Updated (August 2012): Compare the Sony NEX 5R vs Sony NEX-7

Sony NEX 7 vs Sony NEX 5R

Winner
Sony NEX-7

75

Sony NEX 5R

71

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 7

Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Digital
High true resolution
True resolution
24 MP
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
223 ms shutter lag
 

Reasons to buy the Sony NEX 5R

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

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

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 NEX 5T

Sony NEX 5T

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$444 body only

$400 - $448 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
True resolution Higher true resolution
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen

discussion

Sony NEX-7
NEX 7
Sony

Report a correction
Sony NEX 5R
NEX 5R
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments