Updated (May 2012): Compare the Canon EOS 60D vs Nikon D600

Nikon D600 vs Canon EOS 60D

Winner
Nikon D600

100

Canon EOS 60D

65

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D600

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
2,980 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
94.0
Great color depth
Color depth
25.1 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
14.2 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 60D

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
400 ms startup delay
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 60D.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D600.

competitors

Nikon D600 Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,419 - $1,797 body only

$1,956 - $2,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Nikon D610

Nikon D610

Pro DSLR

$1,149 - $1,497 body only

$1,900 - $2,447 with 28-300mm lens

Continuous shooting Shoots slightly faster
Lowest price Cheaper
Nikon D700

Nikon D700

Pro DSLR

$109 body only

Viewfinder size Slightly larger viewfinder
Lowest price Cheaper
Screen size Significantly smaller screen

Canon EOS 60D Competitors

Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$425 - $649 body only

$500 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Size Smaller
Overall image quality Much worse image quality
Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Entry-level DSLR

$469 body only

$749 - $792 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Viewfinder Doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder
Canon EOS 7D

Canon EOS 7D

Pro DSLR

$938 body only

$1,089 with 28-135mm lens

Weather sealed Weather sealed
Viewfinder coverage Significantly better viewfinder coverage
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

discussion

Nikon D600
D600
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 60D
EOS 60D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments