Sony Alpha NEX-5 vs Canon EOS M

Winner
Sony Alpha NEX-5

96

Canon EOS M

88

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha NEX-5

Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
12.2 EV
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS M

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
1,040k dots
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone

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 Alpha NEX-5.

competitors

Sony Alpha NEX-5 Competitors

Fujifilm X-A10

Fujifilm X-A10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$499 with 16-50mm lens

Battery life Significantly longer battery life
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
External flash No external flash support
Sony NEX-5N

Sony NEX 5N

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$691 body only

$853 with 16-50mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Lowest price Slightly more expensive
Sony Alpha NEX-3

Sony Alpha NEX-3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$398 body only

$380 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Thickness Slightly thinner
Color depth Worse color depth

Canon EOS M Competitors

Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 with 15-45mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Low light performance Much more noise at high ISO
Canon EOS M3

Canon EOS M3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$391 - $429 body only

$460 with 15-45mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Size Larger
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$447 body only

$365 - $379 with 16-50mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen

discussion

Sony Alpha NEX-5
Alpha NEX-5
Sony

Report a correction
Canon EOS M
EOS M
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments