Canon PowerShot SX50 HS vs Nikon D5100

Winner
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

59

Nikon D5100

49

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5100

Overall image quality
Great image quality
80.0
Color depth
Great color depth
23.5 bits
Dynamic range
Wide dynamic range
13.6 EV
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 8 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5100.

competitors

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

Super zoom

$405 - $480

Zoom Significantly more zoom
Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Overall image quality Worse image quality
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

Super zoom

$447

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
3D Takes 3D photos
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Super zoom

$250

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
3D Takes 3D photos
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

Nikon D5100 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$419 body only

$399 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
True resolution Higher true resolution
HDR Lacks in-camera HDR
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$393 body only

$426 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Higher true resolution
Color depth Better color depth
HDR Lacks in-camera HDR
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$411 - $597 body only

$479 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
GPS Has a GPS
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life

discussion

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
PowerShot SX50 HS
Canon

Report a correction
Nikon D5100
D5100
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments