Nikon D3100 vs Sony A35: An Honest Tale of Entry-Level DSLRs from My Lens

When I first picked up the Nikon D3100 and Sony A35 for testing - two cameras released at the dawn of this decade - I found myself stepping back into a fascinating era of DSLR evolution. These entry-level models, tailing well-regarded predecessors, aimed to democratize DSLR greatness but took distinctly different routes in achieving that.

After more than 15 years of handling a range of cameras, from pro bodies to beginner-friendly options, I’ve learned the magic lies not only in specs but in how these cameras serve the photographer’s actual needs. So buckle up as we dissect the Nikon D3100 and Sony A35 across the full photography spectrum. Expect hands-on insights, measured skepticism of marketing spin, and hopefully some humor to keep it refreshing.

Size, Feel, and Handling: First Impressions Matter

Understanding a camera’s physicality is crucial. Cameras aren't smartphones - how they sit in your hands during an extended shoot can shape your whole experience.

The Nikon D3100 comes in at a slightly chunkier 124x96x75mm and weighs 505g. Meanwhile, the Sony A35 is a bit more svelte at 124x92x85mm, tipping the scales at 415g. At face value, a mere 90g difference might seem trivial, but when you’re hiking or shooting street scenes all day, lighter is often better.

Ergonomically, the Nikon’s grip is more pronounced and comfortable in my medium-sized hands, lending itself well to longer handheld sessions, such as landscapes or events. Conversely, the Sony’s more compact footprint pairs nicely with its lighter weight body - great for travel or street photography where discretion and comfort matter.

The slight extra thickness of the Sony adds a bit of bulk around the hand, but its smoother curves help maintain a secure grip. Neither camera offers weather sealing, so neither is your buddy in downpours or dusty trails without extra precaution.

Design Differences from Above: Controls for the Keen and the Clueless

Controls tell us a lot about a camera's intended users and philosophy. The Nikon D3100 adopts the classic DSLR layout: mode dial, dedicated buttons, and a traditional shutter setup that any Nikon user will find intuitive. It’s simple, straightforward, and doesn’t overwhelm.

Sony’s A35, being part of their distinct SLT (Single-Lens Translucent) family, has more compact, modern styling. It packs in a few extra features like a hot shoe cover and a slightly different dial distribution. Notably, Sony includes a customizable button which Nikon skips, giving users a bit of ergonomic personalization.

On the downside, Sony’s control buttons can feel a smidge cramped, which might deter those with larger fingers or those who like tactile feedback without hunting for keys.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Photo Core

Both cameras sport APS-C sized CMOS sensors, but with differing specs and nuances:

• Nikon D3100: 14.2MP resolution, 23.1x15.4mm sensor, Expeed 2 processor, native ISO 100-3200 (expandable to 12800).
• Sony A35: 16.2MP resolution, 23.5x15.6mm sensor, Bionz processor, native ISO 100-25600.

That extra 2MP and the bump in ISO range seem tempting on paper - and honestly, the Sony does deliver a tad more resolution and better high ISO performance in practice. Its sensor's slight size advantage and newer processor technology contribute to better dynamic range (12.7 EV vs Nikon’s 11.3 EV) and improved tonal gradation.

In real-world tests, Nikon held its own in daylight landscapes and portraits producing pleasing color depth (22.5 bits vs Sony’s 23.3) - that Nikon color rendering magic still holds up well. But when shadows deepen or light dims, Sony’s sensor noise control and wider dynamic range yield cleaner shots with more retained detail.

What’s notable: Nikon uses an optical pentamirror viewfinder (smaller, less bright), while Sony features a high-res (1150k dots) electronic viewfinder showing an accurate live preview of exposure - rare for the era and quite forward-thinking.

Viewing and Interface: Where Art Meets Usability

Both cameras share a fixed 3-inch LCD size, yet Sony packs a whopping 921k dots resolution versus Nikon’s much dimmer 230k dots TFT screen. During my working sessions, Nikon's screen felt... well, a little sad, especially reviewing focus or highlights. Sony’s screen offered detailed previews and greatly improved usability in bright outdoor conditions.

Sony’s electronic viewfinder further enhances framing precision, especially under bright sunlight, where optical viewfinders can struggle. That said, some purists still prefer Nikon’s optical finder for its zero lag and natural feel.

Neither camera has a touchscreen, which is understandable given their vintage. They both have live view, but Sony’s autofocus system performs smoother and faster here (more on autofocus below).

Autofocus Systems in Action: The Silent Battle of Speed and Accuracy

Autofocus can make or break an experience - especially in fast-paced shooting genres.

The Nikon D3100 uses an 11-point phase detection AF system with one cross-type sensor. For entry-level DSLRs of its time, it was considered decent but not blisteringly fast. Face detection works reasonably in live view; however, continuous AF tracking is slow, making wildlife or sports shooting somewhat frustrating.

Sony’s A35, by contrast, uses 15 AF points with 3 cross-type sensors, and an innovative Translucent Mirror that allows autofocus during live view without sacrificing speed. The camera shoots at a more energetic 6fps continuous burst compared to Nikon’s 3fps.

In practical wildlife shoots, I found Sony’s ability to maintain focus on moving subjects far more reliable - though the lack of eye detection and animal detection auto-focus is a limiting factor, expected for cameras from this generation.

Still, Sony’s sensor-based image stabilization (on-sensor) is a nice bonus - Nikon D3100 relies exclusively on lens stabilization, meaning the overall shake reduction could vary heavily by lens choice.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones, Bokeh, and Focus on the Eyes

Portraits demand flattering skin tones, smooth bokeh, and sharp focus - especially on eyes.

Nikon’s color science has long garnered fanfare for warm, inviting skin tones that gently boost subtle reds and pinks without exaggeration. With the D3100’s 14MP detail and 11-point AF, you get usable portraits, but the background separation depends heavily on your lens.

Sony’s 16MP sensor yields slightly crisper detail, especially with sharp prime lenses, and its electronic finder helps nail focus. The sensor-based stabilization aids handheld shooting in lower light, and the color though slightly cooler, is accurate and less saturated than Nikon but fully adjustable.

Both cameras lack advanced eye-detection AF features, so focusing remains manual-intensive for portraits, especially with shallow depth-of-field lenses. The Nikon’s 95% viewfinder coverage can occasionally make precise composition harder compared to Sony’s full 100%.

Landscapes: Chasing That Wide Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape photography benefits most from dynamic range, resolution, and weather resistance.

Sony edges out with its higher resolution (up to 16.2MP vs Nikon’s 14.2MP), letting you crop or print large without losing detail. The wider dynamic range of 12.7 EV gives the A35 the upper hand in retaining shadow and highlight detail - critical for sunrise, sunset, or high contrast scenes.

Unfortunately, neither model is weather sealed, which rules them out of the heavy-duty, rainy landscape adventures without protection. The Nikon’s longer battery life (about 550 shots vs Sony’s 440) might marginally help out in remote shoots, but the difference is not significant.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Fast Motion, Fast Focus?

Neither camera was engineered primarily as a sports specialist, but let’s see how they fare.

The Nikon D3100’s 3fps burst and modest 11-point AF system are limiting in capturing rapid action. Autofocus occasionally hunts in continuous AF mode, which can leave you with missed shots in wildlife chases.

Sony’s A35 shines here with its 6fps burst and 15 AF points. The translucent mirror tech means autofocus is faster and more consistent during bursts. Still, keep in mind it lacks advanced 3D tracking and eye AF that modern cameras boast.

ISO performance difference also matters: Nikon begins to degrade noisily beyond ISO 1600, while Sony holds usable detail up to ISO 3200 and even 6400 with noise reduction. For low light indoor sports, Sony thus provides cleaner shots.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

Here, size and ergonomics combine with autofocus speed and low-light capability.

The Sony’s lighter weight and smaller body assist in blending in during street shoots. Its silent electronic shutter acts noiselessly - a big plus when capturing candid moments without disturbing subjects. Nikon’s optical shutter has the noisy “clack” typical of DSLRs, which can be intrusive.

However, the Nikon’s simpler menu and controls can be a boon for those favoring quick adjustments over electronic menus.

The Sony’s better low-light sensor performance allows higher ISO street images with less compromise - a real edge after dusk or in cafes.

Macro Photography: Close Focus and Stability

While neither camera is specialized for macro, your lens does most of the heavy lifting here - but camera features count too.

Sony’s in-body sensor stabilization significantly aids handheld macro shots by reducing tiny tremors amplified by high magnification.

Manual focus aids are equally present on both cameras but Sony’s higher-resolution EVF makes focusing critical macro details easier.

Night and Astrophotography: Dark Skies and Dim Streets

Night photography demands high ISO usability and exposure control.

Sony’s broader ISO range up to 25600 (though with diminishing image quality at the highest settings) has an advantage for astrophotography. Nikon’s ISO ceiling is artificially lower, limiting light capture.

Neither camera includes special exposure modes like bulb timer intervals, but both support manual shutter speed choices down to 30 seconds.

With their fundamental lack of weather sealing and sensor noise limitations, both are niche options for serious night shooting - better cameras have emerged since.

Video Capabilities: Moving Pictures and Sound

Sony’s A35 arguably has more modern video features, recording Full HD 1080p at 60fps with AVCHD and H.264 codecs. Importantly, it includes a microphone input - which enthusiasts and pros appreciate for improved sound control.

The Nikon D3100 also does Full HD but tops out at 24fps in MPEG-4 format without a mic jack and lacks in-body stabilization, making handheld video shakier.

If video matters in your workflow, Sony easily wins here. Music festivals, vlogging, or documentaries get a step up.

Travel Photography: All-rounder or Specialist?

Both cameras shoot with APS-C sensors, compatible with a robust set of lenses.

Sony supports Memory Stick in addition to SD cards, Nikon limits to SD/SDHC/SDXC.

Battery life favors Nikon slightly, potentially useful on long excursions. But Sony’s size and weight, plus its superior sensor performance and image stabilization, make it my pick for those wanting a versatile travel companion that balances photo and video.

Professional Work and Workflow Integration

Neither camera is a pro tool by design - but both support raw format for post-processing flexibility.

Nikon’s broader third-party lens support through the Nikon F mount and B&W legacy make it attractive for Nikon photographers working into professional pipeline.

Sony’s drought of lenses at the time was a drawback, though adapters mitigate this today.

Build quality and controls in both models do not match professional-grade gear, limiting use for demanding shoots or adverse conditions.

Battery Life and Connectivity: The Little Things

Nikon’s EN-EL14 battery yields an estimated 550 shots, while Sony’s NP-FW50 claims about 440 shots under CIPA standards - typical for mirrorless-heavy components.

Connectivity-wise, Nikon attempts to be modern with Eye-Fi card compatibility (for wireless photo transfers), whereas Sony has none built-in - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS.

Price and Value: What You Pay vs What You Get

At current going prices (~$565 Nikon / $598 Sony), both cameras occupy similar budgets.

Sony’s A35 edges ahead for those willing to pay a bit more for features like higher resolution, improved AF and video, and in-body stabilization.

However, Nikon’s stronger battery life, simpler controls, and warmer color rendition maintain its appeal for absolute beginners or photographers loyal to the Nikon system.

Summary and Final Recommendations

Nikon D3100 screen back Sony A35 front Sony A35 screen back

If you're choosing between these venerable entry-level cameras today, here’s how I’d break it down:

• For learning and general photography: The Nikon D3100’s solid ergonomics, intuitive controls, and classic color science offer a reliable foundation. Great for portraits, landscapes, and casual shooting with decent battery life.

• For sharper images, better autofocus, and video enthusiasts: Sony's A35 wins with higher resolution, improved low-light performance, faster continuous shooting, and superior video specs. It suits street photographers, wildlife beginners, and those dabbling in video.

• For travelers: Sony due to lighter weight and sensor stabilization, unless battery life is your overriding concern (then Nikon nudges ahead).

• For wildlife and sports: Sony’s increased AF points plus 6fps burst rate put more frames in the bag, though both are limited compared to more modern specialized models.

• For budget-conscious beginners: Nikon often available cheaper and easier to use; ideal first DSLR step.

Closing Thoughts: Legacy Cameras in a New Light

Neither the Nikon D3100 nor the Sony A35 matches today’s mirrorless marvels in raw specs, autofocus sophistication, or compactness. However, they remain interesting gateways for enthusiasts attracted to learning fundamentals without breaking the bank or drowning in complexity.

From my experience testing thousands of cameras, I can say: choosing between these two depends on your priorities - do you want robust color and battery life, or better resolution and video prowess? Both deliver respectable image quality and durable builds, but expect to invest in good lenses and accept their vintage limitations.

Hope this analysis sparks clarity and a bit of joy in your camera quest. Now, which one do you think fits your shooting style best?

If you enjoyed this deep dive, drop a line, share your experience, or ask questions. After all, photography is best shared and explored together.

Thank you for reading!