Is the Nikon D3200 better than the D90?
Alright so almost exactly two years ago I bought a Nikon D90 - my first DSLR. I have taken about 6000 to 7000 photos with it, and although it is still in great condition and has no defects, I'm now looking to buy a new and better DSLR. When I went to Nikon's website, the first camera that caught my eye was the D3200, which has double the resolution of my D90, has auto-focus for its video mode (which my D90 does not have), and is lighter as well. It seems to outperform the D90 in almost every way based on the specs on its web page, but what concerns me is that it costs less than the D90.Am I missing something, or is the D3200 just a better camera and a better deal than the D90?
Added (1). @fhotoace: I have a Tamron AF-S lens, so since I would still have auto-focus, would the 24 megapixels be worth it?
The D90 is a semi-pro camera and was updated to the D7000
The D3200 is an entry level camera and can't use any of your Nikkor AF lenses in the auto-focus mode (this camera needs AF-S lenses to auto-focus)
I would suggest you just save your pennies until you can truly upgrade your D90 to the D7000. The D90 is still a very good dSLR camera, one of the classics made by Nikon and still used by many people.
Here is how the sensors of the D90 and D7000 compare. The tests have yet to be done on the D3200
The D3200 out-specs the D90, hardly surprising since it's a much newer design.
You'll find it to be a massive downgrade in terms of usability though.
-only one dial
-no top LCD
-likely no ISO display in the viewfinder (at least the D3100 has none)
-likely no support for infrared remotes (D3100)
-probably no mirror lockup and so on.
-no AF motor in the body
I'd ignore the specs, convenience of use it more important unless the AF in video mode is important to you.