Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 vs Samsung NX5

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5
Samsung NX5

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
310 ms shutter lag
External flash
External flash
Better lighting
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX5

Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from
Sensor type
CMOS Sensor
Better in low light
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
External flash
External flash
Better lighting

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5.
Explore our gallery of 23 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX5.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Pro digicam

$533

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Wider aperture
Startup delay More startup delay
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1

Pro digicam

$9,416

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Wide angle Significantly worse wide angle
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 (Lumix DMC-LX15)

Pro digicam

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Aperture Wider aperture
Image stabilization Worse image stabilization

Samsung NX5 Competitors

Samsung NX100

Samsung NX100

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$389 with 20-55mm lens

Screen type Has an OLED screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Built-in flash No built-in flash
Samsung NX Mini

Samsung NX Mini

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$279 body only

$450 with 9mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Lens availability Fewer lenses available
Canon EOS Rebel T2i

Canon Rebel T2i

Entry-level DSLR

$399 with 18-55mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Lens availability Much more lenses available
Size Larger

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5
Lumix DMC-LX5
Panasonic

Report a correction
Samsung NX5
NX5
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments