Updated (March 2012): Compare the Nikon D3200 vs Sony SLT A57

Sony SLT A57 vs Nikon D3200

Tie
Sony SLT A57

71

Nikon D3200

71

Tie

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A57

Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.72x
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
12 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3200

Low light performance
Low noise at high ISO
1,131 ISO
Overall image quality
Great image quality
81.0
Color depth
Great color depth
24.1 bits
Dynamic range
Wide dynamic range
13.2 EV

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 A57.

competitors

Sony SLT A57 Competitors

Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$498 - $629 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen size Much smaller screen
Sony SLT-A65

Sony SLT A65

Entry-level DSLR

$1,000 body only

$1,149 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
GPS Has a GPS
Continuous shooting Shoots significantly slower
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III

Super zoom

$1,498

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Viewfinder size Much smaller viewfinder

Nikon D3200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$279 body only

$349 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Lowest price Slightly more expensive
Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$289 body only

$360 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Weight Slightly lighter
Overall image quality Much worse image quality
Nikon D5200

Nikon D5200

Entry-level DSLR

$325 body only

$393 - $500 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Shutter lag More shutter lag

discussion

Sony SLT A57
SLT A57
Sony

Report a correction
Nikon D3200
D3200
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments