Nikon Coolpix A vs Sony NEX 5R

Winner
Nikon Coolpix A

81

Sony NEX 5R

51

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon Coolpix A

Built-in flash
Built-in flash
Usually standard
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5R

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon Coolpix A.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX 5R.

competitors

Nikon Coolpix A Competitors

Nikon Coolpix A900

Nikon Coolpix A900

Travel zoom

$299 - $397

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Aperture Narrower aperture
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III

Pro digicam

$698

Image stabilization Image stabilization
High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Overall image quality Worse image quality
Ricoh GR

Ricoh GR

Boutique

$365

Startup delay Significantly less startup delay
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Overall image quality Slightly worse image quality

Sony NEX 5R Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 - $498 body only

$578 - $598 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Touch screen No touch screen
Sony NEX-5N

Sony NEX 5N

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$691 body only

$853 with 16-50mm lens

Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Low light performance Slightly lower noise at high ISO
Focus points Fewer focus points
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$447 body only

$370 - $379 with 16-50mm lens

True resolution Higher true resolution
Built-in flash Built-in flash
Screen resolution Lower resolution screen

discussion

Nikon Coolpix A
Coolpix A
Nikon

Report a correction
Sony NEX 5R
NEX 5R
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments