Sony NEX 7 vs Samsung NX5

Sony NEX-7
Samsung NX5

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 7

High true resolution
True resolution
24 MP
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
1200 ms startup delay
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung NX5

Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Digital
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
External flash not needed

galleries

Explore our gallery of 23 sample photos taken by the Samsung NX5.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony NEX-7.

competitors

Sony NEX-7 Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$580 - $698 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Sony Alpha NEX-6

Sony Alpha NEX-6

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$549 body only

$1,126 with 16-50mm lens

Focus points More focus points
Weight Slightly lighter
Startup delay Much more startup delay
Sony Alpha a6300

Sony Alpha a6300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$998 body only

$1,148 with 16-50mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Focus points Many more focus points
Size Larger

Samsung NX5 Competitors

Samsung NX10

Samsung NX10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Live view Has live view
Screen type Has an OLED screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 (Lumix DMC-GX80 / Lumix DMC-GX7 Mark II)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 (Lumix DMC-GX80 / Lumix DMC-GX7 Mark II)

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Thickness Slightly thicker
Samsung NX30

Samsung NX30

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$600 with 18-55mm lens

Live view Has live view
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Larger

discussion

Sony NEX-7
NEX 7
Sony

Report a correction
Samsung NX5
NX5
Samsung

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments