Updated (October 2012): Compare the Nikon D5200 vs Nikon D700

Nikon D700 vs Nikon D5200

Winner
Nikon D700

100

Nikon D5200

77

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D700

Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.72x
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pentaprism
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
197 ms shutter lag
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5200

Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 60fps
True resolution
High true resolution
24 MP
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus 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 D700.

competitors

Nikon D700 Competitors

Nikon D610

Nikon D610

Pro DSLR

$944 - $1,497 body only

$1,807 - $2,447 with 28-300mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Focus points Fewer focus points
Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,339 - $1,397 body only

$1,719 - $1,897 with 24-120mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
True resolution Much higher true resolution
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder
Nikon D600

Nikon D600

Pro DSLR

$1,485 body only

$2,171 with 24-85mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Focus points Fewer focus points

Nikon D5200 Competitors

Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$394 body only

$500 - $510 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
GPS Has a GPS
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$480 body only

$399 with 18-55mm lens

Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$380 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Significantly longer battery life
Viewfinder size Larger viewfinder
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack

discussion

Nikon D700
D700
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D5200
D5200
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments