Nikon D5300 vs Canon EOS 650D

Winner
Nikon D5300

90

Canon EOS 650D

59

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5300

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,338 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
83.0
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
Great color depth
Color depth
24 bits
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 650D

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Badge
Phase detection autofocus
fast and accurate

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 650D.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5300.

competitors

Nikon D5300 Competitors

Nikon D5500

Nikon D5500

Entry-level DSLR

$544 - $747 body only

$599 - $847 with 18-55mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
GPS No built-in GPS
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$294 body only

$400 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
Low light performance Slightly lower noise at high ISO
Screen size Significantly smaller screen
Nikon D5200

Nikon D5200

Entry-level DSLR

$324 body only

$400 - $500 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
Screen size Significantly smaller screen

Canon EOS 650D Competitors

Canon EOS 700D

Canon EOS 700D

Entry-level DSLR

$489 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Faster video autofocus
Lowest price Much cheaper
Low light performance Slightly more noise at high ISO
Canon EOS 750D

Canon EOS 750D

Entry-level DSLR

$649 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder
Canon EOS 600D

Canon EOS 600D

Entry-level DSLR

$1,094 body only

$837 - $851 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Autofocus Lacks video autofocus

discussion

Nikon D5300
D5300
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 650D
EOS 650D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments