New DSLR: D3300 vs D5200

[marvelousprashant]

Hi guys, posting after a long time. Old members sujoy and nac might remember me. I am planning to buy a DSLR next month. I am looking to get the Nikon D5200 or the D3300 (open to suggestions for other brands too) Budget is 30-35K with kit lens. I have a few specific questions:

1. In a number of reviews it is said that the Expeed 3 (in D5200) was a bit slow in camera operations (browsing through photos, quickly changing menu settings etc) Is it true?

2. The D5200 seems to have a banding issue in RAW files which has been solved in D3300. The banding occurs while trying to expose the shadows in Photoshop. How bad is this issue?

3. 14bit RAW on 5200 vs 12bit on D3300.... Does it matter in real life?

4. D3300 has no Optical low pass filter so theoretically it should be sharper. There are many videos showing the same on Youtube... but they are using Zeiss or Leica or other pro lens. I'll be using the kit and the Nikon 55mm f1.8G. Will there be any benefit of no OPLF with these lens?

5. 39AF points (D5200) vs 11AF points (D3300). How does one benefit from more AF points. In reviews I have read that more AF only helps in sports photography which I won't be doing. Secondly D3300 has only 1 cross type AF point. My question is are the other non AF points accurate when subject is still (like shooting portraits)?

6. Does the D5200 offer more controls over D3300?

I am really interested in the D3300 because from the comparisons, the D3300 seems sharper and better higher ISO performer than D5200. Minor difference but I am a pixel peeper!

Feel free to add any other points that you may seem important. Thanks

 

[nac]

Hi! After a long time...
I don't know much about the differences, in fact I know nothing.
3. I don't think it matters a lot for an enthusiast
4. ditto. (I guess).
5. Sujoy have hands on experience about this
6. Most likely. That was the case before...
And don't say better low light performance coz, DXO says so...

 

[marvelousprashant]

Imaging-resource has a tool to compare images from different cameras. Comparing both d3300 and 5200 I came to the conclusion that d5200 has more of greenish chroma noise while d3300 is grainy but colours are accurate at higher ISOs. Probably due to new sensor processor combo. Not huge difference but it is there

 

[nac]

Not much of a difference in paper. I don't remember whether it's D5200 or D5300, it does have manual exposure control when recording videos. That's a plus.
Focusing system, LCD, bracketing are in D5200's favour while VF, processor + no low pass filter in D3300's (does this one have wireless flash commander???) and seems impressive battery life. An in-depth review of both the cameras can tell the difference in detail other than this paper difference.

 

[sujoyp]

Hi guys, posting after a long time. Old members sujoy and nac might remember me. I am planning to buy a DSLR next month. I am looking to get the Nikon D5200 or the D3300 (open to suggestions for other brands too) Budget is 30-35K with kit lens. I have a few specific questions:

1. In a number of reviews it is said that the Expeed 3 (in D5200) was a bit slow in camera operations (browsing through photos, quickly changing menu settings etc) Is it true?
No Idea...but Dpreview do not mention anything like that

2. The D5200 seems to have a banding issue in RAW files which has been solved in D3300. The banding occurs while trying to expose the shadows in Photoshop. How bad is this issue?
No Idea...please provide a link which mentiones the issue
3. 14bit RAW on 5200 vs 12bit on D3300.... Does it matter in real life?
No difference in real life...professionals may find some difference, I cant...but I still use 14 bit RAW
4. D3300 has no Optical low pass filter so theoretically it should be sharper. There are many videos showing the same on Youtube... but they are using Zeiss or Leica or other pro lens. I'll be using the kit and the Nikon 55mm f1.8G. Will there be any benefit of no OPLF with these lens?
I am sure you will get sharper results but more grains will be there...and to remove that grain you have to sacrifice the sharpness

5. 39AF points (D5200) vs 11AF points (D3300). How does one benefit from more AF points. In reviews I have read that more AF only helps in sports photography which I won't be doing. Secondly D3300 has only 1 cross type AF point. My question is are the other non AF points accurate when subject is still (like shooting portraits)?
I think cross AF points can meter as well as focus but non-cross points are also as good ....thy are accurate..no issues ...for portraits no need of soo many AF points...one is sufficient
6. Does the D5200 offer more controls over D3300?
I dont think there are any extra button in D5200 over D3300 ....better grip and better sensor are the main reason
I am really interested in the D3300 because from the comparisons, the D3300 seems sharper and better higher ISO performer than D5200. Minor difference but I am a pixel peeper!

Feel free to add any other points that you may seem important. Thanks

check the text in red ....but I still think getting D5200 is more practical since its size is small, and it have all the right features available.

 

[nac]

- D3300 does have in body focus motor? What??? Yeah, that's what I read in some sites. But it turns out to be a wrong info.
- D3300 records mono sound. Do you fancy shooting video with your DSLR?

I am reading some reviews of both the cameras. Let's see which one is better.

This I read in one of the review (of D3300). I couldn't understand it/or depth of it. Could someone throw some light on it, please? What does it mean? Can't we see the things properly when using prime lenses?

VFs matte field won't properly show the restricted field with lenses faster than f/4, but that's OK because this is how Nikon got the finder so bright.

Prashant, I see that you're switching system But 600D fancies me a lot. The pricing, the features it offer for the price and that dual lens kit combo.

 

[marvelousprashant]

Re banding: *www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50779738

read it in a couple of more reviews including dxo that it is absent on d3300 and d5300

The sensor on d3300 performs better from what I have seen so far. Probably because of new processor
[MENTION=125321]nac[/MENTION] IQ wise I think nikon is ahead. I like the controls on canon. For example on nikon the live view doesn't show how changing the aperture will affect the image.

Another camera I am considering is the sony A58. Mostly because of in camera stabilization. I wish nikon had it. The VR lens are do costly

 

[nac]

^ Yeah, I see that Nikon's IQ is better in terms of colour reproduction (may be better dynamic range). But when you look things at pixel level, I don't think Nikon have upper hand here. At least, that's my view based on the comparison I saw in dpreview studio comparison tool.

Come on, pushing something to an extreme and expecting a clean picture is too much... But there are some points in that discussion. "When other cameras can give a clean picture, why can't this camera?" But I don't think I would bother about this a lot.

Check if you can find A57 in your budget. I saw chromaretail is selling @35k or around that price. It's better than A58.

 

[marvelousprashant]

Noise occurs when sensor pixels are unable to collect enough light. Lower MP = larger pixels = more area for photons to enter. So at higher ISO the higer MP cameras are unable to resolve much detail and are equivalent to lower MP cameras. But upto ISO800 24Mp will have a huge impact on the level of details. This is probably why D4s is only 16MP despite being full frame.

Also if you see canon has made no significant changes in processor or sensor in the newer models.

Even if you are correct and there is no difference between nikon and canon, I don't see any reason not to buy nikon. Canon offers almost nothing extra compared to Canon.

 

[The Incinerator]

Get the EOS 600D with the twin lens combo. All this bullcrap of Nikon's IQ is better is not all true.Its total nonsense. In real world,and yes Im using a D90 too I find the Canon superior.Image sharpness ,vibrance overall IQ is definitely better.Then come the controls and UI ,Canon is miles ahead.You can use the Canon single handedly since the button placements are just right where you want them to be. I find the Canons grip better too,the D 5200 or 3200 is just too small and prolonged usage is painful for me.

For Rs 36K you get a dual lens kit at the moment.Its fabulous of a deal.Look for real world results and not at synthetics. All this bullcrap stories of Canons low light noise and IQ is laughable. If you want I can post images or links for a proof.


If you say Canon 600 dosnt offer anything extra over a Nikon 5200, I would say hey Nikon misses out on Wireless flash or dosnt have ALW/CLS but Canon does. Thats a very usefull feature even for birthday parties!
More over theres no No HSS/Auto FP, no wireless flash via onboard, tiny viewfinder, no DOF preview, no hard dedicated buttons for ISO and WB over the Canon EOS 600D. Canon indeed offers a lot more my friend.These are actually what you need,and in practicality I have seen the ISO and WB dedicated button is very very useful in almost all situations.

 

[nac]

I am not suggesting not to buy Nikon, just that I am attracted to 600D over the other models. Despite the point I raised about the IQ at pixel level, I am very much convinced that the Nikon's (D5200) IQ is better than 600D.

May be Canon thinks that they are offering more than they supposed to as far as IQ is concern. Just kidding... They are offering more, just that it's not reflecting in DXO mark. In fact, there are so many new processors from Canon since you bought SX240. Digic 5+, and high end DSLRs have dual digic 5+ and recently they introduced Digic 6. And few more things other than Sensor and processor. But that doesn't make 600D any better.

All the models announced after 600D (in its line) are too expensive. In fact, more expensive than the yesteryear 60D. The only new model from Canon in your budget is 1200D. No, I am not suggesting it.

 

[sujoyp]

[MENTION=132251]prashant[/MENTION] I dont remember which camera you are using ...but really there is no significant difference in IQ DR in practical sense...all those numbers are just numbers with no big difference.
but if you dont have much to loose then D5200 is the way to go ...they say it have better sensor then even then D7100 ....

@inci you can not compare D90 IQ with 600D...compare it with canon 50D and you will know D90 is better... Canon released 650D to compete with D5200 but it was such minor upgrade that it practically failed ...Canon 700D is a proper upgrade ...but its quit costly...600d is still nice

 

[The Incinerator]

[MENTION=128954]sujoy[/MENTION] The 650D was a major upgrade with the hybrid sensor that 700D uses at the moment, but what was missing were the STM lens that was required to complement that Sensor,and it was not available easily in all markets.The kit lens was 18-135 STM which made the 650D very expensive as 18-55mm STM was not available back then but only the 18-135mm and the Pancake 40mm STM.It was this pricing reason why it wasnt popular.And people who bought it with the plain non STM 18-55 IS to save money never benefited from the same 700D sensor that the EOS650D used. Now the 700D is the same 650D with a new firmware, redesigned mode dial and a better Live View. So that dosnt make the EOS 650D inferior at all to any competitor or even the 700D!

But the 700D is in such a price bracket which makes no sense to me to go for it over the superior D7000. More over the fact remains that the IQ of the 600D and 700D is virtually the same,check DP review!

 

[nac]

More over the fact remains that the IQ of the 600D and 700D is virtually the same,check DP review!

Yes, that's exactly what Prashant said, Canon's upgrades doesn't offer better IQ.

Prashant, Ken Rockwell review suggests that buying D3100/D5100 is wise than D3300/D5200.

 

[marvelousprashant]

He may be right but d3300 is selling for 31k with kit lens here. In US it is $650

 

[marvelousprashant]

Also *www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM I find it better than dpreview tool

 

[The Incinerator]

Yes, that's exactly what Prashant said, Canon's upgrades doesn't offer better IQ.

Prashant, Ken Rockwell review suggests that buying D3100/D5100 is wise than D3300/D5200.

For that matter if you read reviews its the same with Nikon when its image quality with model revisions. For eg the D5200/3200 image quality dosnt really offer anything substantial (read worth upgrading) over a D5100/3100. Exactly my point as your Ken Rockwell link,and yes he is sold out to Nikon,I never take his reviews seriously!Ken Rockwell aint fair IMHO.

 

[marvelousprashant]

Not worth upgrading but worthy enough to buy newer models. Like faster fps. Better low light performance. Faster processor. Also DSLR is a long term investment so better to invest in current generation technology. So no d3100 for me at least.

 

[The Incinerator]

To put things in to perspective,when its DSLRs its exactly the opposite for DSLR users,its the Lens that are long term and the bodies are actually short term!

You worry a lot about low light,banding FPS,Focus Points ,how high ISO are you gonna go? Are you into serious sports photography (FPS and Focus Points)? Then my friend you should seriously look out of this bracket and look at Pro level cameras or you will be disappointed.

 

[sujoyp]

[MENTION=132251]prashant[/MENTION] for me D3300 is an upgrade to D3100 which is nikon's basic model ...although D3300 will produce nice pictures but you may miss some better features like faster focus in D5200, better metering, better grip etc ...Its always advisable to get higher level dslr then latest basic dslr .... I remember people suggesting D90 instead of D5100 in many forums cause DSLR is not just about features like a mobile...its a tool you will be using day to day for imagemaking...
Its also suggested to go to a shop and check them manually ...check the balance, grip,button placements tilt screen etc and decide ....