Sony NEX 5R vs Samsung NX300

Winner
Sony NEX 5R

71

Samsung NX300

69

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5R

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
In-camera panoramas
Panorama
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
Takes 3D photos
3D
View photos in 3D on 3D televisions
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX300

Screen size
Large screen
3.3"
Screen type
OLED Screen
Bright and vivid
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
116 ms shutter lag
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX300.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX 5R.

competitors

Sony NEX 5R Competitors

Sony NEX-5N

Sony NEX 5N

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$887 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Focus points Fewer focus points
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$698 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Image stabilization Image stabilization
Touch screen No touch screen
Sony NEX 5T

Sony NEX 5T

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

Samsung NX300 Competitors

Samsung NX3000

Samsung NX3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$376 body only

$379 with 20-50mm lens

Weight Slightly lighter
Thickness Slightly thinner
Screen size Much smaller screen
Samsung NX500

Samsung NX500

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$998 with 16-50mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Screen size Much smaller screen
Samsung NX2000

Samsung NX2000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$459 with 20-50mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen

discussion

Sony NEX 5R
NEX 5R
Sony

Report a correction
Samsung NX300
NX300
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments