Updated (May 2012): Compare the Canon Rebel T4i vs Sony NEX-7

Sony NEX 7 vs Canon Rebel T4i

Winner
Sony NEX-7

44

Canon Rebel T4i

41

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 7

Great image quality
Overall image quality
81.0
Really small
Size
Compact (111×59×38 mm)
Great color depth
Color depth
24.1 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.4 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Rebel T4i

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Lens availability
Slightly more lenses available
220 lenses
HDR
In-camera HDR
Combines multiple exposures
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 Rebel T4i.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-7.

competitors

Sony NEX-7 Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$698 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Focus points Significantly more focus points
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Sony Alpha a6300

Sony Alpha a6300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$998 body only

$1,148 with 16-50mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Focus points Many more focus points
Size Slightly larger
Sony Alpha NEX-6

Sony Alpha NEX-6

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$549 body only

$900 with 16-50mm lens

Focus points More focus points
Weight Slightly lighter
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

Canon Rebel T4i Competitors

Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$404 - $649 body only

$495 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Lowest price Slightly cheaper
Canon Rebel T3i

Canon Rebel T3i

Entry-level DSLR

$699 body only

$699 with 18-55mm lens

Color depth Better color depth
Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
Autofocus Lacks video autofocus
Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Entry-level DSLR

$749 with 18-55mm lens

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Overall image quality Better image quality

discussion

Sony NEX-7
NEX 7
Sony

Report a correction
Canon Rebel T4i
Rebel T4i
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments