Nikon D7100 vs Canon Rebel SL1

Winner
Nikon D7100

100

Canon Rebel SL1

66

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D7100

Great image quality
Overall image quality
83.0
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
Great color depth
Color depth
24.2 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.7 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Rebel SL1

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (117×91×69 mm)
Thickness
Thin
2.7"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon Rebel SL1.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D7100.

competitors

Nikon D7100 Competitors

Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$799 - $997 body only

$1,049 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies
Nikon D5600

Nikon D5600

Entry-level DSLR

$620 - $647 body only

$619 - $747 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$459 - $597 body only

$499 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
GPS Has a GPS
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen

Canon Rebel SL1 Competitors

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$305 - $699 body only

$350 - $449 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Lowest price Cheaper
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$435 - $649 body only

$529 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Continuous shooting Shoots faster
Size Much larger
Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Entry-level DSLR

$799 - $852 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Size Much larger

discussion

Nikon D7100
D7100
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon Rebel SL1
Rebel SL1
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments