Canon EOS Rebel T1i vs. Nikon D5000... fight!
By Darren Murph 
posted Apr 29th 2009 2:11PM
posted Apr 29th 2009 2:11PM
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
Instead, you get a fixed 3-inch Live View display (like the more expensive D90 over on the Nikon front), a 1080p movie mode (which trumps all Nikon DSLRs at the moment and matches the mighty EOS 5D Mark II), a ISO sensitivity up to 12,800 (the D5000 tops out at 6,400) and a 15.1 megapixel sensor (compared to the 12.3MP sensor in the D90 and D5000). We're going to run out and pit these two against each other in order to bring you a more thorough showdown soon, but for now, hop on past the break to see how the T1i -- which is shipping to the public today as well -- stacks up against the D5000 on paper. Oh, and check out the gallery if you're intrigued by world class knock-down-drag-outs.
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
Cue fanboys arguing...
More like everyone bitching on engadget for getting small details wrong. Like advanced scene modes and sensor format (APS-C not DX) on T1i and Raw modes on D5000
Nikon's 5 minute maximum video duration is so lame. LOL at Nikon.
and by "everyone" you meant *you* right?
A 15 megapixel chip with that is smaller than the 12 megapixel chip it is beeing pit against, that should give nikon an edge in image quality. less is more!
pentax K2000 bitches!!!!
Yes! This is what I've been waiting for! Thank You engadget!
"its arch enemy"
New Panasonic GH1 does in a way better these two, although it costs a lot more. While the GH1 does use the smaller 4/5th lens system and therefore lack the huge glass collection from Nikon and Canon, it: a) Is smaller b) records proper stereo HD video c) Going by the original Panasonic G1 (and some online test shots) produces excellent quality still images and video recordings. d) Has a high res fully articulating display - unlike the half baked D5000 display that does not articulate fully. e) Various proven auto exposure features. f) Legendary Panasonic quality, proven with their well reviewed sub-compacts. (I'm getting one when it arrives in the UK.)
How's ISO performance?
You did mention the price, and you can't really compare the GH1 with these two cameras because of that.. If the GH1 really is $1,500 like predicted, that's getting close to DOUBLE the price of these two.. it's a different budget camera. If the price is closer to $1,100, then that comparison is fair..
If you don't care about the video part, the G1 on the other hand...
Mike, ISO performance is pretty good, actually.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/page18.asp
GH1 is not an SLR...
most of it comes down to a wash to the target demo this serves. The articulating display is really handy for those quick over the head shots but the pixel depth on the Canon is much, much nicer. It's going to come down to if someone likes/cares about the articulating display or if their family has already invested in one lens system over another. either one looks like a pretty decent shooter & miles above your standard point and shoot.
It doesn't look like they are fighting in the pictures...
Looks like they are trying to figure out where to stick what...
hahahahahahahahahahaha 4 real
ROFL!!!!!!! That's what I was thinking too!
This is a horrible side-by-side comparison between two products. Most of the time I can't even tell which one was which.
The Canon sensor is slightly smaller yet more pixels....
Their business models seems to be - - add as much pixels as possible, keep the sensor small and maximize the ISO to a point where it becomes useless.
sensor is smaller, but photodiodes are the same size as the nikon. The result is more pixels with the same amount of light on each pixel. Sounds like better overall SNR to me.
Compare an ISO 1600 photo from the original Digital Rebel and an ISO 1600 photo from the T1i, then get back to us.
For extra points, crop each to 20% original size and resample to 800x600.
Let us know how it goes, then please continue ranting about the crazy practices of those idiotic camera manufacturers who have no idea what they're doing.
They may be the same size and all that jazz, but more pixels still ought to mean a higher noise floor, especially when the sensor is the same size, based on how the individual pixels send their information form the sensor. That's bad news for HDR fans.
My point was it make very little sense to pack an APS-C sensor with 15.5 MP and ISO 12'800.
Even the full frame 5D II one need really good glass to use images at ISO 12'800.
Totally pointless and mostly used for marketing guys.
What they should focus on is fps and focus point - keep ISO to 1600 and 10 MP.
Remember this is an entry level camera for most people.
ISO 12,800 is great when you simply can't get the shot otherwise.
It makes absolutely no sense to berate Canon for including a feature you don't have to use. If you don't want to use ISO 12,800 then don't use it. Heck, if you don't want to use ISO 400 then don't use it. But it's there for those people who do want to use it. I can guarantee you that I would use it - sometimes I put my XT away because even 1600 is simply completely worthless.
I'd rather an ISO 12,800 shot than no shot at all.
And attacking them for including more megapixels? Would you be happier if the T1i had 6 MP instead of 15?
Your criticism is baseless. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Read my point completely.
I said focus on fps : 3.4 vs. 4 -- focus points 9 vs. 11.
If Canon wanted to build a "better" camera for beginners this would be more "useful" than megapixels.
And no ISO 12'800 on this camera with the kit lens (which most people will use) and 15 MP will add nothing to the image.
I fail to see what lens quality has to do with ISO performance. Pixels, yes; ISO, no.
And if you're arguing FPS and focus points for a lower end camera, I fail to see how those are really any less about marketing than ISO and pixel count. I don't think most entry level photographers will really be able to tell the difference between 3.4 and 4 FPS and 2 more focus points isn't going to make a huge difference either. Not that I think the high MP is really all that necessary either.
I'm not sure you understand the fundamentals of photography if you think that higher ISOs "add nothing to the image."
If I can get a sharp 1/40s exposure at ISO 12,800, I'd need to shoot at 1/5s to get the same exposure at 1/5s. 1/40 is good enough to capture low to moderate movement - 1/5 is basically worthless when dealing with anything that's moving at all.
I'd much rather have a noisy image than a giant blur.
There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to limit the camera to ISO 1600 and 10 MP. More pixels = more cropping potential.
And by the way, the Canon kit lens (18-55mm IS) is surprisingly good quality. You need to spend a lot of money to get better image quality in a similar focal length range. Go read the reviews.
Oh, and 11 vs 9 focal points is moot, since only the center AF point on each is cross-type.
For all practical purposes they are the same sensor, you're just freaking out about minute differences (12mp vs 15mp? are you kidding me? And then you manage to bring up Canon's EVER SO SLIGHTLY smaller sensor?)...
Just take a chill pill and drop the drama... Geez, I thought you were comparing 110mm to 35mm...
Can I be a fanboy on each side because I own Nikon and Canon cameras? Do I have to hate myself? Either way, to be honest, I want parts of each. The articulating display is not a big deal, and the resolution jump is not that big either.
I agree about the resolution not being a big difference. The difference in the two is only 464 linear pixels.
hahah yea my casual snapshooter is a Canon S80 but the Nikon FE2 (and sometimes a borrowed FM) is my beloved serious class / assignment tool.
What I don't like about the Nikon is that ISO selection and metering are in the menus - the T1i500DX3 (and XSi) have a button for that. Its a almost $1000 camera, not a compact, after all. I've already stretched my budget far for these cameras, I can't afford a D90. My Nikon Ai lens collection isn't very useful with crappy live view and no metering either.
No-brainer for me since I've already invested in a number of Canon lenses, but it sure is good to see competition breeding cameras like these.
Are the video recording capabilities on these actually good. Sure would be nice to not have to buy 2 different devices, if one can do it well.
movie picture quality is fine .. but lack of automatic focus and camerashake makes it only usuable for tripod use on non moving objects.
I'd like to point out that the Canon LCD display has four times the resolution of the Nikon (VGA vs. QVGA). There are tons of other features that warrant consideration if you're deciding between these two cameras (20fps at 1080p, Canon? really?), but that display resolution makes a huge difference when you're critiquing your photos during a shoot.
Disclosure: I own a Canon 50D.
They look pretty even to me with all things considered so I think it comes down to what brand you like more and whether or not you want the swiveling display on the D5000. I don't think the 1080p video on the T1i is very useful since it is only 20 fps so I don't think that gives that camera much of an edge. Overall, both seem like really nice dSLRs.
If Canon could have shoehorned a mere 4 extra FPS into the cameras 1080p recording it would make for a muuuuuuuuuuuch more desirable feature.
sure just wait for the firmware hack
I'm a Canon fanboy based on the fact that I've owned two Canon P&S cameras that were totally awesome for the price.
And the fact that while other camera makers may have a few great models, they also have some that don't really give you your money's worth. But with Canon, it's almost impossible to go wrong. I have yet to see a Canon model get a low score in a review.
Also, I don't know much about DSLRs so I wont say anything about these two.
When it comes to camera brands it's good to go with what feels right. At the end of the day, ergonomics should really be the biggest deciding factor of an SLR, as the capabilities of cameras are fairly close and we've long ago hit the point of diminishing returns with things like resolution.
That said, my biggest gripe with Canon is the warranty coverage... one year across their product line, even L series lenses. Well, at least it is international coverage in most cases. Accessories are also very overpriced and of poorer build quality compared to the competition... just try to get a hood for a 17-85mm and you'll see what I mean. Or compare Canon's ST-E2 to Nikon's SU-800. Or Canon's macro flash kits compared to Nikon's R1C1... the list goes on and on.
By comparison, Nikon gives 2 years on most bodies (I think the pro-level stuff is exempt because they generally are beaten to hell) and 5 years on all lenses.
At the end of the day, buy what is right for you. Don't let fanboys swing you to a particular brand. Try them out for yourself and make an informed decision. It's never been a better time to by a dSLR =)
Disclosure: I don't own Canon or Nikon cameras, SLRs or otherwise; I shoot with Fuji bodies (S3 and S5) which use Nikon lenses and accessories.
Thanks!
Well, I generally love Canon products, but having owned a Canon A70 P&S, I can testify that Canon does occasionally get it wrong. When the A70 came out it was highly reviewed and rated on dppreview and elsewhere. It now is listed amongst the "worst digital cameras ever made" because of ongoing and repeated issues with the sensor that Canon was slow to recognize and address more than a year after it was released. Mine went back to the factory twice under warranty and the third time the Canon rep at Hunt's finally took pity on me and ordered a new one (which now and then has an occasional sensor flicker but never went completely bad).
I had a Powershot A310 that had similar sensor problems (purple lines on black image).
But still, that's a manufacturing issue. Image quality was top notch.
Well Murph, if you think the T1I matches the 5D Mark II in terms of video you are kidding yourself. Resolution is only one metric, and therefore one piece of the puzzle to consider. Having used the T1I for the last couple days I can tell you the movie mode is not at all near the quality of the 5D Mark II, and arguably worse than the D90 =( The drop to 20fps alone makes video appear quite choppy compared to the 5D or Nikon's D90. This also make the rolling shutter issue even more pronounced.
Oddly enough, the quality issues I found were not just a matter of the video but the audio. And sadly, it's the poor implementation of two features, autofocus and brightness adjustment that hinder the movie mode so greatly.
Unless you are using an ultra-quiet lens the focusing will be picked up by the microphone. It also doesn't help that the focusing hunts heavily, even with faster lenses and in good light. If you are planning to use autofocus for video it's best to put that idea out of your head now; use manual focus. With practice you will be able to focus quickly and accurately without causing noise to be picked up by the mic.
As for the brightness adjustment, it's essentially the same issue. Canon has setup the camera to use the control dial for brightness adjustment during video, which also is picked up by the microphone. Either record audio with a separate device (as there is no mic input on this camera) or don't use the dial. Yes, it is that bad.
On the plus side, the high resolution screen alone makes it a worthy upgrade for those that were considering getting an XS or XSi. It's a nice entry-level camera, and entry-level is exactly the market Canon is aiming at with it.
Since I noticed a few questions regarding movie on the T1i I'll add a couple more comments. If you are planning to use 1080 you will need a fast card, and Class 6 SDHC won't necessarily cut it. I tested it with some basic Class 6 cards and it choked fast, stopping the video in less than a minute as the buffer filled. On the plus side, the camera will show when this is about to happen. In 720 this issue did not occur.
One point of clarification, Razor...
It is true that the 1080p mode on the T1i is at 20fps. But the 720p mode is captured at 30fps, and from I have seen first hand, it looks quite good. Not nearly as choppy as the 1080p mode, of course. It would be a better comparison to compare teh 720p moe of the T1i to the video mode on the Nikon, since it too is a 720p mode. The 1080p mode on the T1i is an added feature that the Nikon just simply does not have.
Otherwise, I agree with your post.
Razor, as you seem to be quite keen, can you answer my only remaining question regarding the video no the T1i:
How does it perform in low-light?
The biggest impact that the 5DMKII's video had on me was the low-light performance, which was absolutely mind-blowing. I'm pretty set on upgrading my 400D/XTi to a 500D/T1i, but I have not seen anyone try to do low-light video with the T1i yet.
I haven't tested the low-light performance of the T1i, but I'll prolly play a bit more with it on Friday and let you know.
While I generally will recommend a person consider other upgrades first, like a flash or different lenses, ahead of a camera body I can say this much: coming from an XT/XTi to a T1i is a jump significant enough that you certainly will not be disappointed. The new LCD by itself makes a big difference. Control layout is better, much like the XSI (but that is a matter or taste). If you are cool for other gear and know a different body is what you need right now it's a good upgrade.
I can see articulating screens becoming a common feature in consumer DSLRs.
After all, the ergonomic advantages are considerable and there are very few disadvantages (price and durability maybe?). The D5000 seems to sacrifice screen resolution but I don't think this will always be the case, esp. once they jack up production for new models.
By the by, all you megapixel whores out there. Have a look at the difference in image area between 12 and 15mp.
I hope not. They're bulkier, less durable, and ultimately pointless unless you shoot a ton of video.... in which case you should be using a video camera anyway.
Wait... it's SD/SDHC and not CF?
Why?
CF is a MUCH better medium if I'm going to be shoving it in and out of my pockets while shooting hordes of RAW files for projects.
Because they're trying to sell these to people who own compact cameras, hence the video and live view (not that live view isn't useful for other tasks) and compact camera owners all have SD...of course, it does alienate people who own older dSLRs and have to switch to SD or buy a higher end body.
>> "CF is a MUCH better medium if I'm going to be shoving it in and out of my pockets while shooting hordes of RAW files for projects."
This is any entry-level camera. The type of people using this camera will be perfectly happy with SD cards.
We've been through this before... CF cards for semi-pro to pro... SD cards for consumers cameras. This is a consumer camera... remember?
Macs, PCs, Canons, Nikons, iPhones, Androids... They're all tools to improve our life, inspire our creativity, & increase our productivity. Make a choice, learn it well, & get U the credit.
Woah, that first picture needs to be labeled "NSFW". ;)
I fail to see how the articulating display on the Nikon is so interesting. Seems like a gimmick to me.
For over the head shots in a crowd, low to the ground shots, and for some types of tripod shots an articulating screen can be quite useful (although the position of the swivel mechanism on the Nikon make it less useful than if the hinge was positioned on the left side like on many Canon point and shooters). And if for some reason you needed it, hand-held self portraits. Although holding a DSLR like that would be awkward due to the weight and bulk.
I've been in many situations where if I had an articulating screen on my camera I could compose over the crowd shots better than just shooting 'blind'. A lot of those shots are very transient and I've had to make do with a few with someone's head in the corner or the subject not being in the center of the image and having to crop it or living with it.
And being able to do 'dutch angle' shots without lying on the ground is useful in keeping my clothes clean. Again, better composition.
Hey Nikon,
Where's your depth of field preview button? Oh right, that's a
feature you don't have.
Where's your 1080p mode? Oh right, you only go to 720p.
Where's your 30fps? Oh right, you only shoot at the lame (and
technically inferior, despite what you artsy film homos might say)
24fps.
Hey fanboy,
Hows being a fanboy working out for you?
D5000 has same image quality as semi-pro D300, plus video mode of D90. I think this alone is worth the price for D5000... Except most engadget nerds aren't photographers and don't actually look at image quality, but spec sheets and bullshit statistics.
The fact that its image quality is similar to d300 (an abstract reference point) or that it has video capabilities have NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING A PHOTOGRAPHER.
Never had any respectable shooter come into our camera store and ask for a screen that can swivel. Never. Either you look through the damn viewfinder or you know your focal lengths well enough that you can frame (even over your head or around a corner) without needing to fold out and swivel a little screen.
how is having one a bad thing, though? In any case, I can virtually guarantee than within 2 years the bulk (if not all) DSLRs you sell will have 'em.
may be it is because it wasn't available until now!? I have 3 swivel Nikon point-n-shoots besides my DSLRs. I love them for the low and/or close to the ground shots.
Yeah... and when I was little I had to walk to school 23.6 MILES, THROUGH SNOW, UPHILL BOTH WAYS...
I suppose being able to review your shots on the spot and not having to develop film is somethings respectable shooters don't need too.
I bet that before DSLRs had Live View or video capabilities people never asked for those features either. Oh, wait.
We've been covering the battle over on our blog and wiki at http://planett1i.com - we've had several good breakdowns and reviews as well as samples... please stop by and see!
No Olympus E-620 love on Engadget. (higher ISO noise than the competition, but best kit lenses, best dustbuster, pixel mapping, articulating LCD, in-body stabilisation, smaller size..)
so the comparison was written in all nikon language rather.
starting with the lens.. for Canon it should be called IS instead of VR.
and DX is name used for nikon format. yes, it's same format in Canon too.
I trust Canon because they have the most array of lenses available, and pros use Canon for their photo and broadcasting needs. Nikon only does cameras, and D5000's video capabilities is surely lacking. The Rebel T1i on the other hand, has a 920k dot display and is 1080p capable. Most importantly, it gives you access to affordable pro grade white "L" lenses. In addition, a camera called "Rebel" seems cool to me, I don't mind being a Rebel =)
That is such a weak, fanboy argument. Pros use Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oly, and probably just about every other brand of camera. Not to mention Nikon is an optics company, they don't just make cameras, they make these things called lenses and other optical instruments.
And really, lack of video capabilities is no reason to pass up an SLR, that is not what they are made for.
Based on my personal preferences, I think I'd go with the Canon. Of course, i'm still going to wait a few generations for them to work out the kinks (or until Pentax adds these kinds of features to their DSLRs :-).
Who's the winner?
I honestly can't see using the video features all that much with a dSLR, its just too unwieldy for my taste.
If history is any count the image quality is going to be very close between the two and the real differences will be in how they process the noise, unless you shoot in raw and process images externally. I like Canon's noise processing better then Nikon's, but that doesn't matter since I only shoot in raw anymore. I really like the Canon 14bit raw over the Nikon 12bit raw.
If you have a dSLR already you are not going to change camps. If upgrading from a P&S you go OMG MEGAPIXELS and get the Canon.
Me, I like the layout of the Canon's controls and higher rez screen, we'll see about the image quality when there are some real comparisons.
I am getting ready to revisit the photo days of my youth and aim to purchase a camera that can do two things.
1. Take photos of fast moving aircraft, such as fighter jets and vintage WWII era aircraft. If possible even having the ability to take a photo of a prop plane and catch the blades while they are spinning.
2. This one is asking a lot, but the camera must have the sensor or image capturing ability to capture photos of the Aurora Borealis.
Can either of these camera do this? If not is there a camera under the $1,500 dollar mark that can?
yes they both can, it all depends on the settings that you use. For the aurora, maybe a canon 5d would be best but then again, it would cost 2 times more.
Jon likes to use cameras.... and Jackleboul is a photographer... that is also the difference between canon and nikon (techspecs vs final photo quality) these days based on how they are focusing thier product development (and this is a comment froma canon and nikon owner). BTW Jon....where did you find a single good review of the 18-55 canon kit lens...it has bee tagged as junk everywhere...
This is the best review so far:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D5000-D90-Compared-to-Canon-Rebel-T1i-500D.shtml
Seems nikon has a winner for photographers...and will keep their leading 48% plus market share in dslr this year...
Image their offspring!
Anyway, I have to stick with my D70s for now.
That's the gayest collection of photos that have ever accompanied a "comparison" review.
"Based on specifications alone, the T1i looks like a much more serious shooter than the D5000"
Er... how exactly? Because it has more megapixels and a "Boosted" Higher ISO?
From what I see in the spec list, the D5000 has a better burst speed, wider exposure compensation range, more AF points, wider viewfinder coverage, better AF coverage, better flash coverage, better battery life... But sure, the T1i has a 1080p mode so it must be the more "Serious shooter", AMIRITE???
*Facepalm*
I'll give it the the Canon folk though, the lack of bracketing and a DoF preview button are disappointing omissions from entry level Nikons (No, the screw drive doesn't make a difference because unless you're into some serious photography, you'd be content with the newer crop of AF-S DX lenses ).
I think you mixed up your coverage and your magnification. And the magnification numbers are wrong too.
Thanks for the steamy camera porn, Engadget.
Fap fap fap fap fap fap.
If you are considering getting either nikon d5000, d90 or canon t1i
for the movie mode feature (as I am) I would say do NOT get the
canon. the Canon does not have manual exposure control during movie
mode, so you can not reliably get bokeh. It is basically like a
point and shoot when shooting video. You lose the whole point of
using an SLR for video.
I am posting this so you are not disappointed like I am when you are
thinking about making all those shallow depth of field videos that
look great. If you are not tied to canon due to owning lenses
already, GET THE NIKON if video is a big deal for you (yes this is
coming from a canon owner)
I get your point about the Nikon's exposure control, but the D5000's 5 minute clip limit is a very serious limitation. Someone made a comment earlier about a possible software update increasing the clip length, but until it's there the five minute limit is a problem.
9 points only on the canon? that's so 90's