Updated (March 2012): Compare the Nikon D3200 vs Sony NEX-5N

Nikon D3200 vs Sony NEX 5N

Winner
Nikon D3200

58

Sony NEX-5N

48

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3200

Great image quality
Overall image quality
81.0
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
400 ms startup delay
Great color depth
Color depth
24.1 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.2 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5N

Size
Really small
Compact (111×59×38 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
235 ms shutter lag

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3200.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-5N.

competitors

Nikon D3200 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$431 body only

$399 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Canon EOS Rebel T6

Canon EOS Rebel T6

Entry-level DSLR

$325 - $749 body only

$390 - $449 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Nikon D5200

Nikon D5200

Entry-level DSLR

$377 body only

$449 with 18-55mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
Size Slightly larger

Sony NEX-5N Competitors

Sony NEX 5R

Sony NEX 5R

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$795 body only

$778 with 18-55mm lens

Focus points More focus points
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Battery life Shorter battery life
Sony Alpha NEX-5

Sony Alpha NEX-5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$390 body only

$500 with 16-50mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Shutter lag Much more shutter lag
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$348 body only

$379 - $390 with 16-50mm lens

Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
True resolution Higher true resolution
Screen resolution Lower resolution screen

discussion

Nikon D3200
D3200
Nikon

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

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments