Rated 4 out of 5 by 26
Rated 4 out of 5
by jowe Awesome Camera!!!
Good SLR for people who just stating to learn how to do photography. easy to use, theres a guide if u dont understand what's the use of certain button. A guide on how to shoot nice photo inside the camera itself. clear images everytime i took a photo.
May 17, 2012
Rated 2 out of 5
by ExoS back-focus
I am very disapointed with the Auto focus being misaligned on my A65, it back-focuses with all my lenses. Made several tests, and the results are constant. Between 1/2 and 1 1/2 inches of backfocus. The body is back at the store where I bought it and a Sony tech rep is supposed to take a look at it, because the store don't seem to believe me...I asked them if I could upgrade to an A77 and they don't want to. I won't name the store... yet.
January 16, 2012
Rated 5 out of 5 by CamRaw Wow! What A Camera!
What a camera this is! I have had many. Canons, Sonys, Olympus', and this is by far the best DSLR I've ever owned. It's so fast! I never miss a shot because of how quick it is shot to shot. The grip is nice, very nice. Easy to hold and fits securely in my hand. The image quality is superb. The video quality is beautiful. I'm very very impressed! Sony did a great job with this one. For once, I can say that I am very satisfied with the camera I bought.
June 7, 2012
Rated 5 out of 5
by Simbarashe The A65 vs the A55
When Sony released info on the Nex-5N, NEX-7, a65 and a77 models, I decided that the technological leaps on the new line was enough to make me a believer. What really put me into the Sony system over Canon and Nikon was the lower price points on the Sony lenses. Yeah, they don't have as many lenses as the Big Two, but I don't know any photographers with 25+ lenses in their closet, either. The NEX-5N looked nice but I like viewfinders and didn’t want to be gouged on that accessory. The NEX-7—while pricey—still doesn’t have a release date. The a65 was priced below the a77 by almost $500, so that was a no-brainer, but was it $200-worth more than the a55, a camera that—for the most part—touts a devout ownership?
I actually bought the a65 and the a55 at the same time, opting for the a65 because of its corrected overheating issue while filming video (the tie-breaker for many) and the a55 because, aside from the overheating issue (a “logical” deal-breaker for many with the arrival of the a65), it offers just about everything else the a65 does, minus some cosmetic differences and a handful of megapixels most of us will never use or need.
First, the differences. The a65’s swivel LCD is a nice little touch over the a55’s traditional vertical flip-out. With the rotating swivel I was able to take shots by holding the camera down low and high over my head. The LCD view on this unit is crystal clear. The electronic viewfinder on the a65 is superior to the a55. Also, if you use the EVF instead of the LCD, there is a level meter that basically tells you if your shot is in focus, and if your horizon/vanishing points are perfectly level; this is invaluable if you're taking landscape or wide shots. When shooting people it eventually recognizes redundant faces and will instantly articulate in on the principle person you’re shooting automatically if they are in a crowd or shot with multiple people; this I also found to be a rather nice innovation and would be tremendous if I were shooting a wedding and only cared about the bride, for example. The thing that I liked most about the a65 over the a55 however was completely unexpected: on the a65 there is a dedicated ISO button next to the aperture/shutter wheel, and next to it is a dedicated exposure button that will give you accurate adjustments in the EVF before you shoot. AWESOME. After a couple hours of shooting with this unit I could easily toggle between the Aperture, ISO and exposure intuitively by simply moving my finger slightly from one button to the next. In this regard, making on the fly adjustments while shooting on the street was a snap.
One cosmetic/function quirk that really bugged me on the a65: the frame-zoom button is in a weird place. Located in the top right behind the wheel and shutter button, I kept hitting it by accident and it was quite annoying. I also didn't like how it basically took me a day and a half to 1) find the playback function for video and 2) toggle back and forth between video and regular picture playback mode. After two days I still didn’t know how to download the video off of the card. It was like Easter egg hunting! Also, some of the novelty shooting camera modes looked like fun when I first powered up, but I quickly realised that the shooting potential of this camera was so great that I'd actually be doing a disservice by being too cute with the toy functions. The regular shooting and BW modes were all I truly needed to get really impressive results.
The a55 by contrast shoots just a clip slower—though the AF is just as snappy—with little discernable difference, unless you put the camera in review mode to look at shots after you take them, then it sorta bricks out for longer seconds than its successor. (**On the a65 the review mode is default to OFF.) The a55 is also decidedly lighter in weight. I will note that because I have egregiously long fingers, it was actually a less comfortable handle than the a65, and I almost felt like the two models are specifically tailored to different hand-types. Actually, this is a BIG DEAL if you don't care about cute functions: if you have little hands and generally prefer light equipment, the a55 (at $200 less I remind you) carries more value in day-to-day carrying and shooting. If you have bigger hands, the a65 is an absolute must, you will thank me later.
Finally, the video mode. On the a65 the quality on the 60i is far superior to anything I’ve ever seen on a DSLR, hands down. I actually wanted the a65 because it shot in “cinematic” 24p, but I can attest that compared to the 60i on this unit it left a lot to be desired. If you are mulling the a65 specifically because it has a 24p option, do yourself a favour, save your money and get the a55, just trust me on this. One more thing on the video: I know some (well, a LOT) of a55 users have complained about the sensors overheating at about 5-10 continuous minutes of filming. When I tested the a55 out of the box (it was the first thing I tested, actually), the camera copped out at just over 8 minutes at room temperature. I ran the same test on the a65 and made it nearly 20 minutes without any issues whatsoever. That being said, this is an SLT/DSLR-type camera. You should know that it is extremely UNSATISFYING to hold an SLT/DSLR camera to shoot video for more than a couple of minutes, period. In that sense and in retrospect, the 5-10 cap on the a55 seems pretty negligible. Honestly, if you are leaning towards the a65 only for its longer shooting time capability, don't. Unless you're currently trying to get 15+ minutes of continuous film out of your DSLR (and really, you shouldn't be), the video capabilities and shortcomings between the two units should be the least of your worries.
Finally, a lot has been said about Sony’s poor performance at high ISO levels. Indeed, on the a65 when I shot a band performing in a club the background noise left a lot to be desired past 1600. On rendering the blurs and noise actually turned to mud and many of those photos were simply unusable. I did not test the a55 in this regard; I feel if having a great performer at super high ISOs is your thing, Nikon is probably way to go. (**I REALLY wished this a65 performed better here.)
All this being said, the a65 is a winner over the a55 in every category if money is not an issue. If money IS an issue, or if you want to get more bang for your buck, the a55 body-only plus a better-than-kit lens will give you awesome value and you won't be missing anything it doesn't offer over the a65 if your only concern is taking fantastic pictures. In doing a side by side comparison of well-lit indoor shots using the same 35mm 1.8 lens stopped down to f2, the a55 curiously produced sharper photos, while the white balance on the a65 appeared to be slightly more neutral. My reaction: Huh . . .
So what did I pick? Ultimately, I went with the a65. Really, the ISO button and ergonomical fit for my big hands were the only things that really swayed me. I shot on both cams at 12MP so I didn’t get full reso use out of either body. But I had to ask myself: Is the ISO button alone worth $200? Absolutely not. But the a65 fitting better in my bigger hands, that was worth $200. (That won’t be worth $200 to everybody.) If you have smaller or normal-sized hands and just want top notch performance and super sharp pictures the a55 is a sneaky good pickup. You can always fix balance in post.
Sidenote: This cannot be overstated, but if want to get a nice and cheap prime lens, I HIGHLY recommend the Sony 35mm1.8f. It is the 50mm equivilent on the A65 (if you buy the 50mm your shots will be too tight to take on the street). The lens costs $50 more than the Sony 50mm but it truly rivals glass more expensive than this. People are blown away by rather standard shots I've taken with this. If you don't care about the so-so kit lens and want to save some dollars, buy the body only and get the 35mm.
November 29, 2011
Rated 5 out of 5
by Junkbondman Sony A65 and Sigma 150-500
This is a review that I am putting on also at BH Photo but I was not able to upload images to their site. I can only upload two limited images on this site although I have many examples which better show the camera's capabilities especially evident at 100% magnification.
I have had the camera for about 3 weeks and have shot about 6000 images in Kruger NP in South Africa. The camera produces excellent photos at 100% at ISO 400. It really shines at ISO 1600 where the noise at 100% is just seen but is not a problem on most photos. Image stabilization is very good with many of my shots at 500mm or 750mm equivalent with the APC size sensor. Please see photos for examples.
The first example is ISO 800, 500mm, f6.3 1/500 second. Notice the texture seen on the black skin of the nose. You can almost make out the papilla on the tongue. If the exposure was faster that might have been possible.
The second example is the camera at extreme low light, 12800, 230 mm, f6.3, 1/13 second hand held. If this camera is on a good tripod or bean bagged, the limiting factor is animal motion.
My yield of acceptable images when hand held at 500 mm and 1/30 second or faster is on the order of 50-65%. At speeds of 1/13 second the yield is about 10-25%. Truely amazing, much better than my back up A55.
Camera excels under adverse lighting conditions and where you have to have ISO in the 800 to 1600 range in order to obtain exposure speeds in excess of 1/500 second.
I wonder what Nikon or Canon can do with the chip if Sony makes it available to them since they generally seem to have better internal image processing alogorithms but I don't know if that will happen any time soon. At present I would rate this the best camera system available for hand held wild life photography. On images of leopard I have the flies flying around them visible including limited wing detail.
The camera shutter noise is also relatively low compare to Nikon or Canon which can be critical when taking images of large cats at close(15-20 meter) range. The last thing you would want is an angry cat running away or even worse charging you. My pro photo guide commented on this and he was impressed with the images.
Auto focus single point is excellent except under near dark conditions where you cannot see subject with naked eye but can with binoculars. If there is any light, this camera can capture the shot.
November 28, 2011
Rated 5 out of 5
by SafetyRick The A65 will be my new workhorse of a camera
My waiting has been rewarded over and over. I use my A65 for pics for Grandkids, macro photos, urban landscape, & nature. The controls are easier to understand that Canon & Nikons. I use an A55 at work and bought a A65 for personal use. I love the extras that the A65 affords. I was surprised when I ran the battery dry when using it for backlight for sunrise pictures. I attended the 2012 WPII conference's Sony booth and met the great crew at the Sony booth. They listened carefully to my questions/opinions and gave me great hints. I hope they relocate the movie button as I often press it when preparing to take shots.
March 4, 2012
Rated 5 out of 5
by A65MACGuy Love it!
I upgraded from my a100 and WOW! Flash photo's are 200% better. Video is great. Special effects are awesome. Love all the settings - plenty of different settings that will more than meet my needs. I do mostly family and landscape type (not a pro thought I could be one once but those guys are good!) I will have a lot to learn with this but so far completely satisfied. I do know I will need to get new glass. My old xi lens are a little old for this. Saving for the 16-50 Sony and the 55-200. The 35mm 2.8 works great!
March 23, 2012
Rated 5 out of 5
by OliverEhlers I love this camera 5***** all the way
I had a Canon Ti2 before I bought this camera because of the 24 Megapixel, 10 pictures at a time and landscape mode, great for night pictures, and Im a Sony fan now!!!!
September 15, 2013