Updated (March 2012): Compare the Nikon D3200 vs Nikon D5000

Nikon D3200 vs Nikon D5000

Winner
Nikon D3200

100

Nikon D5000

70

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3200

Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 30fps
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
High true resolution
True resolution
24.1 MP
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5000

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
400 ms startup delay

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5000.

competitors

Nikon D3200 Competitors

Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$326 body only

$397 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Battery life Significantly longer battery life
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$289 - $549 body only

$330 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Weight Slightly lighter
True resolution Much lower true resolution
Nikon D5100

Nikon D5100

Entry-level DSLR

$350 body only

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Battery life Longer battery life
True resolution Much lower true resolution

Nikon D5000 Competitors

Nikon D3100

Nikon D3100

Entry-level DSLR

$329 body only

$390 with 18-55mm, 55-200mm lenses

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$402 body only

$397 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$1,275 with 18-200mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

discussion

Nikon D3200
D3200
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D5000
D5000
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments