Updated (October 2012): Compare the Nikon D5200 vs Sony SLT-A77

Sony SLT A77 vs Nikon D5200

Winner
Sony SLT-A77

88

Nikon D5200

76

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A77

Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.72x
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
12 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5200

Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
500 ms startup delay
Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 60fps
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
HDR
In-camera HDR
Combines multiple exposures

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT-A77.

competitors

Sony SLT-A77 Competitors

Sony SLT A77 II

Sony SLT A77 II

Pro DSLR

$1,198 body only

$1,798 with 16-50mm lens

Focus points Significantly more focus points
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Canon EOS 70D

Canon EOS 70D

Pro DSLR

$812 - $999 body only

$913 - $1,099 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Viewfinder Has an optical viewfinder
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$650 - $697 body only

$997 with 18-140mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Viewfinder Has an optical viewfinder
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

Nikon D5200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$452 body only

$399 - $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

$597 body only

$540 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Color depth Worse color depth
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$563 - $749 body only

$469 - $499 with 18-55mm lens

Weight Slightly lighter
Movie format Lower frame rate movies

discussion

Sony SLT-A77
SLT A77
Sony

Report a correction
Nikon D5200
D5200
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments