Pentax K-30 vs Nikon D3100

Winner
Pentax K-30

100

Nikon D3100

61

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-30

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,129 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
79.0
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 30fps
Great color depth
Color depth
23.7 bits
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3100

Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
400 ms startup delay
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (124×97×74 mm)
Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 24fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 48 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3100.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-30.

competitors

Pentax K-30 Competitors

Pentax K-70

Pentax K-70

Entry-level DSLR

$597 - $599 body only

$697 - $790 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
True resolution Much higher true resolution
Thickness Thicker
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$456 body only

$509 with 18-55mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Size Slightly smaller
Lowest price Slightly more expensive
Pentax K-5

Pentax K-5

Entry-level DSLR

$800 body only

$1,549 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Supports 24p No 24p support

Nikon D3100 Competitors

Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$479 body only

$340 with 18-55mm lens

Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Battery life Longer battery life
Movie format Lower resolution movies
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$299 body only

$419 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Thickness Thicker
Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$349 body only

$420 with 18-55mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Size Larger

discussion

Pentax K-30
K-30
Pentax

Report a correction
Nikon D3100
D3100
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments