Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 vs Nikon D7000

Winner
Sony Alpha DSLR-A850

89

Nikon D7000

80

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha DSLR-A850

Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.74x
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
184 ms shutter lag
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000

Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 24fps
Dynamic range
Wide dynamic range
13.9 EV
Live view
Has live view
Preview your photos
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D7000.
Explore our gallery of 38 sample photos taken by the Sony Alpha DSLR-A850.

competitors

Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Competitors

Sony Alpha DSLR-A900

Sony Alpha DSLR-A900

Pro DSLR

Continuous shooting Shoots faster
Viewfinder coverage Better viewfinder coverage
Sony SLT A99

Sony SLT A99

Pro DSLR

$1,998 - $3,198 body only

$2,880 with 28-75mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Live view Has live view
Viewfinder Has a digital viewfinder
Sony SLT-A77

Sony SLT A77

Pro DSLR

$1,705 body only

$1,500 with 16-50mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
Live view Has live view
Startup delay Much more startup delay

Nikon D7000 Competitors

Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$789 - $997 body only

$1,100 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies
Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$650 - $697 body only

$997 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Shutter lag More shutter lag
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$597 body only

$540 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Weather sealed No weather sealing

discussion

Sony Alpha DSLR-A850
Alpha DSLR-A850
Sony

Report a correction
Nikon D7000
D7000
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments