How much better is the Nikon D3200 than the D3100?

To cut a long story short, I want a new slr camera, I need it because I'm an art student, my friend has the d3100, but won't let me get the same one as her because she wants to be "original" the d3200 is around £80 more than the d3100, is it the d3200 much better?

The D3200 is newer hence have all the latest technology Nikon has to offer. The D3200 effectively replaces the D3100.

Keerok is correct. I would point out that YOU won't be able to see the difference in the results, nor will your "friend".

Just compare the features, and decide for yourself. As for actual image quality, that depends. In good light at low ISO settings, it's hard to tell the difference between the two. Turn the lights down, and crank that ISO up, and the D3200 falls apart. There's no free lunch, jam more pixels onto the same size image sensor, something has to give and in this case, it's low light performance.

So is it much better? No. Ignore your friend, get what you want. Look at the Sony a37 before you buy anything, it can do some things better than the Nikon D3100/D3200. Cheers.

I have both. The main difference for me is the video capability. The d3200 has better resolution and can take an external mic. Of course the d3200 has 24, 2megapixels, one in the eye for the d3100 with its measly 14.2!

There are lots of minor differences, but to be honest unless serious video is your thing, the d3100 is best, because it will be an awful lot cheaper! Try a d3000, cheaper still or a d5100 almost as good as the d3200 and cheaper too.