Updated (May 2012): Compare the Nikon D3200 vs Nikon D600

Nikon D600 vs Nikon D3200

Winner
Nikon D600

100

Nikon D3200

68

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D600

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
2,980 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
94.0
Great color depth
Color depth
25.1 bits
Large screen
Screen size
3.2"
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3200

Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Sensor cleaning
Self cleaning sensor
Avoids dust in your photos

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D600.

competitors

Nikon D600 Competitors

Nikon D610

Nikon D610

Pro DSLR

$1,220 - $1,497 body only

$1,672 - $1,997 with 24-85mm lens

Continuous shooting Shoots slightly faster
Weight Slightly lighter
Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,399 - $1,797 body only

$2,126 - $2,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Color depth Worse color depth
Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$675 - $697 body only

$997 - $1,253 with 18-105mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Lens availability Significantly more lenses available
Low light performance Much more noise at high ISO

Nikon D3200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$462 body only

$397 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$328 - $699 body only

$375 - $449 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$400 body only

$379 - $497 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack

discussion

Nikon D600
D600
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D3200
D3200
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments