Updated (May 2012): Compare the Canon EOS 650D vs Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000 vs Canon EOS 650D

Winner
Nikon D7000

100

Canon EOS 650D

71

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,167 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
80.0
Great color depth
Color depth
23.5 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.9 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 650D

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
HDR
In-camera HDR
Combines multiple exposures
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

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 D7000.

competitors

Nikon D7000 Competitors

Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$799 - $997 body only

$1,048 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies
Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$629 - $679 body only

$949 with 18-140mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Battery life Shorter battery life
Nikon D5200

Nikon D5200

Entry-level DSLR

$430 body only

$520 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Viewfinder size Much smaller viewfinder

Canon EOS 650D Competitors

Canon EOS 700D

Canon EOS 700D

Entry-level DSLR

$558 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Canon EOS 600D

Canon EOS 600D

Entry-level DSLR

$423 body only

$529 with 18-55mm lens

Lowest price Cheaper
HDR Lacks in-camera HDR
Canon EOS 750D

Canon EOS 750D

Entry-level DSLR

$504 body only

$569 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Focus points More focus points
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder

discussion

Nikon D7000
D7000
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 650D
EOS 650D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments