Canon EOS Rebel T1i vs. Nikon D5000... fight!

We can't quite recall if the last week in April of 2008 was jam packed with camera introductions, but you can go ahead and pencil this little stretch down as quite an important time in the lives of DSLR junkies. Nary 24 hours after we gave you our pair of pennies on Nikon's D5000, Canon's EOS Rebel T1i (its arch enemy, just so you know) has arrived. Based on specifications alone, the T1i looks like a much more serious shooter than the D5000, though its kit package -- which also includes an 18-55mm IS EF-S lens -- runs you $50 more and omits that all-too-intriguing articulating display.

Gallery: Canon EOS Rebel T1i hands-on

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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.

Gallery: Canon EOS Rebel T1i vs. Nikon D5000... fight!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

For more detailed specifications on each camera, look here for the D5000 and here for the T1i.

[Luke @ Apr 29th 2009 2:16PM]

Cue fanboys arguing...

[basroil @ Apr 29th 2009 3:02PM]

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

[Billy Fiul @ Apr 29th 2009 3:43PM]

Nikon's 5 minute maximum video duration is so lame. LOL at Nikon.

[Dave D @ Apr 29th 2009 3:42PM]

and by "everyone" you meant *you* right?

[moijk @ Apr 29th 2009 3:58PM]

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!

[timberspine @ Apr 29th 2009 2:16PM]

pentax K2000 bitches!!!!

[holycow @ Apr 29th 2009 2:16PM]

Yes! This is what I've been waiting for! Thank You engadget!

[Destricto_Ense @ Apr 29th 2009 2:18PM]

"its arch enemy"

[Wonderkid @ Apr 29th 2009 2:19PM]

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.)

[Mike @ Apr 29th 2009 2:22PM]

How's ISO performance?

[Steve @ Apr 29th 2009 2:30PM]

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..

[Steve @ Apr 29th 2009 2:31PM]

If you don't care about the video part, the G1 on the other hand...

[LloydChiro @ Apr 29th 2009 2:50PM]

Mike, ISO performance is pretty good, actually.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/page18.asp

[Pretol @ Apr 30th 2009 4:09AM]

GH1 is not an SLR...

[RyanTV @ Apr 29th 2009 2:20PM]

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.

[Razloga @ Apr 29th 2009 2:23PM]

It doesn't look like they are fighting in the pictures...

Looks like they are trying to figure out where to stick what...

[alexster404 @ Apr 29th 2009 2:53PM]

hahahahahahahahahahaha 4 real

[Lam Nguyen @ Apr 30th 2009 9:07AM]

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.

[jackleboul @ Apr 29th 2009 2:23PM]

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.

[basroil @ Apr 29th 2009 3:00PM]

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.

[Jon @ Apr 29th 2009 3:02PM]

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.

[Zach @ Apr 29th 2009 5:49PM]

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.

[jackleboul @ Apr 29th 2009 3:55PM]

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.

[Jon @ Apr 29th 2009 4:06PM]

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.

[jackleboul @ Apr 29th 2009 4:12PM]

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.

[ehisforadam @ Apr 29th 2009 4:25PM]

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.

[Jon @ Apr 29th 2009 4:38PM]

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.

[Jon @ Apr 29th 2009 4:39PM]

Oh, and 11 vs 9 focal points is moot, since only the center AF point on each is cross-type.

[Pretol @ Apr 30th 2009 3:44AM]

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...

[Deepfriedpirate @ Apr 29th 2009 2:26PM]

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.

[jaredrbyer @ Apr 29th 2009 2:59PM]

I agree about the resolution not being a big difference. The difference in the two is only 464 linear pixels.

[YpoCaramel @ Apr 29th 2009 11:46PM]

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.

[Zak @ Apr 29th 2009 2:28PM]

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.

[KR.Z @ Apr 29th 2009 2:29PM]

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.

[Stemu2000 @ Apr 29th 2009 2:48PM]

movie picture quality is fine .. but lack of automatic focus and camerashake makes it only usuable for tripod use on non moving objects.

[Ethan @ Apr 29th 2009 2:30PM]

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.

[cmsb55 @ Apr 29th 2009 2:32PM]

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.

[Wolfticket @ Apr 29th 2009 2:54PM]

If Canon could have shoehorned a mere 4 extra FPS into the cameras 1080p recording it would make for a muuuuuuuuuuuch more desirable feature.

[jamesvdm @ Apr 30th 2009 2:41AM]

sure just wait for the firmware hack

[superhobo @ Apr 29th 2009 2:36PM]

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.

[superhobo @ Apr 29th 2009 2:42PM]

Also, I don't know much about DSLRs so I wont say anything about these two.

[Razor @ Apr 29th 2009 2:54PM]

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.

[superhobo @ Apr 29th 2009 3:01PM]

Thanks!

[willmcn @ May 25th 2009 11:19AM]

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).

[superhobo @ May 25th 2009 3:22PM]

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.

[Razor @ Apr 29th 2009 2:40PM]

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.

[Razor @ Apr 29th 2009 2:44PM]

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.

[Lance @ Apr 29th 2009 5:22PM]

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.

[djmant @ Apr 30th 2009 5:07AM]

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.

[Razor @ Apr 30th 2009 7:27AM]

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.