Sony NEX 5N vs Canon EOS M

Winner
Sony NEX-5N

74

Canon EOS M

58

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5N

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,079 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
77.0
Great color depth
Color depth
23.6 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
12.7 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS M

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
1,040k dots
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Size
Really small
Compact (109×66×32 mm)
Thickness
Thin
1.3"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS M.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-5N.

competitors

Sony NEX-5N Competitors

Sony NEX 5R

Sony NEX 5R

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$746 body only

$779 with 18-55mm lens

Focus points More focus points
Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
Low light performance More noise at high ISO
Sony Alpha NEX-5

Sony Alpha NEX-5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$390 body only

$500 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Significantly more noise at high ISO
Sony Alpha NEX-3N

Sony Alpha NEX-3N

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$376 body only

Battery life Longer battery life
Built-in flash Built-in flash
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen

Canon EOS M Competitors

Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 with 15-45mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Canon EOS M3

Canon EOS M3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$429 - $435 body only

$549 with 18-55mm lens

Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Size Larger
Canon EOS M5

Canon EOS M5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$950 - $979 body only

$1,050 - $1,099 with 15-45mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Significantly larger

discussion

Sony NEX-5N
NEX 5N
Sony

Report a correction
Canon EOS M
EOS M
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments