Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300 vs Sony SLT A37

Winner
Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

55

Sony SLT A37

38

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
921k dots
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
0 ms shutter lag
Flip-out screen
Screen flips out
Great for movies
 

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A37

Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
900 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

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT A37.

competitors

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300 Competitors

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Super zoom

$144 - $178

Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Lowest price Cheaper
Zoom Significantly less zoom
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Super zoom

$322

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Zoom Significantly more zoom
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350

Super zoom

Zoom Less zoom

Sony SLT A37 Competitors

Sony Alpha ILC-3000

Sony Alpha ILC-3000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Size Significantly smaller
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies
Sony SLT-A77

Sony SLT A77

Pro DSLR

$1,967 with 16-50mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Startup delay Much more startup delay
Sony SLT A57

Sony SLT A57

Entry-level DSLR

$1,980 body only

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Size Slightly larger

discussion

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300
Cyber-Shot DSC-HX300
Sony

Report a correction
Sony SLT A37
SLT A37
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments