New to DSLR - D3200 VS SONY A58

[jacktesterson]

Which camera would you choose and why? I want to buy one of these cameras today/tomor. They are both on sale with a bag and included lens kit for 499 locally. I will probably be using the included lens only for quite a long time.

I am a complete camera novice, so I'm leaning towards the Sony as Ive read its much easier to use (Guided help) compared to the D3200.

Image quality seens good on both devices. The Sony is often called a mid range DSLR at a budget price.

Any help or thoughts would be appreciated

 

[iGas]

I would go with the Nikon because Nikon have much more accessories than Sony.

 

[corkyg]

Nikon - they are a camera company. They make lenses. Sony buys them.

 

[jpeyton]

I have a D3200. Unbeatable value for a DSLR, as long as you can stick with AF-S lenses. The sensor is near the top of the heap for APS-C cameras.

This is the D3200 with a SB-700 flash and AF-S 40mm Macro:

 

[jacktesterson]

I have a Sony HX100V camera now. It actually works very well. Its mint and they sell used for about $250 on ebay. The A58 has excellent reviews. As a camera novice will I see a difference over my existing camera? I want to learn. I wanted the D3200 but then saw the A58 and the sales guy there recommend it for newer users. Internet seems to back this up.

 

[shortylickens]

Nikon and Canon are always your best SLR choices. Also over the last few years Sony quality has dropped a great deal on cameras and many other consumer gear (except the Playstation) as well as their customer support. Last cam I had from them died (the sensor) and they jerked me around trying to fix it. Never did get anything from them.

Nikon and Canon always take good care of you, not to mention their quality is superior anyways.

Panasonic is a good option for compacts though.

 

[jacktesterson]

But my original choice was the D3200. I don't know if I need either. I can't afford any additional lenses for a while. The stock Nikon lense may be a bit better? Hard choices

 

[shortylickens]

Also, you wont be a new user forever. And once you figure out what you are doing you will be happier to already have Nikon lenses and accessories.

 

[jacktesterson]

Cool. I think ill stick with my original planned purchase of the D3200. Now I just need to decide if its worth buying over my exisiting HX100v Zoomer. (I will sell it)

 

[Throckmorton]

I tried a Nikon full frame the other day, and it's a worse experience than my lowly A35. The optical viewfinder sucks compared to an EVF. It doesn't give you any idea what your picture is going to look like.

 

[iGas]

I tried a Nikon full frame the other day, and it's a worse experience than my lowly A35. The optical viewfinder sucks compared to an EVF. It doesn't give you any idea what your picture is going to look like.

A33 viewfinder and it is pretty much the same as the A35 viewfinder.

If you RTFM you would understand you are look at and IMHO, the Nikon FF viewfinder shows much more information than the A35 viewfinder.

 

[gevorg]

The A58 was dumbed down from A57. Though, its Live View and video is still superior to Canon or Nikon. I would hold-off on A-mount for now, Sony is about to make some major changes and move on from SLT tech.

BTW, some of the best Nikon cameras like D600 and D800 use Sony sensors.

 

[jpeyton]

BTW, some of the best Nikon cameras like D600 and D800 use Sony sensors.

Interestingly enough, Nikon performs enough in-house tweaks to those sensors to make them a clear grade above what Sony puts into their own cameras. There is still some engineering going on at Nikon beyond simply slapping their name on a Sony-made imager.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

My first DSLR was a Sony (A580) which I bought largely because I was intrigued by the availability of old Minolta lenses. In practice this was greatly confounded by the fact that the camera was a crop-sensor, so the available 35mm lenses tended to end up not being at especially useful focal lengths. Still, I really enjoyed the camera and have little to criticize about it for what it was. Ultimately I upgraded to a D600 and traded in the A580 to Amazon (that is a great program, by the way). I will be selling my Minolta lenses.

Ultimately I think Sony makes some strong cameras, and the translucent mirror offers real benefits, particularly for video, but it's hard to overcome the much greater availability of lenses and accessories for Canon and Nikon. As an aside, if Canon moves the Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology down to its lower-end crop cameras, it will be hard to beat. We shall see . . .

 

[fralexandr]

nikon d5100 manufacturer refurb (robertscamera ebay store) $370 free shipping in US
http://slickdeals.net/f/6212306-Nik...Lens-Refurb-370-Free-Shipping-eBay-Daily-Deal

 

[Gintaras]

Nikon and Canon are always your best SLR choices.

However, neither Canon nor Nikon is a User's Choice of Year 2012 on dpreview:

Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is...

Nikon and Canon are most popular cameras...if there was a poll: "Which Camera bought collects most of dust in some buyer's home" - winner would be either Canon or Nikon...

And if you would look at dpreview Photo Challenges - good photos can be taken even with P&S...

 

[magomago]

honestly, unless you are a very serious amateur or a professional, the brand of camera that you select really doesn't make that much of a difference. The image quality across the board is excellent, and the lenses that are available are typically more than adequate for anyone, unless you fall into the two categories above.

 

[Throckmorton]

A33 viewfinder and it is pretty much the same as the A35 viewfinder.

If you RTFM you would understand you are look at and IMHO, the Nikon FF viewfinder shows much more information than the A35 viewfinder.

No I'm referring to Sony's programming of the EVF to try to emulate what the actual photo will look like. An OVF can't do that.

 

[trmiv]

I recently picked a Sony A57 over a Nikon D5100. Both are great but I liked the video features of the Sony better and the way taking pictures in live view works (this made going from a point and shoot much easier for my wife). Access to cheap minolta lenses was another factor too. I have my eyes on few. For now i have the kit lens and a 35mm 1.8 Sony lens. I love the A57.

 

[jacktesterson]

I recently picked a Sony A57 over a Nikon D5100. Both are great but I liked the video features of the Sony better and the way taking pictures in live view works (this made going from a point and shoot much easier for my wife). Access to cheap minolta lenses was another factor too. I have my eyes on few. For now i have the kit lens and a 35mm 1.8 Sony lens. I love the A57.

Yeah - still haven't made my mind up.

The Live View was the main reason for considering the A58 - That and the video.

 

[trmiv]

Yea it's whatever works for you. I had the D5100 for a few days, and it's a great camera. So is the D3200. You really can't go wrong either way. Just pick what works for you. For me the features the SLT camera offered worked better. Either way once you learn you'll be taking great pictures.

BTW, if you end up with the Sony, Gary Friedman has some nice books on his site: http://friedmanarchives.com/ I have the A37/A57 one and it's great. I don't know that there is a traditionally published book for the A58 yet, so this is your best bet. His books are really good though.

 

[twistedlogic]

The optical viewfinder sucks compared to an EVF.

From this Sony A35 review.

"Electronic viewfinders are getting better each year, unfortunately, at the time of this review, they won't replace a good optical viewfinder like the fabulous one in the Sony A900."

The Sony A900 offers a very similar if not the same OFV as a Nikon FX. I've read nothing but great things about a FF viewfinder, why exactly did it "suck"?

EVF are impracticable for some users because they have a slight lag, can cause eye fatigue, and drain battery life.

It doesn't give you any idea what your picture is going to look like.

Haven't cameras been making wonderful images for 100's of years now without a preview of an image. IMO, its kind of the magic of using a SLR, taking an image and then seeing how the results turn out, kind of like developing film back in the day.

 

[biostud]

I went with the D5100 over D3200 for the same price.

 

[Scooby Doo]

My first DSLR was a Sony (A580) which I bought largely because I was intrigued by the availability of old Minolta lenses. In practice this was greatly confounded by the fact that the camera was a crop-sensor, so the available 35mm lenses tended to end up not being at especially useful focal lengths. Still, I really enjoyed the camera and have little to criticize about it for what it was. Ultimately I upgraded to a D600 and traded in the A580 to Amazon (that is a great program, by the way). I will be selling my Minolta lenses.

On the other hand the crop sensor helps with edge quality with the older lenses, since it's cropping them out. (softness, vignetting,etc...)

 

[blastingcap]

Nikon - they are a camera company. They make lenses. Sony buys them.

Yeah but to be fair, Nikon buy imaging sensors from Sony. Also, technically speaking Sony contracts a lot of its OEM lenses to Tamron. Not sure about the higher-end ones if they are actually built by Sony or not. Zeiss also makes some Sony lenses but are branded as such with shocking prices to match.

OP, count me as another vote for the D3200. No APS-C sensor is better right now than the one in the D3200/D5100. The new Toshiba sensors in the Nikon D5200/D7100 aren't any better (banding issues, not any better in low light, more pixels is good for low light though so overall I think it's a wash), Canon is still stuck in the stone age with 500nm sensors, and even Sony's own cameras merely tie the sensor in the D3200.

More importantly you get to tap into the huge Nikon ecosystem of accessories and lenses.