Nikon d3100 & nikon d3200 which better?

Question

Nikon d3100 & nikon d3200 which better?

Answer 1

I take issue with everyone saying that the D3200 is better.



It might have more or newer features. That might make it better to some people, and not a better thing for others.



Anyone that points to more megapixels as being a 'better' thing have no business giving out camera advice.



Nikon uses a 24MP image sensor for one reason, and one reason only, to sell more cameras. They line their pockets with more of your money. It gets worse. Those 24MP come at a price. low light high ISO work takes a hit.



Anyone that points to DxOmark.com test scores, again, are smoking. The up front numbers make it seem as if the D3200 and D5200 are the best things around. Once you dig into those numbers, and change the low light score from the ridiculous 'print' method, to the proper 'screen' setting you will see the facts.



The D3200 image sensor scores no better than the old D3000. Will anyone ever tell you that? Does anyone even know? So if features and bragging rights are your top priority, get the D3200.



If you want a better image sensor overall, get the D3100, or even better the D5100, take a look at used D7000 bodies as well. If you aren't locked into Nikon, the best dSLR for the money hands down is the Pentax K 30. The best all around photo and video shooter is Sony's A57. Now that's what a real, honest answer looks like.

Answer 2

One thing that's "better" on the 3200 is the infrared ports that allow use of the Nikon wireless remote control ($20). The much older D40 has it, the older 3000 has it, but for whatever reason Nikon omitted it from the 3100. Probably to save a dollar or two.



If you have the extra $70 or so above the cost of the 3100 and you can still find a 5100, go for it. At present the 5100 is about the same price as the 3200. It's a much better camera than the 3100 and has several features the 3100 and 3200 lack, including infrared ports (actually 2, front and rear, 3200 has the port), articulating view screen and in-camera HDR, something even the 7000 lacks. The wireless remote is indispensable for taking bulb photos of things like nighttime storm photos or self photos, I've been surprised at how handy the articulating screen has been and when needed, the HDR is a super option. Not to make the surreal photos some people create with HDR, but to actually produce an image more like what your eye sees rather than the high contrast scene the camera sees.

Answer 3

Yep, here is an outline of the improvements that the D3200 has over the D3100;

versus.com/en/nikon-d3200-vs-nikon-d3100

Quite simple - the only "disadvantage" stated is that the D3200 is a tiny bit bigger - other than that it is just improved. Some creatures of habit maybe prefer the predecessor, but I'm sure you could adjust!

Answer 4

The D3200 is the direct replacement of the D3100 hence the D3200 is newer and better. If you're looking for cheaper though, the D3100 should be it.

Answer 5

The d3200 is certainly better but if cost is a problem go for the d3100 . I dont why but i heard a lot of people say the 3100 is better than the 3200 and the 5100 than the 5200 but it was bcoz of their liking go for what u like

Answer 6

The D3200 is 'better'. it targets the same demographic as the D3100, but it's newer. It has a few newer features and has more megapixels. Weather the additional cost is worth it is up to you.

Answer 7

The D-3200.