Nikon D3200 is it worth it?

L33wgn

L33wgn

Suspended / Banned
Messages
67
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
As title suggests I'm completely new to photography and was wondering if it's worth buying the 3200 for £650 as apposed to the 3100 which would be around £400! Is the much higher spec ( from what I can see ) worth the extra £250?

I've gathered that lenses play a big part but as I'm new I'd start with the 18-55 on either camera and look to upgrade when I got the hang of this photography lark :D
 
L33wgn said:
As title suggests I'm completely new to photography and was wondering if it's worth buying the 3200 for £650 as apposed to the 3100 which would be around £400! Is the much higher spec ( from what I can see ) worth the extra £250?

I've gathered that lenses play a big part but as I'm new I'd start with the 18-55 on either camera and look to upgrade when I got the hang of this photography lark :D
Click to expand...

I'd get the D3100 and buy the 35mm f1.8 to go with the kit lens.
 
I'd be tempted to pickup a second hand D7000 body for that price. It may cost you slightly more for the kit but it would offer you a big step up in terms of capabilities.

However if money is more of a concern then I'd go for D3100, a kit zoom (18-105) and the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 if you can fit it all into your budget.
 
Last edited:
Wow thanks a lot! That's a big saving compared to jessops!
 
I'm so glad I never bought new when I started with the d3100 (I opted for used and got a kit lens, 70-300, and lots of handy bits n bobs as the fella was quitting dslr)
Once you start getting into whatever it is you're going to be shooting, is when the money is needed
Not sure about the 3200, but the 3100 is a very capable, nice to learn on, camera, but you will soon outgrow the kit lens (probably) whether it be landscapes, street, portraits, wildlife, which is where any spare cash will come in handy
Then you realise you'd like a tripod for low light, a nice f1.8 portrait, a nice f2.8 long lens, backdrops, flash kit, bag, filters, memory cards, editing software etc etc
I bought some nice lenses, and really noticed the difference in quality and still dont feel I've really outgrown the d3100, but as with all things photography, you always have one eye on the next bit of kit you want/crave/lust after
Good luck, welcome to camera poverty :lol:
 
I'm never going to be selling my photos, will only really use the camera for pets, family and the odd game of rugby / photoing my girlfriends floristry work so would I need a professional camera like the d7000?
 
You don't need a D7000 to photograph the things you mentioned. However I've found that photography tends to attract a lot of people like myself (gadget geeks).

I know if I bought a D3100 it would only end up as a stop gap on the road to a better model. If you're of the same nature then I'd suggest you go for the best you can afford and save yourself a fortune (in lost value as you sell on).

If you're not of that nature then go for the cheapest model that suits your needs and spend on lenses instead.
 
Last edited:
Thanks that seems like good advice I'm thinking the 3200 purely because to an extent its slightly more future proof and every review I've seen says it's an incredible camera for what it is! That said I'm checking on here as I've always found forums to be the best places to get reliable information!
 
I've had my D3100 18 months as my first foray into dSLR and don't see it as a stop gap at all. I think its a great little camera for someone starting out who could then spend any extra cash on more useful things like better lenses and flash guns. (just as i've done)

And if I did decide to sell my D3100 for an upgrade, I doubt it would be for a D3200.

Lee, not sure what you see in future proofing yourself with a D3200 over a D3100? The D3100 is hardly without a decent feature list?

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D3100

I'm not sure theres £200 worth of advantages there? Each to their own I suppose? But for me, that £200 could get you a 35mm 1.8 lens with some change for other requirements (memory cards, filters etc)

I'm no expert, but i've found nothing that's held me back so far with my D3100 apart from time, increasing my knowledge and needing other kit (flash etc) to do what I what to do. Nothing to do with the body itself. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot it's good to get input from someone whose been through what I'm just stepping into
 
The people above who recommend getting the D3200 or D7000 to have valid points but personally I would stick with the D3100. It’s more than capable and you will learn far more experimenting with different lenses that you would with a better spec camera. I bought a 50mm 1.4 to go with my D3000 and its made me a better photographer than I would have been with a D7000 and only the kit lens.
 
Tunbridge said:
The people above who recommend getting the D3200 or D7000 to have valid points but personally I would stick with the D3100. It’s more than capable and you will learn far more experimenting with different lenses that you would with a better spec camera. I bought a 50mm 1.4 to go with my D3000 and its made me a better photographer than I would have been with a D7000 and only the kit lens.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm with this. The trouble with spending a fortune on the latest and greatest body is that in a year or two's time, there'll be replacement out and somebody else will be buying the same camera for half the price but getting identical results. Spend on a decent lens and it might last you forever.

So, if it were me, I'd spend as little as possible to get a used but modernish DSLR (a D3000, D200 or a D80 would be just fine) or if new a D3100 will be great. Any money left over can go into the lens fund or tuition or whatever else is needed. Tuition or reading material should be very high up the list if you're new to all this. Money spent in this area will yield far better results than spending a fortune on high end body.
 
gad-westy said:
Yep, I'm with this. The trouble with spending a fortune on the latest and greatest body is that in a year or two's time, there'll be replacement out and somebody else will be buying the same camera for half the price but getting identical results. Spend on a decent lens and it might last you forever.

So, if it were me, I'd spend as little as possible to get a used but modernish DSLR (a D3000, D200 or a D80 would be just fine) or if new a D3100 will be great. Any money left over can go into the lens fund or tuition or whatever else is needed. Tuition or reading material should be very high up the list if you're new to all this. Money spent in this area will yield far better results than spending a fortune on high end body.
Click to expand...

Very sensible advice, a entry level or top if the range dslr will only produce an image as good as the weakest link, the person taking the photo, so a good photographer will be able to produce a goods shot with either while a poor photographer will produce poor photos with either. The main benefits for me on the higher level cameras are the ease to change settings and more rugged build qualities. The last thing is, if you step up from the entry level cameras you can use the older manual focus lenses, where you can't on the entry level cameras.
 
Unless your heavily into Video then consider the 5100 over the 3200.

It has a better feature set.
 
Ok thanks everyone but I'm going to go for the 3100! Now am I better off buying just body and get a good lens separate or to go with the 18-55 to start with?
 
L33wgn said:
Ok thanks everyone but I'm going to go for the 3100! Now am I better off buying just body and get a good lens separate or to go with the 18-55 to start with?
Click to expand...

I suppose how much extra you'll pay for the 18-55...

The 18-55 is decent enough in terms of results and probably ideal for starting out but if you want to go 'off piste' I'm a big fan of the 18-70 which would probably have to be bought used.
 
I would buy a cheep used body, when you work out what type of photography you are interested in buy a better body with features that will be useful for that type of photography.
 
I had a D40 for years and never really cared much to upgrade. It was taking great pictures and it was cheap and light so I didn't care much where I was taking it with me. With the 35mm it was so small and compact that it was never a problem.

Having said that eventually you will be looking for all sort of things that it cannot do easily (change settings without delving on menus, better/faster AF, better built quality, better viewfinder and so on). The D7k is a huge step up but in your case I would definitely look into the D5100 even if it had to be s/h.

BTW why only considering Nikon?
 
L33wgn said:
Ok thanks everyone but I'm going to go for the 3100! Now am I better off buying just body and get a good lens separate or to go with the 18-55 to start with?
Click to expand...

I would search around for a cheap but good second hand lens, you don't need to buy the lens because it is the kit lens, there are plenty of other lenses which can be bought second hand for the same price as a new 18-55
 
I'm really looking at the nikons as ive handled one and found it easy to use plus they have the setting which teaches you how to do certain shots! In truth I'm a huge fan of a bargain and the d3100 stands out
 
As nobody mentioned this - GOOD GLASS FIRST. I'd much rather buy a good lens and a cheaper used body, rather than expensive shiny new body with cheap slow 18-55mm. Incidentally, lenses keep value well, bodies devalue rather quickly. 3 years down the line that 3200 will be very cheap.
 
daugirdas said:
As nobody mentioned this - GOOD GLASS FIRST. I'd much rather buy a good lens and a cheaper used body, rather than expensive shiny new body with cheap slow 18-55mm. Incidentally, lenses keep value well, bodies devalue rather quickly. 3 years down the line that 3200 will be very cheap.
Click to expand...

That cause it's the good glass mantra is no longer as true as it was. When film was very common, the quality of the film and the developing effected the image quality. Now the body and sensor fill that role instead and do affect quality
 
daugirdas said:
As nobody mentioned this - GOOD GLASS FIRST. I'd much rather buy a good lens and a cheaper used body, rather than expensive shiny new body with cheap slow 18-55mm. Incidentally, lenses keep value well, bodies devalue rather quickly. 3 years down the line that 3200 will be very cheap.
Click to expand...

You're certainly not the first to mention it but yes 100% agree. Wish I'd know this when I started.
 
I recently went back to an SLR from the V1, and opted for the D3100. Don't be put off by the beginners tag. Everything about the 3100's factor appealed, and that's coming from someone who owned a D700 until recently and who has sold plenty of images (although only locally, wouldn't pretend to compete with the big boys!). The more I know my own photography, the less I need to change any settings quickly except aperture or shutterspeed for creativity. Back button AF, reliable metering, decent AF (better than my D80, my last DX camera) and easy control over the three main parameters using the Fn button mapped to ISO. I don't miss a top screen, either, because the back info screen is easier to read and doesn't require I tilt my camera when I remove my eye from the viewfinder.

The sensor in the 3200 is very probably one of the best ever put in a digital camera - that is not to be taken lightly, and bodes well for the higher body refreshes - but for now the 3100 and the fast 35 prime represent the biggest bang-for-buck available in the world of photography. For £400 or thereabouts you can piece together a camera which punches so far above its weight it's hard to beat.

Light first, eyes second, lens third. Camera body doesn't even figure highly in what makes a good image. Spend your money on glass and destinations and enjoy the lightweight body as a tool to make the important things come together.
 
danbroad said:
Camera body doesn't even figure highly in what makes a good image.
Click to expand...

that's so untrue nowadays. Course it does, why else did you mention the d3200's sensor. You're no longer shooting on film where the film choice and lab made the difference. Now the body is the equivalent of the film and lab
 
The sensor is important, but if you figure it more important than the other items on that list then we're going to have to agree to disagree. There isn't a digital Slr on the market that can't pull a world class shot.
 
danbroad said:
The sensor is important, but if you figure it more important than the other items on that list then we're going to have to agree to disagree. There isn't a digital Slr on the market that can't pull a world class shot.
Click to expand...

I don't figure it any more important then anything else. The old truism of good glass before everything else is no longer as true as it was, thats the point. Your choice of DSLR affects the image far more the a film SLR choice ever would. (There it was the film you put in and the developing afterwards mattered though and the sensor has replaced that).

You'd actually said

Camera body doesn't even figure highly in what makes a good image
Click to expand...
which just isn't true
 
Glass is more important than the body but that doesn't mean the body isn't important because the fact is that the body is still very important
 
boyfalldown said:
That cause it's the good glass mantra is no longer as true as it was. When film was very common, the quality of the film and the developing effected the image quality. Now the body and sensor fill that role instead and do affect quality
Click to expand...

That is so untrue :shrug:. Glass defines the image, while sensor only makes an effort to digitize all that data. Glass makes the image look what it is, starting with colour rendition, contrast, distortion, flare control, CA, out of focus areas, sharpness, focal length and so on (the list goes on).
The camera sensor, merely limits all this analogue data within certain limits of dynamic range, number of pixels with certain SNR, and readout speed. That is all relatively minor.

Of course, there are software tools, that can increase contrast (at the expense of noise), correct CA, distortion (hitting sharpness), sharpen up (after some stage we see big artifacts), adjust colour, clean up some noise (loosing a bit to a lot of details), but there is no way to make f/5.6 image look like 2.8 one (let alone shutter speed), can't change the focal length (apart from some moderate cropping), and in fact with high res dslrs sharpness of lens is ever as important or else that D800 is probably not giving any better results than D40 with cheapo beer bottle glass. Then we have special cases like tilt shift, macro and super macro, super tele, fisheye, 85/1.2 and that's where that uber modern body is about the very last important thing on the list.
 
daugirdas said:
That is so untrue :shrug:. Glass defines the image, while sensor only makes an effort to digitize all that data. Glass makes the image look what it is, starting with colour rendition, contrast, distortion, flare control, CA, out of focus areas, sharpness, focal length and so on (the list goes on).
The camera sensor, merely limits all this analogue data within certain limits of dynamic range, number of pixels with certain SNR, and readout speed. That is all relatively minor.
Click to expand...

no its not, :bang: and I explained why as well.
'The good glass mantra is no longer as true as it one was'.

The whole body is far more important then it once was, purely because back when you shot on film the body was just a way of getting the right amount of light onto that bit of film. Now the body has become as important as the film and developing process was then.


daugirdas said:
Of course, there are software tools, that can increase contrast (at the expense of noise), correct CA, distortion (hitting sharpness), sharpen up (after some stage we see big artifacts), adjust colour, clean up some noise (loosing a bit to a lot of details), but there is no way to make f/5.6 image look like 2.8 one (let alone shutter speed), can't change the focal length (apart from some moderate cropping), and in fact with high res dslrs sharpness of lens is ever as important or else
Click to expand...

where exactly did I say the lens was unimportant. :shrug: That whole paragraph is just irrelevant. & exactly non of my lenses will change its focal length anyway


daugirdas said:
and in fact with high res dslrs sharpness of lens is ever as important or else that D800 is probably not giving any better results than D40 with cheapo beer bottle glass. Then we have special cases like tilt shift, macro and super macro, super tele, fisheye, 85/1.2 and that's where that uber modern body is about the very last important thing on the list.
Click to expand...

true, but by the same count that d40 is not going to show off the abilities of say the 14-24 f/2.8 in the same way as the d800 can. In exactly the same way as your bonusprint free roll of film was never going to give the same results as a roll of Fuji Velvia will. Or to put it another way, are you really saying that lens (the 14-24) on a d40 will produce as good a photo as it will on a d800

Hopefully that explains it a bit clearer for you. But to sum up the old truism of 'good glass before anything else' is not as true as it once was
 
Last edited:
I think we must define the qualities of a great image entirely differently. I try and see art and composition, light, subject and narrative. I would hate to look at an image and define it by chroma noise and dynamic range etc... Kind of sucks the soul out if it for me. We have separate criteria.

Nowhere in my appraisal of any photo is camera body important, just as I don't feel the make of piano changes a piano concerto - unless it was out of tune, of course, but no current digital sensor could be called that. I don't even consider lens unless, as mentioned, it imparts its character on the output.

Anyway, to the OP - yes, the 3200 is worth it, depending on how much 'it' you want to spend.
 
boyfalldown said:
no its not, :bang: and I explained why as well.
'The good glass mantra is no longer as true as it one was'.

The whole body is far more important then it once was, purely because back when you shot on film the body was just a way of getting the right amount of light onto that bit of film. Now the body has become as important as the film and developing process was then.

Nobody is claiming that body is NOT important, but glass is significantly more so. I am afraid photography is a bit more than just getting "the right amount of light onto that bit". It is art, or should be at least and that's where lenses can be used creatively. I would be almost saying that this paper X is whiter and smoother than before, and therefore the paint and brushes are no longer that important.


where exactly did I say the lens was unimportant. :shrug: That whole paragraph is just irrelevant. & exactly non of my lenses will change its focal length anyway

Irrelevant - you can change lenses. As you are shooting with fast primes, you should be the first one to tell how important that f/1.4 is to you. Imagine yourself with 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 (or 18-55dx) which is effectively what you are suggesting OP to get with the most expensive body he can get.


true, but by the same count that d40 is not going to show off the abilities of say the 14-24 f/2.8 in the same way as the d800 can. In exactly the same way as your bonusprint free roll of film was never going to give the same results as a roll of Fuji Velvia will. Or to put it another way, are you really saying that lens (the 14-24) on a d40 will produce as good a photo as it will on a d800
Click to expand...

This is not the comparison the thread is about. We are looking at 18-55mm new shiny (entry level) dSLR with supposedly good sensor vs maybe 3 year old tech and significantly better lens. I know which one can be used more creatively and can deliver more in the right hands, and it is the one with good lens. It is not like on the latest camera can take good pictures, and the old ones are obsolete.

Put rubbish lens (sigma 28-80 if you like) on D800 and it is only as good (or worse to be fair) as d40 +14-28
 
danbroad said:
I think we must define the qualities of a great image entirely differently. I try and see art and composition, light, subject and narrative. I would hate to look at an image and define it by chroma noise and dynamic range etc... Kind of sucks the soul out if it for me. We have separate criteria.

Nowhere in my appraisal of any photo is camera body important, just as I don't feel the make of piano changes a piano concerto - unless it was out of tune, of course, but no current digital sensor could be called that. I don't even consider lens unless, as mentioned, it imparts its character on the output.

Anyway, to the OP - yes, the 3200 is worth it, depending on how much 'it' you want to spend.
Click to expand...

agree completely

daugirdas said:
Nobody is claiming that body is NOT important, but glass is significantly more so. I am afraid photography is a bit more than just getting "the right amount of light onto that bit". It is art, or should be at least and that's where lenses can be used creatively. I would be almost saying that this paper X is whiter and smoother than before, and therefore the paint and brushes are no longer that important.
Click to expand...

when you strip it back all photography is,is the capture of light, and all the tools, everything else is about you getting the right amount of focused (and not focused)light onto one point.

daugirdas said:
Irrelevant - you can change lenses. As you are shooting with fast primes, you should be the first one to tell how important that f/1.4 is to you. Imagine yourself with 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 (or 18-55dx) which is effectively what you are suggesting OP to get with the most expensive body he can get.
Click to expand...

please show me where I've suggested the OP gets the most expensive bodies he can, or even implied it. I'll state it again for you, so its easy. All I've ever said is

The truism about getting good glass above all else is not as true as it once was
Click to expand...

nothing else.

Maybe you'd quote where I've said that translates to 'Get the most expensive body you can'.


daugirdas said:
This is not the comparison the thread is about. We are looking at 18-55mm new shiny (entry level) dSLR with supposedly good sensor vs maybe 3 year old tech and significantly better lens. I know which one can be used more creatively and can deliver more in the right hands, and it is the one with good lens. It is not like on the latest camera can take good pictures, and the old ones are obsolete.

Put rubbish lens (sigma 28-80 if you like) on D800 and it is only as good (or worse to be fair) as d40 +14-28
Click to expand...

You're confusing yourself. There is no comparison thread, but you seem to want to pull this one off at all sorts of tangents. Along the way you seem to of translated my very simple statement as alternatively

1. Body is more important then glass

or 2. Buy a really expensive body.

nowhere have I said either. :shrug:

Maybe simply you could interpret it as saying 'body is simply a bigger part of the equation then it once was.'
 
Last edited:
Well I took the plunge today and got the d3100 from jessops with the 18-55 lens kit! Got a few bits thrown in for free and took out the 3 year cover for £50!

So I guess now the learning starts, already taken a few hundered pictures as I took my dog to see his puppies ( pics uploaded when I sort out my ad card reader )

Thanks for all the advice everyone
 
Still waiting on my 3200. In red (yes I like Bright colours ) arriving
Sometime in July hopefully
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top