What Is It?
At $US700, the Nikon D3200 is one of the most affordable DSLRs you can buy. Its 24-megapixel, APS-C sensor is much higher in resolution than the D3100′s 14.2-megapixel guts. The D3200 also shoots full HD 1920 x 1080 video, compared to the D3100′s 1080×720 maximum.
Who’s It For?
Budget-minded aspiring photographers or filmmakers. (Maybe.)
Design
The D3200 is very compact and lightweight for a DSLR. It looks like the cameras that came before it in the Nikon line: a stripped-down body with basic buttons and dials, a pop-up flash and a 3-inch LCD that takes up most of the camera’s back panel.
Using It
If you want more than just a Facebook-worthy snapshot, get ready for a world of pain. Fully manual controls are available and easy to access. It’s a good thing too, because the D3200′s automatic light metering and white balance systems aren’t dead accurate. You’ve got to fuss a bit to get your shots just right. The camera is capable of shooting a quick 5fps, but you’ll be bogged down by the camera’s slow autofocus. On the plus side, video recording quality and options have been significantly improved.
The Best Part
If you’re willing to work for it, the camera is capable of beautiful photos and video.
Tragic Flaw
Nikon hasn’t updated the repulsive blue and yellow dashboard screen. Yes, it’s that ugly.
This Is Weird…
The inexplicably high-resolution, 24-megapixel sensor harkens back to the megapixel wars.
Test Notes
• We used the Nikon D3200 regularly for about a month.
• Compared to the D3100, the D3200 shoots sharper, distortion-free video that’s actually usable and not just a gimmick. Yup, Nikon finally caught up with the two-year-old Canon EOS 550D.
Should You Buy It?
No. The cheapest, mirrorless, interchangeable-lens cameras — including Sony’s SLT-series cameras and the Sony NEX-F3 — have gotten so good it just doesn’t make sense to spend extra on Nikon’s name and lens system unless you’re going to go for a higher-end model. It makes sense, to a certain extent, if you want to learn on this and keep moving up.
If this had come out two years ago, it would have probably cost a couple of hundred dollars more. Now, at $US700, it’s the first budget-friendly Nikon to shoot good HD video. But for the same price or a few bucks less, you can get the time-tested Canon EOS 550D to do the same thing.
Nikon D3200
• Price: $799 RRP in Australia (body only)
• Sensor: 24.2MP, APS-C (23.4mm x 15.4mm)
• Max ISO: 6400
• Image: Up to 4912×2760 pixels
• Video: 1920×1080 30/25/24 and 1280×720 60/50
• Screen: 921,000 dot, 3-inch LCD
• Weight: 454g
Video: Michael Hession
Nikon D3200 Gallery
Sample Images
Mirrorless cameras are not the best, no optical viewfinder thats the biggest concern, except for the sony range they have half the sensor size, so noise isnt great plus, with the 2x crop factor wide angle lenes arent that wide no more. And focus by wire(manual focus which is driven electronically) i hate bloody focus by wire, i would prefer old school mechanical manual focus, its so more responsive
Agreed. I own an OMD EM-5 and while i love it, there are some things it just can't do.. continuous AF is the big one. Also, the d3200 has the "second best APS-C sensor ever" according to dx0 mark... more megapixels does not always mean a bad sensor, as is suggested in the article. It's funny that the serious photog blogs don't mention anything about broken metering or WB. Technique? Giz, please find a decent photography writer! This is just embarrassing.
This is a flawed review....if you can even call it a review. How can you even compare a two year old camera to this? And only comparing it on it's video ability is ridiculous. Remember, this is a PHOTOGRAPHIC tool first and foremost. What about it's ISO performance compared to the 550D?
This is a hands on, at best.
Not just that, but the 550D is a different class. This should be compared to the 1000D series (or whatever the current version is now).
Guys please stop doing reviews like this
comparing it to mirrowless is fair but if you do that please do it in full... mirrowless lacks some very important things
- viewfinder
-optics is still average (in general)
-iso
-battery life
etc etc etc
Crap review, also you got your facts WRONG. The D3100 DOES do 1080p recording..
This really is the worst review I've ever read on Giz. No explanations for coming to any of the conclusions, and the writer seems to be heavily biased towards Canon. I second everything the others have said in the comments above. Also, when you mention slow autofocus, how slow is it? The D3200's phase detection autofocus has got to be at least as good as the contrast detection on most (if not all) mirrorless cameras. If it's not, then well, it's got horrible autofocus.
I'm a canon shooter and AGREE with all the above, seems a bit odd, 600D or 650D maybe but not 550D.
Nikon use a DX sensor with a 1.5x crop factor - not an APS-C sensor.
Canon (and others) use the APS-C sensor with a slightly smaller 1.6x crop factor
Having used a DSLR for over 4 years now, I don't ever see myself being able to substitute the optical viewfinder for anything else. (my 2 cents)
I am using this camera's Predecessor, the D3000. A mirrorless system is hopeless for long exposures, as it is too dark for the sensor to see anything when in preview mode. Only the human eye can look though an optical viewfinder and aim the camera correctly. Lay off Nikon guys, people know what they are buying. But then again, your strong opinions on everything happen to be why I keep coming back.