Nikon D5200 vs Samsung NX300

Winner
Nikon D5200

64

Samsung NX300

48

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5200

Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
500 ms startup delay
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX300

Screen size
Large screen
3.3"
Size
Really small
Mid size (122×64×41 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen type
OLED Screen
Bright and vivid

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5200.
Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX300.

competitors

Nikon D5200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$431 body only

$400 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Size Slightly smaller
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$396 - $597 body only

$466 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
GPS Has a GPS
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$419 - $497 with 18-55mm lens

Built-in focus motor Has a built-in focus motor
Battery life Significantly longer battery life
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out

Samsung NX300 Competitors

Samsung NX3000

Samsung NX3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$406 body only

$685 with 16-50mm lens

Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Weight Slightly lighter
Startup delay Much more startup delay
Samsung NX500

Samsung NX500

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$959 with 16-50mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Overall image quality Better image quality
Startup delay Much more startup delay
Samsung NX1000

Samsung NX1000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$530 with 20-50mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Size Slightly smaller
Startup delay Much more startup delay

discussion

Nikon D5200
D5200
Nikon

Report a correction
Samsung NX300
NX300
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments