Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens Review| Categories | Sony |
| Product Code | B00836H3M6 |
| Product Rating |  |
| Price | $998.00 |
| Where To Buy | See More Details |
| Customer Review | See More Reviews |
All this is while many planned related to Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens.
- Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens is masterful or even a good quality products.
- Presuming The customer interested for pick up a Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens associated with a time savings, The purchaser can also taste to ascertain up to peak of approximately object items , specification or even verbal description.
- Learn exactly the review just in case allow the purchaser to apprize of the Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens downside and pros .
- You could make an attempt to get alike hooey or even every now and then this substance helps oneself in choosing book .
- You will try out to ascertain and ensure discussions .
- Ask subject material of legal transfer particular , reason any hooey is divergent term and in addition they condition.
Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #1011 in Camera & Photo
- Color: Black
- Brand: Sony
- Model: SLTA65VM
- Released on: 2012-05-16
- Dimensions: 3.88" h x
3.25" w x
5.25" l,
2.07 pounds
- Display size: 3
Features
- 24.3 megapixels with Sony's Exmor HD APS sensor
- Translucent Mirror Technology accelerates AF performance
- 1080/60i/24p Full AVCHD or 1080/30p MP4 movies
- 24.3 megapixels with Sony's Exmor HD APS sensor
- Translucent Mirror Technology accelerates AF performance
- 1080/60i/24p Full AVCHD or 1080/30p MP4 movies
Product Description
Exclusive Translucent Mirror Technology DSLR with 18-135mm kit lens provides superb still and video capture performance.
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
161 of 164 people found the following review helpful.
Simply the best midrange DSLR (that isn't even a DSLR)
By D. F. Watt
This is a serially (and over time very extensively) revised review, as I have had a chance to spend lots of time with this camera over the last ten months and taken roughly 15000 pictures - for sure one of the best electronics purchases I have made in the last 10 years. Some of the initial problems I saw (flash overexposure for one) have been addressed in firmware updates (or require some user adjustments). JPEGs (Sony's default jpeg algorithm could use some tweaking/sharpening) print out sharply at 30 by 20 print sizes (as long as I stay under ISO 800). RAW images at low ISO will print tack sharp to 36x24 easily. When paired with the new Sony 16-50mm 2.8 lens (see separate review for this terrific lens), takes some of the best pictures this side of a FF pro camera) - if you stay to ISO 800 and under. The one Achilles heel of this camera is low light noise, but with flash, I mostly avoid shooting at anything over ISO 1600, so this weakness is really rendered a moot point. For those shooting in the virtual dark, see body text for comments (and confessions).And for those curious about the cryptic header (that this isn't a DSLR), it is a DSLT - meaning that a fixed translucent mirror that doesn't move replaces the standard SLR mirror that has to flop in and out of position in front of the sensor. That design difference is the key to the camera's unique strengths (and its weaknesses in the minds of many purists). However, that single design difference allows the much faster and more accurate phase detection autofocus system to be working all the time, including while shooting movies (something no other DSLR can do), and thus gives you full time live view, much faster hi-speed shooting, and a lighter body, but also requires an electronic (non-optical) viewfinder, and with a modest loss of light to the sensor (with some attendant noise penalty). The key issue is whether that balance of pluses and minuses works for you . . . . but for most people looking for the best possible still photography and video, this is, at least in IMHO, a truly brilliant stroke that in one fell swoop removes some of the chronic limitations of the classic DSLR environs. There are a few downsides, but with HUGE upsides. Whether its mix of features works for you might depend on what and where you shoot . . . .Pros:1) Best viewfinder in the sub-frame world (2.4 million dot OLED), as bright as any full frame viewfinder, and with far more useful information. Once you've used it, you may not be able to go back. Paradigm changing - once you see what you can do creatively with this new tool, optical viewfinders seem primitive and confining.2) Class leading 24 megapixel resolution (at low to medium ISO, yields remarkably detailed images, esp in RAW).3) Many useful shooting modes including panorama and high dynamic range modes (but see cons on panorama mode). Intuitive and yet deep & customizable operating system. But can be put in simple AUTO and AUTO+ modes for the less technical.4) Full-time live view system and full time phase detection AF for both stills and movies - FAR better than the clunky live view systems 'tacked on' in traditional DSLRs, and the contrast detection DLSRs have to use with mirror-lockup and movie shooting.5) Class-leading video resolution (1080 at 60p) with as good video capabilities as any camcorder. Takes as good or better video than any DSLR if shooting in 60p, and with option to use either viewfinder or LCD for framing video - something no other DSLR can do.6) Intuitive and well thought-out ergonomics.7) Fast and responsive operation. Fastest continuous shooting in class (10 frames per second). Fast focusing, decent menu speed (improved w/ new firmware)8) Excellent image stabilization system (and no more sensor overheating from the IS that plagued the Sony A55!).9) In-camera GPS (can be defeated).10) Decent battery life (significant battery upgrade from the Alpha 55) given that EVF sucks down a lot of battery.11) Best features/price ratio in the middle to high-end consumer/prosumer model DSLR group.12) Easy access to any Minolta lens and a decent selection of Sony lenses for reasonable money, particularly a superb new 16-50 mm 2.8 lens (see separate review).13) Ability to remove virtually all CA, distortion, and vignetting in increasing number of Sony lens (firmware-based). When used with the new 16-50mm 2.8 lens, produces very sharp images, w/out any visible classic optical distortions (CA, vignetting, barrel distortion, etc).Firmware correction of lens optical aberrations has to be one of most under-appreciated but valuable features of this new camera's operating system. These corrections work with many popular Sony lenses (now available for virtually all the Sony kit and telephoto zooms and most Sony primes), w/ more included in future firmware (wish Sony would make that full list more available to SLT owners!). This software correction makes a VERY discernible difference in large prints, and means that these classic distortions are basically a non-issue for corrected lenses (see DP Reviews treatment of this in their A65 review).Cons:1) Some increase in noise at higher ISO, particularly in RAW images without NR (noise reduction). Not surprising in view of increased pixel density (see #9 below). But this is clearly the camera's one major weakness, and no sense in glossing over it.2) Early firmware bugs - some have been improved, but still room for more improvements? (i.e., Sony's HVL-F42 flash yields still badly overexposed pictures - this happens mostly with bounce flash. Other firmware bugs and weaknesses (like JPEG definitions) could also be improved.3) As great as the EVF is, sometimes the view is too contrasty, yielding either blown highlights or 'blackout' regions - needs contrast adjustment function.4) Not as svelte as the Alpha 55 (but for those with big hands, the extra heft and size work). A bit porky with the 16-50 2.8.5) Limited control options in high-speed shooting modes and in movie modes.6) Screen blacks out once you fill up the buffer in high-speed shooting and you have to wait until all the images are dumped onto your card with poor buffer depth (common problem across all Sonys - even the new A99). Why can't Sony get this better implemented????7) Resulting loss of live view in high-speed shooting modes can make aiming the camera a bit tricky.8) Switching between viewing photos vs. videos is still a bit cumbersome and awkward.9) Default JPEG settings are both too soft (need sharpening), and too noisy at higher ISO - requires users understand menu options and make adjustments to get best possible JPEGs (set NR to high on high ISO, and sharpening to 3+ gives you the best JPEGs).10 Sweep panorama modes distinctly poor in resolution (because of having to remove panning effects and image smear with very high shutter speeds/high ISO?) compared to stitching together your own panorama images (i.e. using Microsoft ICE). Sony should really fix this as it limits a very useful mode.BEST IN CLASS SPECIFICATIONS?Although the Sony Alpha 65 might have flown under the radar in the context of the simultaneous release of Sony's flagship Alpha 77, I believe it's actually the better deal for everyone who's not interested in a pro-style body. It contains most of the high technology of the flagship model Alpha 77, minus the top LCD panel and the 12 frame per second shooting rate (you'll have to suffer along with a measly 10 frames per second), a slightly less complex AF system, and a few other minor 'downgrades'. But the sensor and the EVF (in my judgment, the most important innovations of the A77) are intact. All this for a significant reduction in Price ($949 for body only versus $1449 for the Alpha 77). Unfortunately, it's very tough to get this model right now - minimal supply and lots of demand.If you're interested in video, there is nothing right now that beats the video specification of this camera as most DSLRs will only shoot in 60i (often times interpolated from 30p), whereas this camera will shoot a true 60 frames a second in progressive scan. Still pictures are spectacular, and with more resolution than virtually anything outside of the full frame 24 megapixel Nikon D3X. A large 19x13 printout of a standard test image shows the A65 very, very close in detail to the Nikon D3x (the current resolution king in 35mm photography and able to resolve detail comparable to 35mm Kodachrome 64 (remember that stuff??). (UPDATE - the new full frame Nikon D800 will have a 36MP sensor - but will cost $3000 - and will really compete with Sony's new A99 full frame pro camera.) Nothing in the subframe APS-C market will outresolve the A65 in fair to decent light - or provide better video.LOW LIGHT PROBLEMS?Although the recent Digital Photography Review (the closest thing to a definitive source on digital cameras on the web) slammed the Alpha 77 (same sensor and basic image engine as the A65) for its high noise particularly in RAW, and its somewhat 'mushy' JPEG rendering, I generally agree, but think some clarifications are called for. First of all, the default JPEGs can be significantly sharpened. I run the camera in the standard mode (one among several 'creative modes') but with sharpening maxed out. You wouldn't want to do this with a Canon (they are already a bit crunchy in terms of their default JPEG settings), but there is no artifact effect that I have been able to find, and it gets much closer to the maximum detail out of the 24MP sensor. Also, you have the set the HIGH ISO NR to high, instead of its default. This combination gets much more out of the sensor than its default settings. Someone at Sony is (my guess) just too enamored of the 'smooth' look - all of their cameras are set up with default JPEG definitions that could benefit from modest sharpening.Furthermore, DP Review's own images show that even at those soft and somewhat noisy default settings, the camera does pretty well compared to the competition - and really quite well indeed given the high pixel count. If you look on the DP reviews website, and use their very revealing and useful standard studio scene comparator tool, and pull up images from several full frame cameras like the Sony 900, and the Nikon D3S and the pro-Canon EOS - 1D Mark IV, the Sony A65 more than holds its own at low ISO, with frankly more detail than any 35mm camera (outside of the Nikon D3x and the NEX 7), only giving ground a bit as ISOs get above 1600 (with a much higher pixel density as a major disadvantage). Even there, in low light, I believe that the camera does a credible job, and trades off a little of its resolution advantage for more noise reduction. However, as it has more detail than any of the other cameras in its class, competing well with full frame 24MP pro cameras at low ISO, it's got headroom to trade. Even in head-to-head comparisons with the A900 (full frame 24MP sensor), the A65 does a very credible job as ISO rises - and with the disadvantage of a smaller APS-C sensor. Admittedly, the full frame Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mark II (and esp. the new Canon EOS 1Dx - a low-light phenom) are going to beat it soundly at 3200 and 6400, but realistically, who willingly or often shoots at 3200 and above?? I certainly don't. Plus, both the Nikon D3x and Canon EOS 1Dx are HUGE full frame cameras, costing roughly 8 times what this camera costs . . . really not a fair comparison. That's almost as unfair as comparing an APS-C sensor with a point and shoot sensor - the sensor with the low pixel density always looks better in low light (all other things being equal).More telling are the comparisons on a level playing field. A recent comparison of this camera with the Canon EOS 7D (at the same price point as the A65 and also an APS-C sensor) showed that the although the Canon 7D kept a somewhat higher percentage of its ISO 100 resolution at 1600, the Sony was still handily out-resolving it at ISO 1600. So take the "low-light noise" knock on this camera with a large grain of salt. Given that the A65 does just fine up to ISO 1600 in terms of noise, I think the modest bashing of the camera by some (not all) of the DP press and few disgruntled low-light fanatics is somewhat overblown. If it beats some full frame cameras in low light at least on the JPEG side if not in RAW (think Sony A900 - admittedly not a low light phenom or with great low light JPEGs), it can't be terrible. As much as I often agree with almost everything that DP Review says, they put too much emphasis on RAW noise, and not enough on overall image quality. If you shoot in RAW, you will have to use significant noise reduction at higher ISOs, but you've got more resolution to begin with to trade against. If you need convincing, check out DP Reviews JPEG image comparator for yourself. Pixel peepers only. Also, I would expect that its low light performance might still improve somewhat as firmware updates progress - there has been huge progress in that area from early firmware to current 1.04 versions. Admittedly, its JPEG definition could be sharper to show off all the detail the 24MP sensor is capable of, but hopefully this can be addressed in new firmwares (see Cons).BOTTOM LINE - SONY AND THE BIG TWO?It's all about which tradeoffs you want to make. Sony made a clear decision to trade low light ability for speed, resolution and detail in better light. For me, that's a good-to-great tradeoff, but for some others, perhaps not so much. Obviously, it's just a matter of priorities and personal preferences. You really can't have everything. In bright light, the A65 is going to outresolve both the new Canon EOS 1Dx and the Nikon D4 for lots less money, and some Canon devotees are upset about potentially spending 7-8 grand when this new pro camera comes out, and getting only 18 MP worth of detail. On the other hand, that camera (and the new Nikon D4) will take good to great pictures in the virtual dark. If you love to shoot in very low light, get one of the new Nikon or Canon full frame cameras (just bring a truckload of money for the camera and lens systems!) If you are willing to trade some of the low light ability for 1) more compact lenses/body; 2) much less money than a full frame system; 3) the best video you've ever seen from a DSLR camera, then this system is for you . . . and is a very good deal. If you believe (like some purists) that HD video is a modern corruption of the original function of SLRs, you probably aren't someone who is going to like Sony's approach anyway.Bottom line - there isn't another camera for $900 (body only) that even comes close to this feature set, and with impressive speed and ergonomics. This is a shot across the bow that both Nikon and Canon are very concerned about. Anyone who compares this to the Nikon 7000 or the Canon EOS 60D (two other prosumer models - with the A65 slightly cheaper than either) has to walk away thinking that the Sony is the better deal - and simply a more capable camera - except in very low light. If you're interested in live view, the live view on this is so much better than the clunky live view on both the Canon and Nikon it's not even funny. And one look through their dim optical viewfinders, after you've used the amazing EVF on the Sony Alpha 65, and you won't be able to go back to Canikon. The viewfinder alone is a paradigm-shifting experience - once you've used it, optical viewfinders in traditional sub-frame DSLRs seem primitive and confining. Overall, this is an amazing value - there is no other camera for under a grand that can compete - at least in decent light - with full pro cameras, while beating them all in video quality. Videos shot in 60p are just stunning, as are most photos at ISO 100-400.If you look at Digital Photography Reviews over the last 18 months (the closest thing to a definitive reference on the Internet about digital photography), they have given four APS-C Sony cameras highly coveted Gold Awards in the last year and a half (the Alpha 65, Alpha 55 (its predecessor which also won Camera of the Year from Popular Photography in 2010), the NEX 5N, and just recently, the NEX 7. They have also given four Silver Awards to Sony (the NEX 3C, the Alpha 77 and Alpha 35, another silver to the more traditional DSLR Alpha A580). Four Silver and four Gold Awards in 18 months. NO OTHER CAMERA MANUFACTURER HAS EVEN BEEN WITHIN SPITTING DISTANCE OF THIS PERFORMANCE ON THE PODIUM IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO. If you put all of Nikon's and Canon's awards in the DSLR and APS-C classes together during the same period, they aren't even close to this medal haul.This suggests that a subtle but real shift of power is taking place in digital photography. Although professionals still clearly gravitate toward the Big Two (where Sony has been seen as an interesting distraction and lightweight), there is increasing reason now to seriously consider Sony, at least in the APS-C segment. Most believe that Sony is now making the best compact ILC cameras (the NEX series), and starting to challenge Canon and Nikon in areas of their traditional dominance. In the space of just over one year, Sony has made traditional DSLRs look clunky, limiting and . . . . well, almost obsolete. Unless you are ideologically married to an optical viewfinder - or shoot in the virtual dark - you'll love this camera. There is nothing better in the APS-C segment right now. As far as the high-end full frame pro market is concerned, let's see how the upcoming full frame Sony A99 stacks up against the full frame Canon 5D Mark III and the new Nikon D800 (all in the pricy 3-grand-and-up range). Although Canikon have completely dominated that market, they may finally have some serious competition, even in the pro territory.April 2012 UPDATESeveral interesting new developments. First of all, the new Nikon D800 has blown away the competition in terms of resolution, and with surprisingly good low light abilities too - might be the best sensor residing in any camera including medium format (and most people believe it's a Sony sensor too, probably roughly the same sensor as the new Sony A99 will have, with different microlenses). Just need 3 grand to get the Nikon D800 body (and $3400 for the Canon 5D Mark III), making the A65 still the best deal for almost the same level of detail, at least in decent to moderate light. These two new cameras are about 1.5 (Nikon) to 2 stops (Canon) better in terms of noise than the A65/77, but it will be really interesting to see what the new full frame Sony A99 brings to this heated up pro camera territory - sometime this summer or fall. Sony will have its work cut out for them, given the kind of initial reviews that both the new Nikon and Canon FF (full frame) cameras are getting. You will see a full review of both the Canon 5D MkIII and Nikon D800 on Digital Photography Reviews website soon. I expect them both to easily secure Gold Awards. Pressure will be on Sony to hold serve. The problem is, historically anyway, Sony is not really into competing in the high-end pro FF arena - two cameras there over the last 5-6 years compared to, what, 10-12 FF Canikons? Sony appears to have decided that APS-C is its preferred market. Hope they really give a full effort on a new FF A99. Could be something special.On the home front, the new Sony firmware 1.05 (for both the A65/77) is a huge improvement in several areas - it (mostly) resolves the overexposure problem in ADI flash mode, speeds up picture preview (it's now virtually instantaneous), provides correction profiles for some additional Sony lenses (distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting corrections) including the 70-300 mm G (pro) telephoto (good news for me simply because I own that lens), and fixes a few other items. The speed of preview is really impressive. As soon as you finish the shot, it is available for review on the LCD. Shutdown is MUCH quicker. Nice job Sony.June 2012 UPDATENot surprisingly, both the new Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 easily secured Gold awards on DP Reviews. I think just to avoid controversy and bickering between the two camps, they gave them both the identical score (82). Sony's full frame A99 however appears delayed and probably is not going to be out this summer. I continue to be impressed overall with the A65 and have now taken at least 8000 pictures. Clearly the one Achilles' heel of the Sony A65/77 is low light noise, particularly above ISO 1600. However, with the current 16-50 2.8 lens (with F4 being very sharp), I get a full two stop advantage, relative to a typical kit lens which has to be stopped down to get really sharp, which pretty much balances out the two stop noise disadvantage that this camera has relative to a full frame camera like the Nikon D800 or Canon 5D Mark III (shooting at F8). There are a few times when I wish the camera had somewhat better performance at ISO 3200, and certainly the RAW files have significant noise at that setting, but Sony's RAW editing software can potentially do a pretty good job with even those somewhat noisy files in terms of cleaning up the noise without losing all the fine detail. I think if you want to put the extra time into shoot RAW you can mitigate the low light disadvantage of this sensor, although still this is its one weakness. Again if you are shooting in bright conditions, or using flash, this really never is an issue.September 2012 Update:So where do things stand now that several new competing cameras have been released - including the new Nikon 3200, and the Olympus OMD5? The Nikon 3200 at $699 looks like a fantastic deal and is slightly better at high ISO (about a half f-stop) in terms of noise than the Sony A 65/77, with the same 24 megapixel resolution as the Sony. The Olympus OMD 5 has fantastic high ISO performance for a micro 4/3 sensor (better than either the Nikon 3200 or the Sony A65) and also more crisp JPEG definitions than either Sony or Nikon (to the point where RAW post processing typically yields little). The much improved high ISO performance of the OMD 5 also underscores that manufacturers are continually moving the goalposts in terms of improving both high ISO performance and resolution at the same time. The Sony A65 still looks like a great deal as it undercuts the Olympus in price, and although it's somewhat more expensive than the Nikon 3200, it has a significantly better viewfinder, much better high-speed shooting, and better movie modes. So . . . the short form of the story is while the competition is getting better, the Sony is still a very solid choice in the mid-range DSLR segment. Of course, if you are an absolute resolution freak, the Nikon D800 has everything in the 35mm world beat, and with surprisingly good performance at high ISO - very close to the competing full frame Canon 5D Mark III. These two FF models are very serious money at three grand and up for just the body, while the Sony A65 can be had for $800. Still a great deal. What about the new Sony A99 - Sony's first full frame pro camera in 4+ years? It will certainly have much better low light capability than the Sony A65/77 and (one would hope) better low light capabilities than the Nikon D800 and possibly equaling the Canon 5D Mark III in that area, which has a 22MP sensor. It will probably have better movie and marginally better high speed shooting (6 FPS and 10 FPS in cropped mode) than competing Nikon or Canon FF models. It will be lighter than either Canikon FF, suggesting that Sony is aiming to undercut price and weight, while offering more speed, and (one hopes) better low light ability rather than more resolution. A real change in emphasis for Sony!Back to the home base (the A65). All these great (but REALLY expensive!!) FF cameras make the $800 price on the Sony A65 look like a great deal, by any standard. Although initially I was tempted to go full frame and will certainly look closely at the A99, I'm going to stick with my APS-C sensor (and lenses!) at least for now. Gets expensive to jump ship once you have serious money in glass :-)October 2012 Update:Sony just released its new firmware version - 1.06. It does a number of things, including - most significantly - improving if not virtually eliminating ADI and TTL flash over-exposure. Flash exposure is still not perfect, but it's vastly better than earlier versions of the firmware. I'm using one of Sony's dedicated flash units (the now discontinued HVL 42 flashgun) and was very troubled when bounce flash consistently overexposed. It's now leagues better but I still have an occasional over exposure (on both flash direct illumination and on bounce flash), and baseline exposure appears about a 1/2 EV overexposed suggesting that there is still something modestly amiss from time to time with flash computation. This was never an issue on the A55 so there is something about this camera's firmware or control system that is still not quite optimized on this point. In any case, it's good that Sony has acknowledged the problem because initially it looked like they were refusing to admit it. In addition, there is now a very large group of Sony lenses that have built in firmware correction profiles (correcting the three primary optical distortions of chromatic aberration, vignetting, and pin/barrel distortion issues). Virtually any lens that you can buy on the Sony website with this camera now has software correction for these classic optical distortions. Advantage Sony.Some interesting new options in the mid-range DSLR segment- Pentax just released the K-30 at roughly the same price point as the A65. Best high ISO performance outside of a FF sensor (and full weather sealing - unheard of at this price point), but limited movie mode support (no options for external mic, no dedicated movie button, no still shooting during movies) - Pentax was really thinking about stills when they made this camera, and although its low light abilities are clearly better than the A65's - and anything else in the sub-frame world - if you are not shooting in low light much of the time, the Sony is the more 'balanced' choice. Pentax uses the 16 MP sensor that Sony supplies to Nikon and also uses in their own A33/35/55/57 APS-C product lines, which is the best current 16 MP subframe sensor in my opinion. Nice job overall by Pentax, so if you find the A65's Achilles heel of low light noise a real hindrance, you will likely love the Pentax K-30, unless you are a serious videographer. Casual video on the other hand will be fine on the K-30. So now you have many options in the subframe semi-pro or 'prosumer' segment. Still think that for most people the EVF, great movie ability and support, superb 16-50 2.8 lens option (really a G- or Zeiss quality lens for just over kit lens money), great resolution, etc. of the Sony A65 outweighs its one big deficit of high ISO noise, but if you disagree with that, by all means, get a K-30. Very close to FF noise performance with fully usable ISO 3200/6400. Credit to Pentax (and to Sony's great mid-res sensor).November 24th UpdateI have had a chance to spend almost two weeks shooting with the Sony A99 (See my Amazon review of this at [....]Very fine camera, wanted to keep it but after much vacillation, decided against that and just returned it - with no small tinge of regret. Here's why - it's just not $2000 better than the A65 for my purposes, although if I was a pro shooter, or shooting mostly in low light, I would have kept it. Here is how I think it stacked up against the A65 - and Sony is competing not just with Canikon, but with themselves now too - the clearest indication that Sony's SLT environs has really altered the mid to high end DSLR scene.Pros of the A99 vs the A65:1) Superb low light performance, almost as good or as good as the new Nikon D600 and competitive with any FF camera. Credit Sony's fine development work on the FF sensor for this. Two stops (perhaps even 2.5 stops?) better in terms of noise than the A77/65.2) Somewhat better autofocus performance than even the A77, but only if using AF-D lenses - and not many of them.3) Weather sealed (advantage vis a vis A65 but toss up with A77)4) Better video support and somewhat (marginally) better video most of the time compared to the A65.5) Better low light video with much less noise (but see cons).Cons of the A99 vs the A65:1) $2000 more - pretty big ticket item that requires you love at least something in the PRO: column a LOT!!2) Weight - with comparable lenses, (15-50 vs 24-70) the A65 is almost a full pound lighter (1200 grams for the A65w/lens vs. 1720 for A99w/CZ lens).3) Lens (and other ecosystem) costs - the 16-50 2.8 (see my Amazon review of this amazing lens) is every bit the equal of the CZ 24-70 for $1000 less - one of the great values in walk around lenses anywhere.4) Speed - high speed shooting on the A65 is up to 10FPS while the A99 can only do 6FPS - both are stuck with seriously undersized buffers - a really stupid mistake that was repeated on the A99 for unfathomable reasons.5) No built in flash on the A996) No differences that I can see, even at 100% view in RAW if ISO is 100-200. Barely (and I do mean barely) noticeable by ISO 400 in terms of noise, but cameras really start to separate only at 1600 and up.7) In view of recent reviews, overall, poorer video of A99 vs. A65 (see Tim Naff's superb review of the A99 on Amazon, and discussion of the video issues facing the A99 - something of a shock given Sony's hype about pro videography support for the A99)Of course, most of this looks like just a predictable summary of tradeoffs of full frame cameras (weight and cost vs. better high ISO) compared to their subframe cousins. It is a real testimony to the A65 that most of the time I couldn't take a better picture with the A99, except when it got dark. So if you shoot a lot in low light, and have the funds, the A99 looks pretty attractive. If funds are more limited, the A65 is still a real deal and offers a lot for the money. The clincher is that the A65 takes great video and the A99 pretty average (at best) video. I'm sticking with the A65.Update February 12th, 2013Some stunning developments that could rock the APS-C world. Nikon released the 5200 - an upgrade over the 3200 which used basically the same Sony sensor as the A77/65. But this new camera has a Toshiba sensor, and one that comfortably outperforms the competing Sony chip. It shows more dynamic range (one full EV), an extra full bit of color depth, and not surprisingly, about a 500 ISO advantage in low light in DXO testing (some of that emerging from the loss of light to the translucent mirror). However, even without the mirror, testing this against the sensor of the NEX-7, this new Toshiba sensory is better (minimally in relationship to ISO but with still 1/2 EV advantage in dynamic range). Technical details aside, a better sensor, and the first time that someone has made a sensor for APS-C that outperformed the Sony equivalent in many years. But does this mean that the Nikon 5200 is a better camera? Well if you are shooting in low light, yes it probably is, although I still prefer the great Sony EVF over the dark 'tunnel' viewfinder experience on subframe DSLRs. But this is a shot over the bow for Sony, that someone has produced a better APS-C sensor. Will this translate into erosion of their market dominance in sensor technology? Will Toshiba produce a FF sensor that also outperforms Sony's amazing 24 MP FF chip (powering the Nikon D600 and Sony A99)?? We will have to wait and see on that.One other encouraging development - Sony released another firmware upgrade that is aimed at continuing overexposure issues when using flash, and that has some other tweaks, including compensation profiles for more lenses. Good to see that Sony is still committed to improving the software of the SLT line.Have had a chance also to shoot with the new Sony RX-1 - see my review of this on Amazon. Amazing camera, confining in some ways, but with remarkable image quality from such a small package, and with great low light ability given the FF sensor.
138 of 146 people found the following review helpful.Phenomenal Game Changer
By jstover33
I have only had this A65 for a couple of days so let's call this a "first impression". I think one of the early magazine reviews called the A65 and A77 "game changers". I have to agree and think that the engineers at Canon and Nikon are really looking at this camera. I also have a Nikon 5100 and Canon G12 in which to compare. Neither of those cameras are slouches. The G12 is my "go to" and I love it dearly (buy one). Of course it is a high end P&S, but a P&S none the less. So I will base my comparison on the Nikon 5100.Most of my comparisons have been indoor flash shots and a night shots outside. Pixels comparisons aside (16m for the 5100 and 24 for the A65), I am astounded by how much better the Sony photos are. And I thought the 5100 was good-and it is, of course. One of reasons I bought the 5100 was to replace a Nikon D80. I love having a flip out screen, which it and the Sony have. I NEED flip out screens, the G12 has one too. I take a lot of my shots from a position other than up to my eye. Anyway, more about the A65.The OLED viewfinder is amazing. For a real thorough review of the viewfinder alone check out a review of the A77 here on Amazon. The A65 and A77 share the same viewfinder. First off, is shows the entire image which you don't get with the 5100. You have to move up to, what the D7000 to get that? I have to tell you the ability to level the camera in the viewfinder in two axis is REALLY handy. No more wonky horizons. I hike a lot in our local PA mountains. The ability to sight across from one hill side to the other and use the viewfinder as a sighting level is a real cool, but admittedly esoteric use of the view finder. Once you have the viewfinder tilt and yaw indicator you will be spoiled forever trust me on that!With the push of a button you can zoom in the view finder very easily. You can turn on and off the information you see in the finder.Here's another advantage in bright daylight: You can review the photos in the finder with your eye through the finder. That is another of MANY pluses of the EVF. I understand Sony has broken some new ground with this new EVF vs. the older iterations of EVFs. They are here to stay. My guess is the optical viewfinder will fade (no flames please). This a very big deal. Using it is a "wow" moment as it is a better mousetrap.If you put the 5100 on Live View and compare it to the Sony A65 there is NO comparison. If you take a photo in Live View you need to wait until the darn mirror flips up and down. Slooooooow. A P&S camera such as the G12 is MUCH faster shot to shot since it does not have to operate a mirror. The Sony just zooms along merrily, click, click, click, click. Then if you want to mimic a chain gun on a Apache helicopter put it on a continuous 10 shots a second mode. I had no way to measure it, but I put the 5100 on continuous shooting (of course, NOT with Live View) and it was quite a bit slower with that darn 'ole mirror getting a workout. Don't forget, though, to minimize your SD card choking on all that data you need to use one of "Extreme" SD cards. I assume you would want that type of SD card for videos anyway (I don't do much video). A cheapy SD card will work fine unless you want to play machine gun with the shutter. No matter what, it will not keep up with 10fps for very long. I am not sure how the other DSLRs fair in that regard. I did use it an action pistol match my son and competed in. I was able to capture his flying brass and the Glock in full recoil which was pretty cool.I recently shot some video and played it back on my Sony Bravia 50" TV (I am NOT, in general, a Sony fanboy, as I currently own Nikon, Canon and Lumix cameras) via the mini HDMI port on the camera. It was truly excellent. Another review here on Amazon from an obvious video enthusiast called it "amazing". I won't dispute that. The quality of the audio seem pretty darn good. the microphone sits on top of what would be the pentaprism in an arc. Previously, my videos from the Canon G12 have been on my computer monitor. I am not doing a pixel peeping comparison. Based on my experience and web site reviews the video capabilities are probably best in class.Shot to shot comparison is: A65 is sharper, but with better color rendition. The only thing the 5100 MAY have over the A65 is perhaps a slightly stronger flash, but not by much. a November 11th review on a German camera web site came out and declared the best camera under 1000 euros. I think the camera has maybe two weakness (or maybe two characteristics that are not better than a Canon or Nikon): the first is that the flash is good but the Nikon may be a bit better. But no one matches Nikon on that. The second is that at high ISOs the quality MAY fall off a little more quickly than comparable Nikon or Canon offerings. That MAY be a tradeoff from having 24m pixels. I say that ONLY from the reviews I have read. I have not had any real world comparisons for high ISOs. My comparisons using a flash in a room with a lot of detail shows the A65 pretty much blowing the 5100 into weeds. I think some have also questioned that the Sony .jpg engine and advised shooting in RAW until Sony refines the firmware. That may be, but the photos, to this amateurs and non-technogeek, look awfully good. It is a heck of a camera and a joy to uses.I like how the A65 has a dedicated ISO button for quick changes. You can modify one of the 5100's buttons to do the same thing, but I don't think it is as intuitive. In fact, none of the command structure in the 5100 is as intuitive as the Sony's. I have to hunt for options on the Nikon that seem easier to find on the Sony. I have had the 5100 for 7 months and only two days for the Sony...Here is a bonus to the Sony that I was ignorant of until last week. Legacy AF Minolta and Konica-Minolta lenses work just fine on all the Alphas. Shame on me for not knowing. When Sony bought Minolta in 2005 they wisely retained the old A-mount. Why is that important? You are not stuck buying new Sony lenses. You can buy good used Minoltas that are HIGHLY rated Japanese made lenses. I got my A65 with the 18-55 kit lens. I just received a used Minolta 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 off eBay for $120. It is MINT and works PERFECTLY. If you do a quick search there are web sites devoted to rating Minolta lenses that work with Sony Alphas. Did I say BARGAIN? The lens I bought I think sold for $350 when it was new. On site showed it at $625 in today's money (based on the old purchase price) if I recall. Even if the Nikon, Canon and Sony were equivalent at the same price point (and they are not) being able to use the legacy Minolta lens is a real plus. (I almost forgot-I had a Canon Rebel XTi. Had buyers remorse right away. The photos from it just did not look good, but that is dam water long gone soured me on Canon DSLRs. I love my G12 though! I realize Canons DSLR are fantastic cameras with lots of happy campers. A semipro I know that shoots wildlife switched to high-end Canons from Nikon simply because comparable lenses from Canon are much cheaper than Nikon, but that is a story for another day).If you check out eBay lenses. I cannot recommend one seller too highly; ddrfam1439. Dennis deals only with Minolta lenses and is the best seller of ANYTHING I have bought from eBay. There are other reliable lenses dealers on there, but if Dennis has it I would buy with 110% confidence.I considered the A77 too, BUT here is the problem: a big price hit over the A65. Yes it does have a magnesium body and is weather sealed. If I go hiking in bad weather I will take my weather proof Lumix TS2. It is quite a bit larger and heavier though than the A65. They share the same EVF - that is important. Yeah, I guess it has a couple more focus points, but in real world I don't think that matters. Sometimes technical reviews focus (to steal a phrase) on pixel peeking and theoreticals rather than real world use. Maybe a pro needs the A77, but $999 vs. $1999? I can find other uses for $1000 - more lenses and filters maybe with lots left over for 18-year old Scotch.I have always had Nikons and Canons, but until now, never gave Sony a look. The buzz about the A77 caused me to check out the line and I am glad I did. This Sony A65 is like jumping into an Audi S4 from a VW Golf from my Nikon. I think for $999 there is nothing better-at the moment anyway.I will try to update this review over time.November 11, 2011 UPDATE. Remember the scene in "Something About Mary" when the greasy P.I. Healy (played to a "T" by Matt Dillon), was lurking around Mary's apartment? Through his binoculars, he got a glimpse of the body of her prune-like neighbor, but not seeing the face he thought it was Mary. To his fellow buffoon and voyeur he muttered "oooof, first chink in the armor, Teddy". Well, the A65 has a problem. Sometimes it will not shut or or start up. Taking the battery out and putting it back in solves it for a while. It is acting flaky. I did check on-line and I am running the latest firmware (1.03). So I called Sony...they are emailing me a FedEx label to ship to the Laredo TX service center. The camera is working, but I don't trust it to hold the charge as something drained the battery even though the switch was 'OFF' when I was not using it. I will report how Sony does on service. It is working so I will use it some, but ship it out on Monday.November 14, 2011 UPDATE: I updated and edited some of the text above. AND the camera seems to be working just fine. I may not sent it back just yet. I took quite a few shots and video yesterday. Likely, my 5100 is going on eBay; don't need both.Late November 14 UPDATE: Although it does seem to be working fine now, I think since I have the FedEx (ground) label I may as well send it back to have it gone over. By the way, when I was talking to Sony over the weekend they gave me the address to send it to. I then said it would be nice to get a prepaid label. The rep said, "we will email you one". I am not sure if she just forgot or that is something you have to ask for. With Sony losing money it may be the latter.Update November 24, 2011: camera was shipped to Sony in Laredo, TX on 11/16 and arrived 11/21. I received an email from Sony that evening indicating it was received. I just got a phone call this morning (Thanksgiving!) from a fellow at the service center asking me questions on the on-off/battery issue. He said it will ship next Tuesday and arrive to me on Thursday. I have to give Sony high marks to Sony for customer service at this point. I did feel bad, though, for the fellow working on Thanksgiving. That was pretty unexpected.Update March 18, 2012: I have had the A65 for some time now and can reflect further. It is a fantastic camera with a ton of best in class benefits with only one Achilles heel (very high ISO performance-beyond 1600-is not as good as Canikon). OK, so what I have been up to? Buying lots of Minolta legacy lenses (50/1.7; MACRO 50/2.8; 35-105; 35-80; 700210/f3.5-4.5) and a Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80. Here would be a killer deal: buy the A65 body and the Carl Zeiss 16-80. Then add maybe the Minolta 70-210 (a good one if you can find it. Get the Minolta MACRO 50/2.8 too if you dig closeup work-which I do). I have run comparison tests on all my lens as accurately as I can...the CZ is fantastic from center to edge. The Minolta 50 MACRO 2.8 is just about as good, but the 50/1.7 falls on its ass in the corners-at least my example does. I also compared these lens to the kit lens...the kit lens is no POS. It is quite decent. I got my CZ lens off eBay in as new condition for $625. New it is $800, so it is not cheap. Some have complained that it has a plastic (well made though) body and not metal (the mount is metal). Well, a metal CZ lens cost about double this one, plus it is LIGHTER - always good.At the risk of repeating myself...the ability to use those legacy Minolta lens is HUGE. For example, the MACRO 50 I got in super shape off eBay for $220 (and gulped at that). The Sony version of that lens now sells for over $500! I paid only $120 for that 70-210/f3.5-4.5 and it is fantastic. I don't know what you would have to pay for a new lens with comparable optics and range.I have also picked up a couple of flashes. You can get a Minolta 3600HS for a good price on eBay. It DOES have its limitations (head flips up but does not swivel and cannot cut the power). A MUCH better choice, albeit more expensive is the Sony HVL-F56AM. It is a rebadged Minolta 5600. It has far more capabilities than the 3600. Check them out.If you REALLY want very high ISO performance, buy a Pentax DSLR and not the Canon or Nikon. Pentax blows everyone into the weeds-and they are an excellent value. As for really low light stuff, such as street shooting, I am fortunate to have a Fuji X100 which does that so well (among other things very well, but with more than a few quirks).
52 of 56 people found the following review helpful.To A65 or to A55? That is the Question..
By Alex Parker
Sony A55 vs. A65: is Newer Really Better?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. (**I'm not going to get into the differences between the OVF and Sony's EVF; if you are reading this, it's because you're either used to EVFs in general, don't mind them, or think Sony cameras are cool, regardless.) The EVF here offers a FULL view of my shots. 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 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.***UPDATE***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.
Available now at affordable price, special discounts and fast shipping. I am really pleased with its qualities and highly recommend it to everyone needing for a high quality product with the useful features at an cheap. You can read review from customers to find out more through their experience. Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens has worked wonders for me and I wish it would do wonders on you too. Why then waste any more time? Have Fun, you understand where to shop the best ones.
Some of the customer reviews speak that the Sony A65VM 24.3 MP Translucent Mirror Digital SLR With 18-135mm Lens are splendid luggage. Also, It Is a pretty well product for the price. It’s great for colony on a tight budget. We’ve found pros and cons on this type of product. But overall, It’s a supreme product and we are well recommend it! When you however want to know more details on this product, so read the reports of those who have already used it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment