes thanks.
 
villafan82 said:
Hey Spudey

Wouldn't the better autofocus be benenficial for shooting fast moving F1 cars?
Click to expand...

You tend to be in one place when doing motor racing. An mf lens or your af lens set to mf and prefocused is best. You'll shoot quicker. I've done lots of this type of photography. bung up the ISO a bit, the d3200 is good for that and stop down a little perhaps f8 to get a little DOF. Pan with the cars, you can get great shots at only 1/125th if you pan good.

Back to the d3200 vs d5100, I have a d3200 and am very happy with it, I had the same choice and feel like I have the better cam. I looked at the d7000 but it was over my budget. I'd probably have got the d7000. The d3200 is an entry level cam but I use mine semi professionally and also use it to make short movies, the external mike socket is a boon.
 
boyfalldown said:
So?. I'm not sure about the relevance to my point about legacy lenses?

There is a 24 and 28 AF-S though. The 24 AF-D is superseded. How many people actually want to use those fast wide primes on their new entry level cameras? If you really want 24 mm use that although doubtless you'll say you want something cheaper

Yes thanks.
Click to expand...

The relevance is obvious, but let me spell it out for you - people use legacy lenses because there is no equivalent DX lens for a particular requirement. Indeed many would argue a fast moderate wide and a portrait-length fast telephoto are key system lenses, and both are absent from DX.

You said any reasonable requirement for lenses is met by a current DX AF-S lens. My point is that, for example, a fast 35mm-equivalent prime is missing from the DX range, so I respectfully disagree with your assertion. A 35mm-equivalent isn't an exotic, it's the bedrock of any sensible camera system. I can't see why this is such a bone of contention with you. Some key lenses are missing from DX, and, as before, I refer you to the expert Thom Hogan who continually makes this point. He also agrees that Nikon must logically expect DX shooters to use FX lenses to fill the gap in their lens lineup. I can't see how you can disagree with this logical point.

Fair enough if you don't mind the prime gap in DX focal length between 10.5mm and 35mm. I prefer 24mm on DX, which is why I use a legacy lens.

And yes, I am fully aware there are ultra-fast, ultra-large and ultra-expensive FX AF-S lenses thanks, which are totally overkill for the D3200. So, if a D3200 user wants a 24mm, which does one choose? The AF-S 24mm f/1.4 at £1500 new, or a legacy 24mm at around £100 used? Indeed I would be surprised if *any* DX user has bought a 24mm f/1.4 AF-S to use exclusively on DX. It just doesn't make any sense.

Sorry to the OP for digressing slightly.
 
martsharm said:
The relevance is obvious, but let me spell it out for you - people use legacy lenses because there is no equivalent DX lens for a particular requirement. Indeed many would argue a fast moderate wide and a portrait-length fast telephoto are key system lenses, and both are absent from DX.
Click to expand...

Why does a lens need to be DX only. You seem to have a problem with this?. Theres already a 35mm DX.

martsharm said:
You said any reasonable requirement for lenses is met by a current DX AF-S lens.
Click to expand...

I didn't - if you read what I wrote no point did I mention it has to be DX. I said that

very lens you're realistically going to wish to use as a new DSLR user is going to be available in a current, AF-S version.
Click to expand...

which it is.

martsharm said:
My point is that, for example, a fast 35mm-equivalent prime is missing from the DX range, so I respectfully disagree with your assertion. A 35mm-equivalent isn't an exotic, it's the bedrock of any sensible camera system. I can't see why this is such a bone of contention with you.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a big issue for you there isn't a 24mm DX lens. As you do use it. My point directly related to legacy lenses. So your bugbear about the DX range is relevant.


martsharm said:
Some key lenses are missing from DX, and, as before, I refer you to the expert Thom Hogan who continually makes this point. He also agrees that Nikon must logically expect DX shooters to use FX lenses to fill the gap in their lens lineup. I can't see how you can disagree with this logical point.
Click to expand...

you seem to have misunderstood again, I'm refering to legacy lenses which have for the most part been superseded. Forgive me, which bit of that don't you get?. BTW - I'm quite entitled to disagree with TH.


martsharm said:
Fair enough if you don't mind the prime gap in DX focal length between 10.5mm and 35mm. I prefer 24mm on DX, which is why I use a legacy lens.

And yes, I am fully aware there are ultra-fast, ultra-large and ultra-expensive FX AF-S lenses thanks, which are totally overkill for the D3200. So, if a D3200 user wants a 24mm, which does one choose? The AF-S 24mm f/1.4 at £1500 new, or a legacy 24mm at around £100 used? Indeed I would be surprised if *any* DX user has bought a 24mm f/1.4 AF-S to use exclusively on DX. It just doesn't make any sense.

Sorry to the OP for digressing slightly.
Click to expand...

I'd be amazed if there is anything like enough of a market for a 24mm DX prime for Nikon to even consider it.

However thats digression.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
The 50 AFD has been superseeded by the AF-S, so while its doubtless a useful lens there is a more recent lens that replaces it.Its the same with the 60, theres an AF-S replacement.

Its a little bit of a bugbear that people complain old, superseeded Nikkor lenses won't AF on entry level bodies when there is a replacement nowdays for pretty much everything your likely to want to use on an entry level body. Theres a few more exotic pieces of glass aren't replaced, but will you really be using them on an entry level body
Click to expand...

Yes, there are AF-S 50mm lenses but they're significantly more expensive than the non AF-S versions. The f/1.4 for example, AF-S, £291.99, AF-D, £244.99 and the f/1.8, AF-S, £199.99 with the AF-D at £116.99. Not that easy to find AF-S lenses on 2nd hand shelves either.
 
Nod said:
Yes, there are AF-S 50mm lenses but they're significantly more expensive than the non AF-S versions. The f/1.4 for example, AF-S, £291.99, AF-D, £244.99 and the f/1.8, AF-S, £199.99 with the AF-D at £116.99. Not that easy to find AF-S lenses on 2nd hand shelves either.
Click to expand...

And the AF-S a substantial improvement for the f/1.4 but thats digression. Yes they are harder to find 2nd hand, but they also solve the lack of AF issue on entry level bodies so often bemoaned
 
Nod said:
Yes, there are AF-S 50mm lenses but they're significantly more expensive than the non AF-S versions. The f/1.4 for example, AF-S, £291.99, AF-D, £244.99 and the f/1.8, AF-S, £199.99 with the AF-D at £116.99. Not that easy to find AF-S lenses on 2nd hand shelves either.
Click to expand...

The 50mm 1.8 AF-S can be purchased for £155-160 (uk stock).

FWIW, I agree with what martsharm said above, that the D3200 is aimed at an experienced user.

I took a break from photography for just over two years; I have always used a Nikon setup (D40, D90, D300 and D700). I was recently purchased a D3200 body by my wife who was determined to get me back into photography....in spite of being a really thoughtful gift,I suppose the snobby side of me looked down on the body as entry-level. However, I got a grip of myself and got a couple of prime lenses and haven't looked back. The images I'm getting from this camera with decent glass are, IMO, fantastic. Sure, I still hanker after a FF body however this camera has really got me back to the basics of photography (planning, technique, etc.) and leaves me with a smile on my face!

I think it would be a perfect starter body with the caveat that you do need to invest in the lenses to make full use of the fantastic sensor. Shopping around second hand, I've picked up the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm 1.8g lenses for £500. I'll add a macro to that lot and I'll be set for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Why does a lens need to be DX only. You seem to have a problem with this?. Theres already a 35mm DX.

which it is.

It seems to be a big issue for you there isn't a 24mm DX lens. As you do use it. My point directly related to legacy lenses. So your bugbear about the DX range is relevant.

you seem to have misunderstood again, I'm refering to legacy lenses which have for the most part been superseded. Forgive me, which bit of that don't you get?. BTW - I'm quite entitled to disagree with TH.

I'd be amazed if there is anything like enough of a market for a 24mm DX prime for Nikon to even consider it.

However thats digression.
Click to expand...

In trying to help newbies to DX I'm pointing out that the prime range is limited and you may not have the availability of lenses one would hope for. The classic fast 35mm and 85mm equivalent primes being the most pressing need.

Your point is that if it's a 24mm AF-S prime you're after you're welcome to use the 1.4 FX version at only £1500. Well, fair enough, but I doubt that's a popular option. I contend a DX only lens would be considerably smaller and cheaper and more appropriate for the system.

You say a 35mm equivalent prime is not needed? Again, one opinion, but what's this? M43 has two 35mm equivs. Nikon themselves have already made a 28mm equiv for the 1 system. X100 uses 35mm equiv. Not sure why DX would be any more immune to the lure of a 35mm equiv?

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree, eh? :-)
 
boyfalldown said:
And the AF-S a substantial improvement for the f/1.4 but thats digression. Yes they are harder to find 2nd hand, but they also solve the lack of AF issue on entry level bodies so often bemoaned
Click to expand...

My main reason for advising people against the no motor bodies is the repeated extra cost of lenses which wipe out any of the original saving on the body PDQ! I've been told by a couple of retailers that the old AF 50mm f/1.8 lenses give better results than the current f/1.4 as well as being far better made. I was all set to do the "upgrade" but was talked out of it!

sdb123 said:
The 50mm 1.8 AF-S can be purchased for £155-160 (uk stock).
Click to expand...

UK stock or UK supplier? And what is that supplier charging for the AF-G f/1.8?
 
I thought a couple of examples of the D3200 and a legacy lens were in order so people can make their minds up for themselves to whether the results are worth it or not. These are with a 24mm f/2.8 AI-S. You can click through for high res versions.

I think they're pretty good, although a dedicated DX 24mm would probably be a bit better. But let's not start all that again!


D3200 example-0338 by martsharm, on Flickr


D3200 example-0296 by martsharm, on Flickr
 
martsharm said:
In trying to help newbies to DX I'm pointing out that the prime range is limited and you may not have the availability of lenses one would hope for. The classic fast 35mm and 85mm equivalent primes being the most pressing need.

Your point is that if it's a 24mm AF-S prime you're after you're welcome to use the 1.4 FX version at only £1500. Well, fair enough, but I doubt that's a popular option. I contend a DX only lens would be considerably smaller and cheaper and more appropriate for the system.

You say a 35mm equivalent prime is not needed? Again, one opinion, but what's this? M43 has two 35mm equivs. Nikon themselves have already made a 28mm equiv for the 1 system. X100 uses 35mm equiv. Not sure why DX would be any more immune to the lure of a 35mm equiv?

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree, eh? :-)
Click to expand...


as I said yet again for you. Maybe you'd name a few that haven't been :shrug:

every lens you're realistically going to wish to use as a new DSLR user is going to be available in a current, AF-S version.
Click to expand...

it maybe the line needs increasing or it may not. But there is no reason for you to insist lenses are DX only. For example a 50mm is pretty close to and 85 equiv on DX, and there is an up to date AF-S 50 which I doubt you'll ever get cheaper and lighter. Same with 35. If cheaper is what you want use a 28mm.

I doubt very much Nikon consider developing DX primes as a high priority and I agree with them. There isn't the market


Nod said:
My main reason for advising people against the no motor bodies is the repeated extra cost of lenses which wipe out any of the original saving on the body PDQ! I've been told by a couple of retailers that the old AF 50mm f/1.8 lenses give better results than the current f/1.4 as well as being far better made. I was all set to do the "upgrade" but was talked out of it!
Click to expand...

The cheapest body with a motor in is about £300 more (and due to be replaced) thats a fair price hike. The upgrade is another thread
 
sdb123 said:
UK stock and UK supplier. Wex Photographic, Clifton Cameras, etc.
Click to expand...

I looked at a few ads to find direct comparisons and took my prices from the only place (on a quick look) that had the direct comparison prices listed. WEX (whose ad was the first I checked out) doesn't have the non-AF-S f/1.8 listed and even they have a £35 odd price difference between the S and non S f/1.4. Their prices for the 85mm are S, £1189, non S, £949 (both f/1.4).
 
boyfalldown said:
as I said yet again for you. Maybe you'd name a few that haven't been :shrug:

it maybe the line needs increasing or it may not. But there is no reason for you to insist lenses are DX only. For example a 50mm is pretty close to and 85 equiv on DX, and there is an up to date AF-S 50 which I doubt you'll ever get cheaper and lighter. Same with 35. If cheaper is what you want use a 28mm.
Click to expand...

Sorry I can't make sense of your first two sentences.

I think I might stick to the OP's topic and not engage further in this pointless tussle.
 
Nod said:
I looked at a few ads to find direct comparisons and took my prices from the only place (on a quick look) that had the direct comparison prices listed. WEX (whose ad was the first I checked out) doesn't have the non-AF-S f/1.8 listed and even they have a £35 odd price difference between the S and non S f/1.4. Their prices for the 85mm are S, £1189, non S, £949 (both f/1.4).
Click to expand...

I'm confused....why are you looking at f1.4 lenses? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top