Best DSLR Cameras under $1000
Contents
- The Shootout
- Sony a65 Review
- Canon T4i Review
- Canon T3i Review
- Nikon D5100 Review
- Nikon D3200 Review
Nikon D3200 Review
Our compatriot, Bill Livolsi, already reviewed the Nikon D3200 in his shootout of Entry level DSLRs and rather than repeat everything that he wrote, I'll refer you to that fine article.
I have recapped my Pros and Cons in the lists below.
What's Hot about the Nikon D3200
- 24MP CMOS APS-C sensor
- Excellent image quality with RAW files
- Wide selection of lenses
- Bright, 921,000 dot LCD screen
- 1080p video at 24p and 30p frame rates
- Audio level controls and input for external microphone
- Assignable Function button
- Optional WU-1a Wi-Fi adapter
- Helpful Guide mode for beginners
What's Not So Caliente about the Nikon D3200
- Relatively slow 4fps continuous full resolution shooting
- Non-articulating screen
- No integrated image stabilization, (on the lens only)
- No Panorama, 3D or HDR shooting modes
- No Built-in GPS
- Noisy autofocusing in Movie mode
- Limited feature set like no bracketing
- No built-in autofocus motor requiring you to manually focus non AF-S lenses
Verdict
I do have a different perspective than Bill on the value of large megapixel sensors like the 24MP APS-C behemoth on the Nikon D3200.
This PhotoScope link gives a point of reference to this discussion. Click the link to see a comparison of the 16MP D5100 to the 24MP D3200. Look how they handle detail, color and noise.
As a starting point, image quality trumps all. No matter the number of megapixels on a sensor, 6 or 60, the image quality has to be excellent.
With that said, with equal image quality, I will take a sensor with 24MP over one with 16. It isn't just a matter of print size, but also the latitude a higher resolution image gives you in cropping.
One of the logistical drawbacks to 24MP sensors are the large 24MP RAW files they create. If you haven't upgraded your computer lately, your image processing workflow might be hobbled by these bigger files.
To put that D3200 24MP sensor to work, attach a nice wide angle prime lens, capture RAW files and this Nikon could make a wonderful bargain priced landscape camera
Or switch out the lens for a 85mm prime, attach the optional WU-1a Wi-Fi adapter and the D3200 could morph into a run and gun portrait or studio camera.
Buy the Nikon D3200 here:
Nikon D3200 Photo Gallery
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
More about the Nikon D3200
In This Shootout:
The Shootout
Sony a65 Review
Canon T4i Review
Canon T3i Review
Nikon D5100 Review
Nikon D3200 Review
Reader Comments(8 comments)
|
Posted Oct 10, 2013 8:31:16 PM
|
|
By Big Mike |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
I wasn't aware that the Sony was unable to autofocus in manual mode. The superior video autofocusing was the only reason why I was considering the a65, but what's the point if I have no control over depth of field? It's also my understanding that you can't control the aperture while in live view on the Nikons. Both shortcomings are reasons enough for me to go with the Canon T4i; the autofocusing (in live view and video) could be better, but you have full manual control.
|
Posted Nov 2, 2012 8:54:18 PM
|
|
By Kuro |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
Hey how 'bout the Pentax K-30 which is as good or better than the T4i but $100 less.
|
Posted Oct 31, 2012 11:52:07 AM
|
|
By Peteralex |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
I was planning to buy the a65. Read everything about it. Fine. Went to the store and my, not too tall, not to wide, very healthy born fingers were automatically cramped into position at the grip. Not so good. It felt very uncomfortable. The body is a normal size, only the grip is truly disappointing. Especially the rubber thingy that places itself between the fingers at the front makes that you can't move your fingers elsewhere.. so totally forced bent fingertips were the result of trying to just hold the camera and make a picture, or just grab it. Or for example, to get it out of a bag. Too bad sony. This I noticed ofcourse also with the a57 (which had a horrible viewfinder). I now have the a390 and the a580. Those grips vary just a little but have more grab comfort and room. The a77 is bigger, lets put my hope on that one (havent tried it yet).
|
Posted Sep 2, 2012 7:49:54 PM
|
|
By krazi311 |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
ok so im really confused on which to buy now... The a65 or Rebel t4i?? Reading these reviews have made it even more difficult due to the great research put into them. I'm new to photography and this will be my first dslr. Having the touchscreen is cool but not vital. If they both had it then this might be a little easier. I wouldnt be shooting videos, mostly still shots. Action shots? do you really need the 10 fps or is 5 good enough? Can some one please help me?! I dont mind spending the money on the a65 but in the long run whats better for me.
|
Posted Aug 28, 2012 3:30:02 PM
|
|
By Dick De Jong |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
Art,
Suggesting lenses for others is always a tough call for reasons too long to list.
If you are interested in high quality and are ready to make the commitment, then Zeiss lenses are great choices, but they come at a premium price tag.
For example, the Sony 85mm F1.4 ZA Carl Zeiss Planar T* is a wonderful portrait prime lens. Of course, at $1600, it's almost twice the price of the a65 body alone. But good lenses can last through multiple generations of cameras.
Suggesting lenses for others is always a tough call for reasons too long to list.
If you are interested in high quality and are ready to make the commitment, then Zeiss lenses are great choices, but they come at a premium price tag.
For example, the Sony 85mm F1.4 ZA Carl Zeiss Planar T* is a wonderful portrait prime lens. Of course, at $1600, it's almost twice the price of the a65 body alone. But good lenses can last through multiple generations of cameras.
|
Posted Aug 28, 2012 2:55:55 PM
|
|
By Dick De Jong |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
Frazzywig,
I've been shooting video for decades and I'm still not convinced that any of these DSLRs are the perfect solution for capturing video. (I listed many of those reasons in my article, Making Home Movies: http://www.2cameraguys.com/Making-Home-Movies-with-Digital-Cameras.htm)
With that said, I do not discount your preference of the T4i over the a65 when shooting video. I will say that if you plan to use autofocus with any of these cameras, then expect to capture segments of out of focus searching, which you will need to edit.
And if you want higher quality audio, then you will need to use an external microphone and ideally a good audio recorder.
I'll admit that I am still rating these cameras more for their still image abilities and less on their video. Accordingly, the Sony a65 is on the top of my list. But as I've said, the T4i is a very good camera, which you should enjoy.
I've been shooting video for decades and I'm still not convinced that any of these DSLRs are the perfect solution for capturing video. (I listed many of those reasons in my article, Making Home Movies: http://www.2cameraguys.com/Making-Home-Movies-with-Digital-Cameras.htm)
With that said, I do not discount your preference of the T4i over the a65 when shooting video. I will say that if you plan to use autofocus with any of these cameras, then expect to capture segments of out of focus searching, which you will need to edit.
And if you want higher quality audio, then you will need to use an external microphone and ideally a good audio recorder.
I'll admit that I am still rating these cameras more for their still image abilities and less on their video. Accordingly, the Sony a65 is on the top of my list. But as I've said, the T4i is a very good camera, which you should enjoy.
|
Posted Aug 14, 2012 12:06:07 PM
|
|
By frazzywig |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
I've been planning on getting the t4i for a while now, but after reading this review and then taking a couple more looks at the a65, I have to admit I was blown away by the Sony offering. I wanted to do a little more research but was almost certain that I'd be going for the a65 rather than that t4i. I'm glad I ended up taking the extra time to search out bad aspects of the a65 because I found some fairly important omissions to this review. I should note that I'm primarily interested in using the camera for video. Most of the omitted drawbacks that I'm referring to pertain to video: There is an additional sensor crop beyond the native APS-C (1.6x) size when shooting video, making the crop somewhere around 1.85x (that's no small amount when you want to be able to get your money's worth from wide glass), the a65 is unable to shoot video beyond 1600 ISO, it's also unable to shoot with full time auto focus in manual mode (so you can't specify an aperture while using AF in video), audio has no level control at all - the gain is controlled automatically. None the less, I appreciate your efforts in putting up a good review. I have not put in the work and I appreciate that you have. I’d just like to let you know that I think these issues really should have knocked the a65 down to 2nd place, below the t4i. Just my opinion.
|
Posted Aug 9, 2012 6:53:25 PM
|
|
By Art |
Post a Comment Alert Moderator |
You mention the suggestion of buying only the body and buying a separate Sony Prime lens. Any specific suggestions (with links)?
