Updated (August 2011): Compare the Pentax K-5 vs Sony NEX-5N

Pentax K-5 vs Sony NEX 5N

Winner
Pentax K-5

72

Sony NEX-5N

65

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-5

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
104 ms shutter lag
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5N

Size
Really small
Compact (111×59×38 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 4 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-5.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-5N.

competitors

Pentax K-5 Competitors

Pentax K-5 II

Pentax K-5 II

Entry-level DSLR

$1,660 with 18-135mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Shutter lag More shutter lag
Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$1,444 with 18-55mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
External mic jack Lacks an external mic jack
Canon EOS 70D

Canon EOS 70D

Pro DSLR

$1,345 with 18-135mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Sony NEX-5N Competitors

Sony NEX F3

Sony NEX F3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$450 with 18-55mm lens

Built-in flash Built-in flash
Startup delay Less startup delay
Touch screen No touch screen
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$444 - $448 body only

$525 - $548 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Touch screen No touch screen
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$395 with 16-50mm lens

Built-in flash Built-in flash
True resolution Higher true resolution
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen

discussion

Pentax K-5
K-5
Pentax

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

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments