Updated (September 2010): Compare the Canon EOS 500D vs Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000 vs Canon EOS 500D

Winner
Nikon D7000

100

Canon EOS 500D

65

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000

Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 24fps
Great color depth
Color depth
23.5 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.9 EV
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.62x
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 500D

Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
159 ms shutter lag
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (129×98×62 mm)
Thickness
Thin
2.4"
Weight
Light-weight
520 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 500D.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D7000.

competitors

Nikon D7000 Competitors

Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$650 - $697 body only

$997 - $1,069 with 18-105mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Shutter lag More shutter lag
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$396 - $597 body only

$476 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$779 - $997 body only

$1,127 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies

Canon EOS 500D Competitors

Canon EOS 1200D

Canon EOS 1200D

Entry-level DSLR

$293 body only

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Canon EOS 1100D

Canon EOS 1100D

Entry-level DSLR

$325 body only

$910 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Movie format Lower resolution movies
Canon EOS 700D

Canon EOS 700D

Entry-level DSLR

$460 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag

discussion

Nikon D7000
D7000
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 500D
EOS 500D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments