Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs Sony NEX 5N

Winner
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

100

Sony NEX-5N

63

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Large screen
Screen size
3.2"
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
120 ms shutter lag
Great battery life
Battery life
950 shots
More storage slots
Storage slots
2
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5N

Size
Really small
Compact (111×59×38 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 5D Mark III.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-5N.

competitors

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Competitors

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

Pro DSLR

$2,949 - $3,099 body only

$3,399 - $3,999 with 24-105mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Storage slots Has fewer storage slots
Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$999 - $1,029 body only

$1,399 - $1,999 with 24-105mm lens

GPS Has a GPS
Size Smaller
Screen size Significantly smaller screen
Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,497 body only

$1,997 with 24-120mm lens

Built-in focus motor Has a built-in focus motor
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Fastest shutter speed Slower max shutter speed

Sony NEX-5N Competitors

Sony NEX 5R

Sony NEX 5R

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Focus points More focus points
Battery life Shorter battery life
Sony Alpha A5100

Sony Alpha A5100

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$348 body only

$448 with 16-50mm lens

Autofocus Faster autofocus
Focus points More focus points
External flash No external flash support
Sony Alpha NEX-6

Sony Alpha NEX-6

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$606 body only

$699 with 16-50mm lens

Focus points More focus points
Built-in flash Built-in flash
Touch screen No touch screen

discussion

Canon EOS 5D Mark III
EOS 5D Mark III
Canon

Report a correction
Sony NEX-5N
NEX 5N
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments