deciphering the code, specs versus actually performance.

[mr moose]

So, it is a sad day in my house, my trusty pentax k200 decided to give up the electronic ghost and stopped working (in many ways), which leaves me with a delima.  I have 3x K mount lenses but not too keen to go back down the pentax path because their bodies are expensive.  Which leaves me looking at two cameras in my budget, a nikkon 3200 with 18-55 lens kit for $449 or a 1200D with similar lens kit for $398.

 

Everyone says get the Nikon because the specs are better, but the in-depth reviews say the slightly better specs don't really matter in the end (especially for casual users like me), because the higher specs don't equate with better pictures. They both crap out at iso 6400 even though one goes further, they both have cropped sensors.  The only thing that  seems to favour the 3200 is the DxOMark which I can't determine whether it is an improvement that an end user like me would even be aware of if not told about it.

 

Appreciate your thoughts on the subject.  Is the extra $50 worth it for the nikon? would I regret not paying the extra if I bought the 1200D?  would I still get great images and be blissfully unaware they could be marginally better with education?

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

[dadasmithywinkle]

So, it is a sad day in my house, my trusty pentax k200 decided to give up the electronic ghost and stopped working (in many ways), which leaves me with a delima.  I have 3x K mount lenses but not too keen to go back down the pentax path because their bodies are expensive.  Which leaves me looking at two cameras in my budget, a nikkon 3200 with 18-55 lens kit for $449 or a 1200D with similar lens kit for $398.

 

Everyone says get the Nikon because the specs are better, but the in-depth reviews say the slightly better specs don't really matter in the end (especially for casual users like me), because the higher specs don't equate with better pictures. They both crap out at iso 6400 even though one goes further, they both have cropped sensors.  The only thing that  seems to favour the 3200 is the DxOMark which I can't determine whether it is an improvement that an end user like me would even be aware of if not told about it.

 

Appreciate your thoughts on the subject.  Is the extra $50 worth it for the nikon? would I regret not paying the extra if I bought the 1200D?  would I still get great images and be blissfully unaware they could be marginally better with education?

 

 

Cheers

I have the 3200 with both the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. LOVE IT! Then again, I'm a camera n00b, but I'd buy it again.

[Dw136]

Have you looked into the used market? People don't usually like to buy used but DSLR (especially entry level ones) are often babied and sold off without much use. A used Pentax K5 ( around $350 USD w/ kit lens) will kick the crap out of those two cameras and allow you to reuse your lenses for some if you're into manual focus.

 

Even a used d5100 + kit will probably run you about ($400) and the ergonomics are much better. (I miss my tilty-flippy screen) 

 

If you're dead set on buying new i'd probably just go to a local camera store and play around with them. I've done this before at my local (Shop at the local store they're often way nicer) he sold me two cameras + lenses and told me to just return the one I didn't like as much, no questions asked, no re-stocking fee. Even gave it to me in writing, such nice guy. Basically went around for a week shooting both of them and decided then. 

[dizmo]

I think you have to look at the options the cameras provide more than just picture quality alone.

For example the D3200 has an external mic jack, has better color depth, more focus points, a much higher resolution screen (I can't stand anything under 640k), and a nice scroll wheel on the back of the body.

The D3200 has more pixels but that won't really matter too much unless you're blowing up the prints.

 

I'd go Nikon just on the screen alone.

[mr moose]

Have you looked into the used market? People don't usually like to buy used but DSLR (especially entry level ones) are often babied and sold off without much use. A used Pentax K5 ( around $350 USD w/ kit lens) will kick the crap out of those two cameras and allow you to reuse your lenses for some if you're into manual focus.

 

Even a used d5100 + kit will probably run you about ($400) and the ergonomics are much better. (I miss my tilty-flippy screen) 

 

If you're dead set on buying new i'd probably just go to a local camera store and play around with them. I've done this before at my local (Shop at the local store they're often way nicer) he sold me two cameras + lenses and told me to just return the one I didn't like as much, no questions asked, no re-stocking fee. Even gave it to me in writing, such nice guy. Basically went around for a week shooting both of them and decided then. 

 

Yeah, my experience with secondhand in Australia isn't that good, people either want near brand new prices fro stuff that's 5 years old just because it "still works fine". Or it's rubbish.

 

I think you have to look at the options the cameras provide more than just picture quality alone.

For example the D3200 has an external mic jack, has better color depth, more focus points, a much higher resolution screen (I can't stand anything under 640k), and a nice scroll wheel on the back of the body.

The D3200 has more pixels but that won't really matter too much unless you're blowing up the prints.

 

I'd go Nikon just on the screen alone.

 

Cheers,  I don't need to the mic in and video is not important to me.  Not too sure about the importance of screen resolution I am used to something pretty small and low res, however what's the difference between 18Mp and 24Mp as far as average end user is concerned?  I mainly do sports and portrait with the occasional landscape.

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

100% get the D3200 its easily worth an extra $50

 

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-1200D-vs-Nikon-D3200

 

Lower noise, better image quality, higher resolution, better screen, more dynamic range, faster continuous speed, smaller, lighter, better battery life, and more

 

literally NO benefit to the 1200d

[mr moose]

Thanks guys,  looks like the 3200 it is then. 

[Blade of Grass]

Thanks guys,  looks like the 3200 it is then. 

Just going to confirm, the D3200 is the better option. 

 

Good luck

[mr moose]

Just going to confirm, the D3200 is the better option. 

 

Good luck

 

Cheers,  That was the general consensus from nearly every post or thread I have read, yet my issue was that no one really went into depth about why.  As tech heads we know it's one thing to have superior specs on a product but it can be completely different thing to see that translate into real world performance.

[mr moose]

I think you have to look at the options the cameras provide more than just picture quality alone.

For example the D3200 has an external mic jack, has better color depth, more focus points, a much higher resolution screen (I can't stand anything under 640k), and a nice scroll wheel on the back of the body.

The D3200 has more pixels but that won't really matter too much unless you're blowing up the prints.

 

I'd go Nikon just on the screen alone.

 

 

100% get the D3200 its easily worth an extra $50

 

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-1200D-vs-Nikon-D3200

 

Lower noise, better image quality, higher resolution, better screen, more dynamic range, faster continuous speed, smaller, lighter, better battery life, and more

 

literally NO benefit to the 1200d

 

 

Just going to confirm, the D3200 is the better option. 

 

Good luck

 

It's the only way I could mark everyone as having solved it for me, thanks guys.