Nikon D3X vs Nikon D3200

Winner
Nikon D3X

100

Nikon D3200

76

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3X

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,992 ISO
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.70x
High true resolution
True resolution
24.4 MP
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
 

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
Overall image quality
Great image quality
81.0
Color depth
Great color depth
24.1 bits

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3X.

competitors

Nikon D3X Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,379 - $1,797 body only

$1,956 - $2,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Nikon D810

Nikon D810

Pro DSLR

$2,188 - $2,797 body only

$2,900 - $3,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
True resolution Much higher true resolution
Battery life Much shorter battery life
Nikon D610

Nikon D610

Pro DSLR

$1,198 - $1,497 body only

$1,900 - $2,447 with 28-300mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Battery life Much shorter battery life

Nikon D3200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$403 body only

$397 with 18-55mm lens

Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Continuous shooting Shoots slightly faster
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$317 - $649 body only

$376 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$315 body only

$349 - $497 with 18-55mm lens

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

discussion

Nikon D3X
D3X
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D3200
D3200
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments