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
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
14.1 EV
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D90

Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.63x
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism

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

$1,123 body only

$403 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$428 body only

$400 with 18-135mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Autofocus Video autofocus
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Pentax K-5 II

Pentax K-5 II

Entry-level DSLR

$526 body only

$475 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Battery life Longer battery life
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag

Nikon D90 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$460 body only

$369 - $447 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

$788 - $997 body only

$1,076 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Lowest price Much more expensive
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$440 body only

$1,220 with 18-105mm 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