Jump to content

Thoughs on Nikon 3200 and 5200


Recommended Posts

I've been away from Nikon after shooting with Canon for many years. I was a bit intrigued with some rather inexpensive, but seemingly impressive Nikon kits I saw at Costco today. Both the 5200 and 3200 Nikon bodies have 24 mp and  the kits come with  two zoom VR  lenses ), and sell for around a $1000 plus and $750 respectfully.

 

As a back up spare system, or even a primary stock shooting system, would I be fooling myself thinking the Nikon 24 megapixel systems give me better resolution than my Canon 18 mp?

 

And then what about the lenses? Obviously they are the less expensive kit versions, but what about the final resolution results? Seems with all the technology, those lenses would be just about as sharp, (or pretty close as to not be a real issue in QC) as their counterparts that cost two or three times as much, correct?

 

Understandably some of the advantages such as AF speed, as well as numerous other bonus features are what you pay for on the more expensive kits, but for simple landscape/scenic (ie tripod) shots, is there much, if any loss, quatlity wise with the final product using the lesser expensive kits?

 

If anything, it'd be tempting just to keep a spare kit/system in the car at all times, just in case certain ops arise out of nowhere..But I don't want to be throwing money away to discover they're not up to par.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much emphasis on MP to be honest. MP doesn't matter that much when it comes to this type of photography. MP is great when you want to blow up a print to large proportions.

 

Most important thing to me is the lens. It's been discussed quite a few times and unless the camera is totally awful, which very few are these days, then the lens arguably comes first.

 

The small cameras like Fuji and Sony just for example vary between 12 and 20 MP respectively and in terms of resolution there isn't a lot of difference to the naked eye IMO. Other factors seem to be more important. I don't really like kit lenses, got to honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with those particular Nikons but I have sold images on Alamy that were taken with the D80 -- quite an old camera as these things go and only 10MPs. And I used the kit lens. I think one of the differences from the more "pro" Nikons is that they are not as tough. Not as thoroughly weather - proofed. I've been wanting them to come out with a D400 as my main camera has been the D300. I finally got the D7100 and I actually wish it only had 18MPs. 24 seems a lot to me. I don't usually do landscapes, though, so others will probably have better information for you.

 

Paulette

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left Nikon DSLR's after the D100 (great body in its day) and have been using FUJI DSLR's for almost a decade.

I just got back into Nikon with the D700 and it is a great camera at high ISO, but in the studio at 100 ISO I still

prefer my FUJI CCD's. For glass I'm only using high-end Nikkors and my only complaint with them is that as they

get old (decades) I'm having trouble with the focus mechanisms and the diaphragms, just spent a fortune having

my 300 2.8 IF ED rebuilt. I also do not believe that the new Nikkors are built as well as the original AI or early AFED’s.

 

I feel the need to write again that I personally do not care to CMOS sensors, which all Nikon's are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the D3200 and am happy with it.  I don't have anything on alamy with it but some in the pipeline.  I also have  the D90 and the D200.  I have never had a QC fail with the D90 and the 18-55 VR kit lens.  The D3200 does not have a vertical grip which I like and have for the D200 and D90 but many prefer smaller cameras.  When I bought the D3200 they offered $150 off of the 55-300 lens if bought together. 

marvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much emphasis on MP to be honest.

 

 

Absolutely! My highest value sale last month (not via Alamy) was from a 5.1mp image shot with a compact (in it's day) camera. I don't have anything that produces more than 14mp currently, DSLR is 12mp. There's no need for more. Both those kit combos would be more than adequate for shooting stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left Nikon DSLR's after the D100 (great body in its day) and have been using FUJI DSLR's for almost a decade.

I just got back into Nikon with the D700 and it is a great camera at high ISO, but in the studio at 100 ISO I still

prefer my FUJI CCD's. For glass I'm only using high-end Nikkors and my only complaint with them is that as they

get old (decades) I'm having trouble with the focus mechanisms and the diaphragms, just spent a fortune having

my 300 2.8 IF ED rebuilt. I also do not believe that the new Nikkors are built as well as the original AI or early AFED’s.

 

I feel the need to write again that I personally do not care to CMOS sensors, which all Nikon's are now.

Got to agree with you Chuck. My S5 is capable of turning out a certain quality that my D3 struggles with, particularly blue skies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D5200 is a good camera technology wise but due to the cost there are a few draw backs such as the small size which you may not find usable and also this will be nowhere near as robust as one of the pro models. I use a D7000 with the Nikon 17-55 and some of the results really are outstanding, the dynamic range is very good and handles highlights well. To get good results you need to learn how the camera reacts to certain situations and also you will need to check your focus and sharpness as you go along as the autofocus system cannot be trusted like you would with the pro models. As for kit lenses you could give it a go and check the results, I started with a Nikon 18-70 which was brilliant on my D200 but the results were very dissapointing with the D7000 presumably due to the higher resolution sensor.

 

It's vital that you use good quality glass with either of these cameras but maybe you could match these with one of the cheaper prime lenses? If you are shooting landscapes these will produce suprisingly good results if you work hard on your technique and will need to use a tripod more than you would normally to get clean results as on my camera the slightest movement can give some strange smudged results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate all the replies. Overall I gather  the best approach is to go for good glass, and don't worry so much about megapixels.

 

Chuck, you mentioned you like the old manual Nikon lenses. Me as well and I have several, They're fantastically built and will probably be around far longer than their modern counterparts.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes get the best Nikon lenses you can get even if you can't afford them and are serious about photography. Why? Because I guarantee that later on there will be another Nikon camera that comes out that you will want to get that is better than the one you currently use. But the lenses are pretty constant in terms of quality. This is naturally based on a Nikon DSLR and obviously discounts the smaller cameras as mentioned, which is another conversation and totally different.

 

The choice of Nikon lenses that are very good quality is very easy to assimilate. Or simplistically, any lens that is recommended by Nikon for the D800 that is able to resolve what is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi all

Interesting to read through all the previous posts. I'm going to open the subject out a bit rather than start a new thread, as it's sort of related. I've got a D200 currently with 12-24 f4 & 24-120 f4 lenses. The lenses are great but I keep thinking that the d200, whilst still a cracker of a camera, is beginning to reach the stage where it's newer rivals are just so much better. My dilemma is stay with it for the next year and save some pennies, or bite the bullet and get something new. Primarily going to be for landscapes / architecture and travel. Love the weight / feel of the D700 & can't push the budget far enough for a new d750, someone else has suggested the d300s but is this also reaching the same stage as the d200 (don't like the plastic feel of the 7000/7100 & they just feel too small in my hands)

 

Thoughts / advice really appreciated.Thanks for reading .

Martin

www.windmillskies.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why someone would choose to own two different brands of DSLRs. You probably won't be able swap lenses and, even if you can find an adapter, they rarely offer all the features of a lens manufactured for that specific brand. Better to stick with Canon unless you plan on trading in all your equipment for Nikon. Your back will thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

Interesting to read through all the previous posts. I'm going to open the subject out a bit rather than start a new thread, as it's sort of related. I've got a D200 currently with 12-24 f4 & 24-120 f4 lenses. The lenses are great but I keep thinking that the d200, whilst still a cracker of a camera, is beginning to reach the stage where it's newer rivals are just so much better. My dilemma is stay with it for the next year and save some pennies, or bite the bullet and get something new. Primarily going to be for landscapes / architecture and travel. Love the weight / feel of the D700 & can't push the budget far enough for a new d750, someone else has suggested the d300s but is this also reaching the same stage as the d200 (don't like the plastic feel of the 7000/7100 & they just feel too small in my hands)

 

Thoughts / advice really appreciated.Thanks for reading .

Martin

www.windmillskies.com

 

You should probably have started a new thread rather than bring this one back from the dead as it can be confusing (looking at fotoDogue's post which seems to be answering the OP). :)

 

Anyway, that aside, given your interests in architecture and landscape, you have got to think full frame. The D700 is almost 7 years old and, while it is a lovely camera, it is limited by its 12MP maximum file size. The good news may be that the D610 is available for £1,199 from several UK retailers (e.g WEX). I've not used one but word has it that it has similar excellent image quality to all of the recent full frame Nikons. If you can afford that and one or two of the cheaper prime lenses, then you are really going to enjoy a leap in image quality from what you have been using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Since this thread was started I hav used the D3200 and have had good results.  Large fine JPEGs go through QC just fine.  If I were looking for a low cost kit now I think it would be the D3300.  For me a higher end camera might be a D7100.  Not sure what Nikon has planned for high end DX format.  Still like using my old D90, and with new size limits the D200 in good light should be fine.

Marvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.