Discussion in 'Nikon' started by emily_brozyna, Jun 15, 2017.
Major differences? Wondering specifically about photo quality/resolution.
Since you apparently have used both (https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/time-to-upgrade-way-overdue.5498759/) shouldn't you be familiar with their differences and the image quality either can produce?
Emily, on the other thread Dieter pointed out, you mentioned shooting weddings professionally. As recommended over there, you want to use something more robust and preferably having dual memory card slots. The D500 would be a good choice if you have the budget or you can go FX.
The D90 is a dated camera by now and "only" has 12MP. It also cannot control the aperture on the modern E lenses. Meanwhile, the D3200 is very much consumer grade.
Is your life dedicated to being a snarky jerk? Don't you have something better to do?
Would not trade my D90 for any 3xxx, but use my D300S for important things. "Dated" but I like 'em.
Sorta would like to be able to use the new "P" lenses.
I think the D3200 makes pretty nice images, and the resolution is nice if you expect to crop. Mine has worked well, held up well, and been trouble free.
But it is a lower line camera and has some features you might find annoying. The pentamirror viewfinder is small and not at all friendly for manual focusing unless you have a magnifier. The diopter range only goes to +.5, which can be limiting if you're far sighted. There is no focus motor in the camera, so no AF with older screw drive lenses. There is no lock on the rear control, making it too easy to move the focus point inadvertently. Auto ISO cannot be toggled without going into the menu. It is not even available in the partial (small i) menu. Although it may have better high ISO performance than the D90, it's pretty noisy and gives up detail at higher ISO compared to newer models. There is no AF fine tune.
On the plus side, it's compact, image quality is good, auto focus is not bad, some controls are nicely placed, and of course it's inexpensive. But I would go at least for the D3300 in this family, for the increase in ISO performance and the dropping of the AA filter. And I'd consider a D7100 as a better choice if you can afford it. The viewfinder is much better, many other features are nicer, there is a focusing motor, and capability also of metering with manual lenses. It has dual memory slots, AF fine tuning, weather protection, and a number of other nice touches absent on the lower models, including better AF.
7100 and 7200's are getting cheaper by the day due to the new one Nikon released, I'm about ready to trade up, but still plan to stay with dated Nikons
I too have got to wonder why you're asking this question Emily. Your previous thread asked which camera you should upgrade to, and nobody recommended the ancient D90.
Neither the D90 nor the D3200 are suitable kit for professional wedding use IMO. Their AF response and build quality aren't good enough for a start. At minimum I would be looking at something in the class of a D7200 or D7500, and preferrably the D500.
I can completely understand Dieter's response. What I can't understand is your immature and over-reaction to a reply you simply didn't like to hear.
Dieter doesn't deserve such a response. He said the truth.
And you feel that responding in this way to people (who have a good reputation on these forums) will inspire people to help you out? We're under no obligation whatsoever to help you, so you might want to rethink how you approach people who devote a slice of their spare time to respond to you.
So, if you compare the shots you made with your D3200 to those you made with the borrowed D90, what difference do you see?
Actually I can understand Emily as well!
Unfortunately, this thread is moving towards a negative direction. I am locking it and if there are still questions, hopefully we can start over with a clean slate on another thread.
Separate names with a comma.