Nikon D5000 vs Canon Rebel T3

Winner
Nikon D5000

99

Canon Rebel T3

81

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5000

24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
Has live view
Live view
Preview your photos
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
400 ms startup delay
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Rebel T3

Battery life
Great battery life
700 shots
Weight
Light-weight
459 g
Live view
Has live view
Preview your photos
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
300 ms startup delay

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon Rebel T3.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5000.

competitors

Nikon D5000 Competitors

Nikon D3100

Nikon D3100

Entry-level DSLR

$329 body only

$550 with 18-55mm, 55-200mm lenses

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$500 body only

$539 - $859 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Nikon D5100

Nikon D5100

Entry-level DSLR

$307 body only

$931 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen

Canon Rebel T3 Competitors

Canon Rebel T3i

Canon Rebel T3i

Entry-level DSLR

$708 with 18-55mm, 55-250mm lenses

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Battery life Shorter battery life
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS

Entry-level DSLR

$250 body only

$250 with 18-55mm lens

Size Significantly smaller
Thickness Much thinner
Movie format Does not take movies
Canon EOS Rebel T1i

Canon Rebel T1i

Entry-level DSLR

$350 body only

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Battery life Shorter battery life

discussion

Nikon D5000
D5000
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon Rebel T3
Rebel T3
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments