Hi. The answer is: not. Its lens more for wide range 28mm, zoom arriving only to 100mm. This camera is useful for every day usage having it in our pocket, shooting never before seen clear, nice and colorful picture in a completely dark place, room or even the night sky from the hand with full of stars visible.
This is a tough question. The NEX-5R with a 55-210 lens will offer a 35mm equivalent zoom range of 82-315, which would be great for wildlife photos as long as there is sufficient light, because the 55-200 is a very SLOW lens with a maximum aperture of 4.5-6.3 depending on the focal length. You could supplement this lens with either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 30mm f/1.8 lens for shooting in low light. But then you would have to carry an extra lens and change lenses from time to time.
I implemented the above solution for the NEX-7 with the 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm f/1.4 lens. I bought the NEX-7 for those times when I didn't want to carry my A99 and several lenses. The NEX-7 solution worked well, but now that I have purchased an RX-100, I find that I generally choose between my RX-100 and my A99, and that I don't use my NEX-7 very often.
As some reviewers have mentioned, the RX-100 isn't particularly good for wildlife, because the maximum focal length of the lens is 100mm. However, I don't think that the NEX-5R with the 55-210mm lens would work well for wildlife unless there is lots of available light. You are likely to find that in the shade of a forest, the 55-210 will require too slow a shutter speed to capture some of the faster-moving wildlife.
If you want to shoot wildlife, wait for the replacement for the A77 that is due to be announced soon, then buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (don't buy the A77 because its replacement will have much better high-ISO performance, just as the A99 has much better high-ISO performance than the A900.) Or buy the Nikon D600 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Either of these packages will cost you a lot, and they will be large and heavy, but the low-light performance will be superior, and the 35mm equivalent zoom will extend to 300mm, similar to the 55-210mm lens for the NEX-5R. And the low-light performance of the Nikon D600 will be 1/3 to 1/2 eV faster than the Sony replacement to the A77, because the Nikon doesn't have a semi-transparent mirror. However, the Sony will be more fun to use because it has an electronic viewfinder. I recently compared my A99 to my friend's D600, and I found the D600 to be just another optical viewfinder dSLR. Boring, once I had become used to the Sony electronic viewfinders in the RX-100, NEX-7 and A99 cameras.
I would not buy a Nikon or Tamron 70-300 lens, because these lenses are slow with maximum apertures of 4.5-5.6 depending on the focal length.
However, if you merely want a very nice, compact camera, buy the RX-100. I really like mine, more than I like my NEX-7. But remember than I do have an A99 for those times when I want better image quality, so I don't really need my NEX-7.
I agree with the other comments. Even the 210 is short for wildlife. But the RX100 is too short for most shots. It takes good shots - best at 20 mg setting for jpeg which comes out much smaller file. I took it on two tourist type trips instead of my Nikon D300 and it fit the bill.
No. I would not buy either camera for wildlife. If I shot wildlife on a budget, I would probably look at either Canon, Nikon or Pentax DSLR. I would make sure to purchase a lens such as the Nikon 70-300VR, Tamron 70-300VC, Nikon 55-300VR, Canon 55-250IS along with their kit lens