Updated (October 2012): Compare the Nikon D5200 vs Nikon D5000

Nikon D5200 vs Nikon D5000

Winner
Nikon D5200

100

Nikon D5000

64

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5200

Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
High true resolution
True resolution
24 MP
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Many focus points
Focus points
39
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5000

Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
400 ms startup delay
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5000.

competitors

Nikon D5200 Competitors

Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

499 € body only

544 € with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Lowest price Slightly more expensive
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

395 € body only

442 € with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Much longer battery life
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

420 € body only

482 € with 18-55mm lens

Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

Nikon D5000 Competitors

Nikon D3100

Nikon D3100

Entry-level DSLR

300 € body only

395 € with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

336 € body only

396 € with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

420 € body only

482 € with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

discussion

Nikon D5200
D5200
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D5000
D5000
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments