Sony RX100 MK II vs Sony RX100 vs Sony Alpha Nex-5R

Hello everyone! This is my first post on "The Lens" and I would definitely consider myself a beginner. I have basic knowledge of CS6, have used a Canon EOS Rebel T2i for 6 months (my sister's), and would love to enter the realm of digital photography. That being said, I'd prefer not to have a DSLR camera due to my inexperience and the larger size.

After a bit of research, I've narrowed my options down 3 choices... all of which are produced by Sony. Two point-and-shoot camera's: the RX100 and it's latest iteration the RX100 MK II. The other camera I was looking at was the mirrorless Sony Alpha NEX-5R.

What I'd like is a bit of insight from those who either own one (or more) of these cameras and those who have knowledge about their specifications.

As of now I'd say I'm barely leaning towards the RX100 over the NEX-5R... and almost not even considering the MK II, mostly due to the price: 48%/46%/6%, respectively. (is that even quantifiable?! haha) The main reason I'm even considering the MK II is because Sony claims that it has better low-light performance... 40%, I believe.

If I do get the NEX-5R it would be with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'm not sure how much the disparity in image quality or low-light performance is between the RX100 and the NEX-5R. The portability of the RX100 is definitely a plus, I'm not sure how much more portable a NEX-5R + lens is over a DSLR. The cost of both the RX100 and the NEX-5R is equal ($539, and $100 Sony statement credit).


I'd really like the camera that has the best of image quality, low-light performance, and portability. I'm sure with a prime lens, the NEX-5R is leaps & bounds better than the RX's, but I'm not sure how much I'd actually invest in lenses... I might look into a DSLR in the future.

Sorry for the long post! Looking forward to your response.