Updated (March 2012): Compare the Nikon D3200 vs Sony SLT A35

Nikon D3200 vs Sony SLT A35

Winner
Nikon D3200

100

Sony SLT A35

88

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3200

High true resolution
True resolution
24.1 MP
24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
400 ms startup delay
High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
 

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A35

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
5.5 fps
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
223 ms shutter lag
Weight
Light-weight
415 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT A35.

competitors

Nikon D3200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$403 body only

$397 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Lowest price More expensive
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$317 - $649 body only

$376 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Weight Slightly lighter
True resolution Much lower true resolution
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$315 body only

$349 - $497 with 18-55mm lens

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

Sony SLT A35 Competitors

Sony SLT A37

Sony SLT A37

Entry-level DSLR

$522 with 18-55mm lens

Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Sony Alpha DSLR-A500

Sony Alpha DSLR-A500

Entry-level DSLR

Viewfinder Has an optical viewfinder
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Movie format Does not take movies
Sony Alpha ILC-3000

Sony Alpha ILC-3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen

discussion

Nikon D3200
D3200
Nikon

Report a correction
Sony SLT A35
SLT A35
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments