Nikon D7000 vs Leica M9

Winner
Nikon D7000

56

Leica M9

40

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000

Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Great viewfinder coverage
Viewfinder coverage
100%
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Built-in focus motor
Badge
Autofocuses with more lenses
 

Reasons to buy the Leica M9

Size
Really small
Mid size (139×80×37 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.5"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Leica M9.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D7000.

competitors

Nikon D7000 Competitors

Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$799 - $997 body only

$1,048 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies
Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$629 - $679 body only

$949 with 18-140mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life
Nikon D5200

Nikon D5200

Entry-level DSLR

$430 body only

$520 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Built-in focus motor Doesn't have a built-in focus motor

Leica M9 Competitors

Leica M10

Leica M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$6,895 - $7,995 body only

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Thickness Significantly thicker
Leica M Typ 240

Leica M Typ 240

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$6,595 body only

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Screen size Much larger screen
Size Slightly larger
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Pro DSLR

$2,100 - $2,299 body only

$2,639 - $2,899 with 24-105mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Screen size Much larger screen
Size Significantly larger

discussion

Nikon D7000
D7000
Nikon

Report a correction
Leica M9
M9
Leica

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments