Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 vs Sony NEX 5N

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

64

Sony NEX-5N

48

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.4
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
120 fps
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Great macro
Macro focus
1.0 cm
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5N

Overall image quality
Great image quality
77.0
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
1900 ms startup delay

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-5N.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Competitors

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$398

Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Boutique

$579 - $798

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Overall image quality Significantly better image quality
Aperture Narrower aperture
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Travel zoom

$298 - $316

Zoom More zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Aperture Much narrower aperture

Sony NEX-5N Competitors

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
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$448 body only

$598 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
3D Doesn't take 3D photos
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$287 body only

$398 with 16-50mm lens

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

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
Lumix DMC-LX7
Panasonic

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

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments