Sony Alpha NEX-5 vs Nikon D300

Winner
Sony Alpha NEX-5

42

Nikon D300

40

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha NEX-5

Really small
Size
Compact (111×59×38 mm)
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
Thin
Thickness
1.5"
Light-weight
Weight
287 g
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D300

Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Viewfinder coverage
Great viewfinder coverage
100%
Lens availability
Slightly more lenses available
230 lenses
Badge
Built-in focus motor
Autofocuses with more lenses

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D300.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Alpha NEX-5.

competitors

Sony Alpha NEX-5 Competitors

Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$437 body only

$370 - $379 with 16-50mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen resolution Lower resolution screen
Olympus PEN E-PL8

Olympus PEN E-PL8

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$549 - $550 body only

$649 - $650 with 14-42mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Weight Slightly heavier
Sony NEX-7

Sony NEX 7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$516 body only

$802 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Startup delay Slightly more startup delay

Nikon D300 Competitors

Nikon D90

Nikon D90

Entry-level DSLR

$680 body only

$730 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
Movie format Shoots movies
Weather sealed No weather sealing
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$899 body only

$799 with 18-55mm lens

Overall image quality Better image quality
Movie format Shoots movies
Startup delay Slightly more startup delay
Nikon D300S

Nikon D300S

Pro DSLR

$1,286 body only

$1,777 with 18-200mm lens

Storage slots Has more storage slots
Movie format Shoots movies
Battery life Slightly shorter battery life

discussion

Sony Alpha NEX-5
Alpha NEX-5
Sony

Report a correction
Nikon D300
D300
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments