Nikon D5200 vs Nikon D300S

Winner
Nikon D5200

69

Nikon D300S

67

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5200

Great image quality
Overall image quality
84.0
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
Great color depth
Color depth
24.2 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.9 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D300S

Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.62x
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
7 fps
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D300S.

competitors

Nikon D5200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$435 body only

$397 - $547 with 18-55mm lens

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
HDR Lacks in-camera HDR
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$512 - $597 body only

$499 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Overall image quality Slightly worse image quality
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$429 - $649 body only

$520 - $649 with 18-55mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Shutter lag Less shutter lag
Color depth Worse color depth

Nikon D300S Competitors

Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$627 - $797 body only

$925 - $1,097 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Shutter lag More shutter lag
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$439 body only

$574 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Overall image quality Better image quality
Cross type focus points Fewer cross-type focus points
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$850 - $1,047 body only

$1,347 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Startup delay More startup delay

discussion

Nikon D5200
D5200
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D300S
D300S
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments