Nikon D3200/D5100

Jaisus

Jaisus

Messages
195
Name
Jai
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,


Just after some general advice and thoughts, I currently have a Nikon D3100 and it is a good camera and does loads and still probably does some bits I have still not used, I have had the camera for about 2years now and as happy as I am with the image quality of the camera, I was looking at getting something a littler newer.


I have looked at either getting the D3200 or D5100 but I have been confused by many reviews I have read over the internet, being told to either not upgrade from a D3100 to a D3200 as it's not worth it and then being told that a D5100 is much better than the D3200. I mainly want the camera for Photography, not really a big one for video footage unless it is a bit of candid camera on holiday etc...


So I was after something that would offer me much better image quality than the D3100, I do understand that they are all still entry level, but I am still largely happya nd comfortable with that area at the moment. I did consider getting a D7000 and making the jump into Semi-Pro cameras but the price tag has been the stopper at the moment.... (The D7000 costs the same as a Trip for 2 to Turkey!! ) Where'as the D3200 and D5100 cost much less. I do not do second hand on electricals unless they are very VERY cheap so buying a second/used unit woult be a no no.


I do sell a lot of photo's online using various Stock Photo Websites and my own website, I just want something that will offer me slightly better images and maybe a slight bit of speed on the D3100.


Any advice would be great thanks.
 
Jaisus said:
Hello,

Just after some general advice and thoughts, I currently have a Nikon D3100 and it is a good camera and does loads and still probably does some bits I have still not used, I have had the camera for about 2years now and as happy as I am with the image quality of the camera, I was looking at getting something a littler newer.

I have looked at either getting the D3200 or D5100 but I have been confused by many reviews I have read over the internet, being told to either not upgrade from a D3100 to a D3200 as it's not worth it and then being told that a D5100 is much better than the D3200. I mainly want the camera for Photography, not really a big one for video footage unless it is a bit of candid camera on holiday etc...

So I was after something that would offer me much better image quality than the D3100, I do understand that they are all still entry level, but I am still largely happya nd comfortable with that area at the moment. I did consider getting a D7000 and making the jump into Semi-Pro cameras but the price tag has been the stopper at the moment.... (The D7000 costs the same as a Trip for 2 to Turkey!! ) Where'as the D3200 and D5100 cost much less. I do not do second hand on electricals unless they are very VERY cheap so buying a second/used unit woult be a no no.

I do sell a lot of photo's online using various Stock Photo Websites and my own website, I just want something that will offer me slightly better images and maybe a slight bit of speed on the D3100.

Any advice would be great thanks.
Click to expand...

Buy some better lenses. The 5100 will offer little over what you already have. A better lens can make all the difference.
If you want extra speed or extra controls, then you'll need to move up a peg onto the likes of the d7000 or even d90. D300s are getting to a reasonable price used now too.

You will see very little difference IQ wise between any of the cameras mentioned on a normal everyday outdoor scene. The difference will come in low light shooting, where the newer bodies have better high ISO capability.
 
Got to agree with Tom here. You could be setting yourself up for a big disappointment if you're expecting to see a big jump in IQ simply by changing to a newer body especially when you're only jumping one generation of development.

New sensors will typically offer higher resolution which you'll only really benefit from with excellent technique and high quality lenses. Even then, the resolution will only be of use if you print huge and/or heavily crop the image.

They'll also have better dynamic range but again this is only useful in scenes of particular high contrast.

High ISO performance is great in some scenarios but how often do you shoot in very low light?

Put it this way, for a while I had a D200 (ancient in sensor terms) and a D5100. For 99% of the images, I wouldn't be able to tell you which camera took which image unless I looked at the exif. In low light though, the D5100 was miles ahead, though it would only be a little better than your current D3100.
 
I doubt you would notice an improvement in image quality going from D3100 to a D3200/D5100.
 
Like they said above the d3100 is a pretty new model, you will not see any noticable difference in image quality between all Nikon current aps-c range just iso performance and MP. Spending money gets you better bodies, and faster AF etc.. not better pictures. Lenses are a much better investment.
 
Thanks very much for the replies and advce, I suppose there is still a fair bit of learning and experimenting I need to do with the D3100 to get the best out of it, might look into a D7000 next year though.

Recently bought a 10-20mm Sigma which was a great purchase taking my photo's a to greater height and making my landscapes look brilliant, I think I just got carried away thinking a better camera may give me even better results.

Thanks again for the replies and advice.
 
Jaisus said:
Thanks very much for the replies and advce, I suppose there is still a fair bit of learning and experimenting I need to do with the D3100 to get the best out of it, might look into a D7000 next year though.

Recently bought a 10-20mm Sigma which was a great purchase taking my photo's a to greater height and making my landscapes look brilliant, I think I just got carried away thinking a better camera may give me even better results.

Thanks again for the replies and advice.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong if you shoot a lot of low light and want the better iso performance then the d5100/d7000 is a good upgrade but you seem happy enough with the d3100. Without knowing what lenses and what you like to shoot its hard to recommend anything. Upgrading your kit lens to a tamron 17-50 is a nice little upgrade that doesn't cost the earth.
 
I have over the last 2years.. Well nearly 2years (Christmas)

Have collected many lenses along the way:

Kit lens 18-55mm
Tamron 70-300mm
Tamron 18-200mm
Nikon 55-300mm
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Nikon 40mm (micro)
Sigma 10-20mm ...Just recently

I tend to mainly just use the 40mm and sigma 10-20mm at the moment for landscapes and a few close'ups - and I normally keep the 300mm with me as well, so I have all areas covered. I did think that the D5100 would be better for low light and to be honest I did like the idea of a new and and slightly better camera.
 
Jaisus said:
I have over the last 2years.. Well nearly 2years (Christmas)

Have collected many lenses along the way:

Kit lens 18-55mm
Tamron 70-300mm
Tamron 18-200mm
Nikon 55-300mm
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Nikon 40mm (micro)
Sigma 10-20mm ...Just recently

I tend to mainly just use the 40mm and sigma 10-20mm at the moment for landscapes and a few close'ups - and I normally keep the 300mm with me as well, so I have all areas covered. I did think that the D5100 would be better for low light and to be honest I did like the idea of a new and and slightly better camera.
Click to expand...

The d3100 is actually excellent in low light. I took both my d700 and d3100 to a wildlife park, and used the d3100 in the dark and dingy insect bit purely to test it out. I was using ISO 1600-3200 and they were clean as you like. I don't think using the d700 would have given me much more advantage.

Bearing in mind these were taken through dirty smudged glass, I really can't think anything would better it.

I can understand wanting newer and better, but the d3100is a damn fine camera and perfectly capable in most situations. A new camera won't make make your pictures better, that's a guaranteed fact.


Nikon D3100 High ISO test 1 by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Nikon D3100 High ISO test 1 by TCR4x4, on Flickr



Nikon D3100 High ISO test 1 by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
Thanks again for the reply, I have so far managed to do some really good pictures with my D3100, I think I thought I could probably get even better photo's with a better Camera, but with everything I have read through on here today and that last posts showing how good a camera it still is... Well I think I am going to save my money and maybe look into a D7000 next year once I have fully outgrown the beginner type DSLR.

Thanks for the help.
 
as said, D3100 is a brilliant little camera, unless you are upgrading to pro-level camera, you won't notice much improvement.

i had a D3100 last week, great camera, took amazing landscape shots. but has never been happy with its view finder. i collected a full frame 5D mark2 last weekend, only now i am happy with the larger, brighter view finder.

save up a bit and go for D7000, or may be the rumoured affordable full frame D600 would be out. IMHO those 2 are the only 2 worth upgrading to.
 
Yeah I think the D7000 is more than likely what I will be getting now as hopefully it will go down maybe after Christmas, I think I just had a mad idea today that I was going to order either the D3200 or D5100 it would give me much better quality and I had a plan of putting the D3100 in a dive box as we are off to Jamaica in a couple of weeks....

The Sensible option though :lol: as everyone seems to be telling me... is wait and get a decent Pro-DSLR not another Entry Level.









update: 1/09/12
**In the end my child'ish mentality got the better of me! I ordered both the D3200 & D5100 because I could not decide, I am noW** spending the weekend testing them both out and deciding which one to keep**
 
Last edited:
i was about to go purchase a d5100 this weekend... now i may not.

this is going to be my first dslr although im not new to photography, upgrading from a bridge camera because limited by its functions but has full manual capabilities. if the d5100 and d3100 take similar quality pictures, im of the understanding the difference in money saved would be better spent on a decent lens for the d3100. by buying the d3100 body id have £200 for a lens so guess the question is would that trump the d5100 and its 18-55mm kit lens??

btw i mainly do landscape photography.
 
The above could almost have been written by me - in the end I'm happy with the camera ( apart from the rear screen which is dark at the best of times ) but better glass is the way forward. The difference between the kit lens quality at the 35mm 1.8 is night and day
 
jus_tin said:
i was about to go purchase a d5100 this weekend... now i may not.

this is going to be my first dslr although im not new to photography, upgrading from a bridge camera because limited by its functions but has full manual capabilities. if the d5100 and d3100 take similar quality pictures, im of the understanding the difference in money saved would be better spent on a decent lens for the d3100. by buying the d3100 body id have £200 for a lens so guess the question is would that trump the d5100 and its 18-55mm kit lens??

btw i mainly do landscape photography.
Click to expand...

I ended up sending back both the D3200 and the D5100 because they did not offer me a great deal more than what I already had with my D3100, and keeping the D3100 while sending back the D3200 & D5100 saved me money of course.

However if I was about to buy my first Entry level DSLR then I would choose the D5100, it has had a massive price reduction in Jessops and other stores to nearly the same price as the D3100. It has a few nice touches to it too with effects and a better ISO range and even though people will say otherwise the articulated screen was actually really good and great for some awkward shots.
 
Yeh jessops have it at £449 which is where i was going to purchase from, but can buy the D3100 body only for £269 leaving me nearly £200 for a lens. I know both the D5100 and D3200 out perform the D3100 and would prefer one of these unless their performance is only marginally better. i like the exposure bracketing that the D5100 (and assume D3200) have and the sensor of D5100 is the same as the popular D7000, combined with an articulated screen which would come in handy for macro photography im definately swaying more towards the D5100. the debate over the D5100 and D3200 could go one forever though and everyone says its down to what you photograph, i may just need to read a few more reviews as ive just talked myself out of the D3100 so now back to the D3200 or D5100!?!?
 
I have not seen it marked up at that much less?

In Jessops the D3100 is marked up £360 - Camera body only and the D5100 is £385 "Camera Body Only" For the sake of £25 I would go with the D5100 as it is a better camera and has more functions and defo worth the extra £25.

However if you have found the D3100 for £200 less then I would say go with the D3100 as "my opinion only" the D5100 is only marginally better, there really to my way of thinking and when I compared them was not much if anything in it.. The main thing for me was the articulating screen. The special effects "again my opinion only" are not brilliant and nothing different to what you can do with the D3100 or Photoshop.
 
If i was buying today i would go with the d5100 too. Not worth the expense of upgrading a d3100 but the price difference of the both new a d5100 is a better buy.
 
Have you tried different lenses? I've still got a D3000 and after reading on here decided to upgrade the lens not the body. First buy was a Nikon 50mm f1.4 and this got me hooked, the improvement in image quality was far greater than I could have achieved with a better body. I now also have a 17-55mm f2.8 and its amazing.

Yes I'm now in need of upgrading the body but I'm so glad I upgraded my lens collection first as I tink if I'd upgraded the body first I'd have been disappointed with the improvement vs the money spent.
 
They should rebadge 'entry level' cameras as 'flyweight' cameras or similar. They punch harder than they look like they should, but with half the shoulder ache. If you're prepared to do without complete on body control ( and TBH most of the important stuff is right there for me, everything else is two easy-to-memorise button presses away) then you get the SLR experience for smaller change.

The D3100 for me does away with the need for a backup compact camera, and being 'entry level' does away with unnecessary attention. If I were looking to upgrade, I'd keep the 'flyweight' body and grab a nice prime. 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 fit the bill perfectly - all super sharp, all optically latest-generation with all the trimmings. (....that is a dream camera bag for some right there!).

Every time you're in the mood to upgrade, go flickr some of the most interesting shots taken with 3100 and kit lens. Talent doesn't need great gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top