Nikon D7200 vs D3300

Hi all,
I'm looking to upgrade my camera body and get some new glass. Right now I'm working with a Nikon D80 with a kit lens. My 18th birth day is coming up and that's a pretty big milestone - so the parents are treating me to a new camera. Here's my dilemma. With the money I'd save from getting the D3300 over the D7200, I'd be able to get some lenses for my birthday too most likely. If I went with the D7200 I'd get new glass for myself using my truck money (bummer). I spoke with a friend and he said that getting the D3300 or D5500 would be a good option because I could get good glass and I know that's more important than the body. However, this opportunity to get a high end DX camera is extremely hard to pass up. If I don't get it now, I know eventually I'd be using my own money to upgrade to it or something similar. If I got it for my birth day, obviously that wouldn't be a problem. But then theres the problem of having to buy good glass with my truck money. I do mostly amateur photography but have been asked to do some senior portraits and some other paid shoots. I will need the easy interface of the 7200. I am really looking to get a clear, crisp image out of my setup. Other things that bother me are the lack of built-in-wifi on the D3300 and the way that a battery grip connects to a 3300 and a 5300-5500. I have watched countless reviews on all of these cameras and know a lot about them. I also know that the D3300 did not impress many of the reviewers. Anyway, I'd love it if y'all would help an amateur out.

 

a good driver will win races, but not necessarily a good car without the good driver.

with that said, what lenses do you have? while the d80 is a solid camera, it is not up to par with today's camera bodies(I started out with a d80). upgrading to to a d3300 from a d80 would be worlds better, but to a d7200 from a d80, I do not think you would notice the difference between that and the d3300. the iso is the biggest difference between the d3300 and the d80, and that in itself is worth the upgrade. going to the d7200, you will have better weather sealing, better iso, af motor built in and more focus points, to name the major significant differences. is it worth it for you? in my opinion probably not, but its your money. I always believe that one should always outgrow their camera before upgrading to a new camera body. with the money not used on a d7200, you could get a prime lens. affordable prime lenses could consist of something of the old sort(strictly manual focus, like the AIS sort), or just cheap nikkor prime af lenses. for primes, I would recommend nikon 35mm f2, nikon 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, or for zooms, the tamron 17-50mm 2.8(used), or if you can splurge a little bit, the nikon 24-120mm f4.

getting the d7200 and not having any other lenses than the kit lens would piss me off. that's like having a bad ass motor in a project car, but bald tires and shitty ass suspension. I'd rather have a small motor, and the suspension and tires to match it to enjoy the ride.



http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3300-vs-Nikon-D7200

 

Thank you for the reply. Very good advice there - I think it will help me make my decision. Now leaning toward a 3300 or a 5300. Maybe even a 7100 although that is still more expensive. I have just a Nikon 18-105mm VR DX lens. Even if I got the 7200 I'd definitely upgrade lenses, just using my own money. I'm looking at a 35mm f2.8 and a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 at the moment, and now I've got more lenses to look at thanks to your suggestions. Not sure if all the features would be worth it for me, but I know I definitely would like them. Not sure how much I really NEED them though. Thanks for the link as well, I will check it out.

 

That website is exactly what I needed. Now I am able to compare all these cameras in areas that matter most to me.

 

one caveat I forgot to mention is, if you go with a body without an AF motor, you will have to get a lens that has an AF motor for the function. the d5xxx series and below exclude the AF motor, whereas the d7xxx series and above have it. lenses with the af motor built in tend to cost a little bit more than lenses that are AF capable, but do not have the motor.

Im not sure if that still applies, since I have a body with the af motor, and shoot mostly with manual focus lenses, but something to think about.