Updated (September 2010): Compare the Nikon D90 vs Pentax K-5

Pentax K-5 vs Nikon D90

Winner
Pentax K-5

92

Nikon D90

68

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-5

Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 25fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
7 fps
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D90

Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.63x
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
208 ms shutter lag

galleries

Explore our gallery of 47 sample photos taken by the Nikon D90.
Explore our gallery of 4 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-5.

competitors

Pentax K-5 Competitors

Pentax K-3

Pentax K-3

Entry-level DSLR

$699 - $739 body only

$900 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
Startup delay More startup delay
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$435 body only

$399 - $429 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Pentax K-70

Pentax K-70

Entry-level DSLR

$647 body only

$897 with 18-135mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Battery life Significantly shorter battery life

Nikon D90 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$299 body only

$395 - $547 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$828 - $1,047 body only

$1,347 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$518 body only

$574 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Autofocus Video autofocus
Shutter lag More shutter lag

discussion

Pentax K-5
K-5
Pentax

Report a correction
Nikon D90
D90
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments