Sony Alpha A5100 vs Sony Alpha A5000

Winner
Sony Alpha A5100

79

Sony Alpha A5000

72

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha A5100

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,347 ISO
Great image quality
Overall image quality
80.0
High true resolution
True resolution
24.7 MP
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha A5000

Weight
Light-weight
210 g
Overall image quality
Great image quality
79.0
Color depth
Great color depth
23.8 bits
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies

competitors

Sony Alpha A5100 Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$478 - $548 body only

$595 - $648 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
Touch screen No touch screen
Canon EOS M3

Canon EOS M3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$429 - $435 body only

$549 with 18-55mm lens

Viewfinder Has a viewfinder
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Low light performance More noise at high ISO
Fujifilm X-A3

Fujifilm X-A3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$550 body only

$599 with 16-50mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
External flash Supports an external flash
Autofocus Slower autofocus

Sony Alpha A5000 Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$478 - $548 body only

$595 - $648 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Size Larger
Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 with 15-45mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Touch screen Has a touch screen
Low light performance Significantly more noise at high ISO
Nikon 1 J5

Nikon 1 J5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$380 - $497 with 10-30mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Continuous shooting Shoots much faster
Low light performance Much more noise at high ISO

discussion

Sony Alpha A5100
Alpha A5100
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Alpha A5000
Alpha A5000
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments