Nikon D5100 vs Canon EOS 40D

Winner
Nikon D5100

100

Canon EOS 40D

87

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5100

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,183 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
80.0
Great color depth
Color depth
23.5 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.6 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 40D

Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
128 ms shutter lag
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
400 ms startup delay

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 40D.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5100.

competitors

Nikon D5100 Competitors

Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$358 body only

$438 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Thickness Thinner
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$326 body only

$397 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$402 body only

$397 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

Canon EOS 40D Competitors

Canon EOS 50D

Canon EOS 50D

Pro DSLR

$527 body only

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Weather sealed Weather sealed
Battery life Shorter battery life
Canon Rebel T3i

Canon Rebel T3i

Entry-level DSLR

$400 with 18-55mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Movie format Shoots movies
Viewfinder Doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder
Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$487 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
True resolution Higher true resolution
Dynamic range Less dynamic range

discussion

Nikon D5100
D5100
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 40D
EOS 40D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments