Nikon D5000 vs Samsung GX-20

Winner
Nikon D5000

50

Samsung GX-20

45

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D5000

Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
12.5 EV
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
Phase detection autofocus
Badge
fast and accurate
Self cleaning sensor
Sensor cleaning
Avoids dust in your photos
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung GX-20

Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.62x
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D5000.
Explore our gallery of 4 sample photos taken by the Samsung GX-20.

competitors

Nikon D5000 Competitors

Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$350 body only

$390 - $419 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Nikon D3100

Nikon D3100

Entry-level DSLR

$529 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$460 body only

$369 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

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

Samsung GX-20 Competitors

Pentax K-r

Pentax K-r

Entry-level DSLR

$369 body only

$303 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Weather sealed No weather sealing
Pentax K20D

Pentax K20D

Entry-level DSLR

$529 body only

Autofocus Faster autofocus
Built-in focus motor Has a built-in focus motor
Low light performance More noise at high ISO
Canon EOS 70D

Canon EOS 70D

Pro DSLR

$400 - $899 body only

$400 - $999 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization

discussion

Nikon D5000
D5000
Nikon

Report a correction
Samsung GX-20
GX-20
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments