Nikon D610 vs Canon EOS 600D

Winner
Nikon D610

100

Canon EOS 600D

57

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D610

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
2,925 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
94.0
Great color depth
Color depth
25.1 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
14.4 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 600D

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Sensor cleaning
Self cleaning sensor
Avoids dust in your photos
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 600D.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D610.

competitors

Nikon D610 Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,480 - $1,797 body only

$2,126 - $2,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Color depth Worse color depth
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$799 - $997 body only

$1,073 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Light sensitivity (boost) Better boost ISO
Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Low light performance Much more noise at high ISO
Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$1,180 - $1,399 body only

$1,666 - $1,799 with 24-105mm lens

Light sensitivity (boost) Better boost ISO
GPS Has a GPS
Overall image quality Significantly worse image quality

Canon EOS 600D Competitors

Canon EOS 1200D

Canon EOS 1200D

Entry-level DSLR

$310 body only

Autofocus Video autofocus
Thickness Thinner
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Canon EOS 700D

Canon EOS 700D

Entry-level DSLR

$496 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Color depth Worse color depth
Canon EOS 550D

Canon EOS 550D

Entry-level DSLR

$384 body only

$577 with 18-55mm, 55-250mm lenses

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Shutter lag Less shutter lag
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

discussion

Nikon D610
D610
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 600D
EOS 600D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments