Nikon D90 vs Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi

Winner
Nikon D90

68

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi

36

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D90

Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.63x
Has live view
Live view
Preview your photos
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
300 ms startup delay
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pentaprism
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi

Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
200 ms shutter lag
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (127×94×65 mm)
Thickness
Thin
2.6"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 48 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi.
Explore our gallery of 47 sample photos taken by the Nikon D90.

competitors

Nikon D90 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$300 body only

$399 - $547 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$849 - $1,097 body only

$999 - $1,397 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$439 body only

$577 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Autofocus Video autofocus
Shutter lag More shutter lag

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi Competitors

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$285 body only

$360 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Color depth Worse color depth
Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$449 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Startup delay Much less startup delay
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS

Entry-level DSLR

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Live view Has live view
Color depth Worse color depth

discussion

Nikon D90
D90
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments