Updated (September 2012): Compare the Canon PowerShot S110 vs Sony NEX-5N

Canon PowerShot S110 vs Sony NEX 5N

Winner
Canon PowerShot S110

57

Sony NEX-5N

45

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot S110

High speed movies
High-speed framerate
240 fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
Usually standard
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5N

Overall image quality
Great image quality
77.0
Color depth
Great color depth
23.6 bits
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama

galleries

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

competitors

Canon PowerShot S110 Competitors

Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$513

Shutter lag Much less shutter lag
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Supports 24p No 24p support
Canon PowerShot G7 X

Canon PowerShot G7 X

Pro digicam

$549 - $649

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon Powershot S100

Canon Powershot S100

Pro digicam

$185

Shutter lag Significantly less shutter lag
GPS Has a GPS
Touch screen No touch screen

Sony NEX-5N Competitors

Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$296 body only

$448 with 16-50mm lens

True resolution Higher true resolution
Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$698 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Sony NEX 5R

Sony NEX 5R

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$400 body only

Focus points More focus points
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Battery life Shorter battery life

discussion

Canon PowerShot S110
PowerShot S110
Canon

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

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments