There is a new A65 versus [shoplink 3032]A900[/shoplink] image comparison posted by the chinese Pchome wbesite (Click here to read the translation). Article found via RiceHigh. The tester used the Sony 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 lens on the A65, whilst the ZA24-70/2.8 was used on the A900. So we can failry say the A65 had a slightly disadvantage. As you see the A65 image quality is very good!
The A65 image is on the left, A900 on the right:
See ISO 100 and 200 image comparison: http://img.article.pchome.net/00/53/30/02/iso1.jpg
See ISO 400 and 800 image comparison: http://img.article.pchome.net/00/53/30/02/iso2.jpg
See ISO 1600 and 3200 image comparison: http://img.article.pchome.net/00/53/30/02/iso3jpg.jpg
See ISO 6400 and 12800 image comparison: http://img.article.pchome.net/00/53/30/02/iso4.jpg
Surprising or not? I cannot imagine how well the nex generation of Sony fullframe sensors will perform! The image quality will be stellar. Let’s hope Sony will not let us wait to much for tha A99 🙂
ALL Preorder links:
Sony NEX-7 body only at Amazon, Adorama, Jessops UK and Sonystore.
Sony NEX-7 with 18-55mm lens at Amazon, BHphoto (notification only) and Sonystore.
Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 E-mount at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto (notification only) and Sonystore. Sony A77 with 16-50mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, Jessops UK and Sonystore.
Sony A77 body only at Amazon, Adorama, Jessops UK and Sonystore.
Sony A65 with 18-55mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto (notification only), Jessops UK and Sonystore.
Sony A65 body only at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto (notification only), Jessops UK and Sonystore.
Sony NEX-5N with 18-55mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, Jessops UK and Sonystore.
Sony NEX-5N at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto, and Sonystore.
Sony 50mm f/1.8 at BHphoto (notification only), Adorama and Sonystore.
Sony 55-210mm E-mount at Amazon, Adorama, Bhphoto (notification only) and Sonystore.
83 Responses
You go A65!
Any new about a-mount upcoming lenses?
OT, I am feeling very exciting….just placed an order of A77 body at SonyStyle HK, $9990 HKD (around 1290 USD), come with free 8Gb MS HX Stick and STP-GB1AM strap. Expect arrival on 22nd September. Can’t wait to test it with all my Zeiss lens (24-70, 16-25, 135)
Do you know whether I can buy directly from shop on first week of Oct? I will visit HGK by then and definitely can’t do pre-order as I am foreigner.
Hi Hanugro
You can pre-order here, and select pick up at store.
http://www.sonystyle.com.hk/products/apps/product/simplePage.do?modelCode=_M034262&lang=zh#package
OK thanks, really tempted. I originally want to hold out until FF dSLT. Let’s see in few weeks time.
Quit disappointed about Sony only bundle a free hand strap (the MS should be a standing offer) as the pre-order gift.
WOW !! If the A65 images are representative of how images will come out of the A77 then I’m going to be very happy.
It’s looking good for both cameras.
Common, this test is … bullshit. 🙂
We all know that JPEGs out of camera is not one of the 900’s biggest strengths. This guy should compare Raw images.
I do actually believe that the A65 is able to deliver great results, don’t get me wrong. But before someone profes it is better or worse than the A900, he should test it the right way. 😛
Test is bull-it mostly because there is no idea about preserved details after noise reduction. There is in camera and plenty of RAW and JEPG noise reduction softs which could easy clean any noise, but unfortunately mostly details also are gone.
Fully agree. This comparison is really useless. A preproduction prototype ??!!!??
The same poor noise reduction algorithms like with the A900/A850. You see no color noise reduction. More recent preproduction models can do this much better than shown in this “test comparison”.
I believe that A65/A77 deliver equal results as they use the same sensor and the same Bionze engine, which is important to handle the picture quality.
The A900 is known too deliver poor OOC jpgs in high ISO. High ISO in RAW is a completly different world.
Just my 2 cents. 😉
But RAW converter for A77 & A65 is not available yet… So, I guess this is the next best test…
+1
any “real world” examples please. Shoot the same scene with both combos like outdoor portrait, landscape, a low light scene where high iso is really necessary and show us what you got, please.
APS-C can’t physically beat FF sensor when it comes to shallow depth of field in portraiture.
I’ll tell you more – a580 beats a900 jpegs too. Does it beat RAWs – close in range, yes
Admin,
“nex” or “next” generation of Sony fullframe sensors? Seriously 🙂
Agreed MajotTom, I don’t think that this test is all the conclusive, and not only shoot raw then process to get an accurate example.. Not to say the a65/77 wont do very good I just find it hard to believe that it is better than a FF camera of the quality of the A850/900..
I thought the image quality from the A77/A65 was awful. What happened here? High ISO was junk, etc, etc…
Now the sensor is putting out better images than the FF model?
I hope you were joking since if you didn’t, you seriously need to stop reading the internet and go out shoot & process more photos.
I think the A900 photos at ISO-1600/ISO-3200 are better, nicer for the eye.
The A65 wins at higher ISO’s. Just my opinion. I’ll go for the A77 though. B.R.
Hello Andrea. There is very funny mistyping in 3d paragraph –
how well the NEX generation of Sony Fullframe sensors – what Nex FF is coming ;)?
P.S. 3 FF cameras – one like A850 – FF sensor in A77 body with large bufer, one Improved model like A900 and may be really one NEX mount – like Leica m9?
It’s all jpg bullshit. Only newbies compare jpgs out of the camera. Everyone knows that the only way to achieve stellar results from A700/A850/A900 is use great raw software like ACR. So far, A850/A900 are on the top and no APS-C sensor can stand up with them. Even good old A700 is still **much** better imaging device than A33/A35/A55 DSLTs…
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/675|0/%28appareil2%29/371|0/%28appareil3%29/562|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28brand2%29/Sony/%28brand3%29/Sony
A55 raw has better colour depth, iso performance and dynamic range than A700, according to dxomark analysis. A900 is equal to A55 on DR and colour but excels in noise. Just FYI.
Dear mike_2008, dxomark is just ***only*** dxomark. When we talk about quality, DxO raw software is very poor in comparison with ACR. Just test yourself, don’t believe them. I’ve tested A700 myself versus NEX and SLT cameras and I would still choose A700 for its stable image quality. Life is not a lab. NEX’s and SLT’s have only LV mode and got hot fast, especially in dark conditions, their sensors give then a whole lot of noise. Effect? The noise level is similar or even exceeds A700. Who needs 24Mp? For what? 12 Mp is absolutely enough! no more, I don’t need it, don’t need to buy new hard disks each year and copy tons of useless raw data.
comparing an a700 sensor from years ago with a much newer a55 sensor?? are you kidding me??
Admin, that’s such a misleading headline. Have you considered writing for the Daily Mail?
Wow! It looks like up gonna end up buying the A65 instead of the A77
Why? IQ should be the same its just a case of all the little extras on the A77 against a largish price diff. I was heading to A66 but am now back towards A77. just to many differences. Especially the AF with the A77 having more cross sensors and micro adjustment. Then there is the 2nd wheel, joystick and lcd hinge for ergonomics. plus dust and moisture protection. For a pro or semi pro all are essential. For Amateur none are deal breakers but all together they are just to much for me. Besides add 2 High Quality lenses and the overall cost difference is not much so I will probably go for A77.
That’s funny thinking “all those” features are “essential” for “pro” Terryfried.
I can remember shooting professionally with just a wind knob, manual focus, and a roll of Tri-X. Didn’t even need a light meter.
The “pros” today sure are different than they were in my time. We didn’t need all the wizbang gizmotica exotica to call ourselves “pros”. We just needed clients… and that’s all.
Also worth noting that the a77 will almost certainly be better supported with firmware releases.
There is no guarantee that the A65 will get a firmware release for every A77 release as it is not in Sony’s pro range.
I certainly hope you are wrong… I intend to buy the A65.
I had a very, very careful look at those pictures and the test is WRONG!!
The a900 has a warm finishing quality where as the a65 looks rather cold.
The a65 is NOT a Full Frame and DON’T compare it with the majesty a900!!!
The last OVF APS-C model is the a700 so test it against it!
I’m fuming now so be careful otherwise I’m jumping ship for Full Frame Canon!
A very, very unhappy Sony a900 user!!!
🙁
Have fun jumping. 😀
And be careful not to hurt yourself in the jump! 🙂
What exactly are you fuming about? That someone compared an APS-C camera to your FF and now you are going to jump ship to Canon because of this?!
Go! Good riddance I say. Go have a little sulk in the corner and enjoy your canon.
a65 beating a900 is very good news, because it would mean the a99 would be much much better than a65. and do remember that there is slated to be 3 different full frame cameras in 2012. besides a900 is 2007 technology. if you dont like costs of keep updating ur cameras, just buy a “mamiya 7ii” film camera.
Matt –
Thank you for your ‘goodbye’ and yes it is possible that Sony owners are
going to jump ship if Sony decided to kill off OVF and trying to awash us
that the SLT is a new ‘thing’, am sure Sony will be sulking finding their
newer cameras are only market for none pro!
Another thing I’ve paid mega megabucks for my a900 and now this stupid
test stating that a cheap a65 is better than a900, that is why I am
fuming!
How this test can compared between ASP-C & Full Frame and OVF & SLT ?
Sure Sony will be sitting in the corner thinking what have they done!
A Full Framer User.
Mr Full Frame User, you’re an idiot. An emotional, illogical moron.
The a900 is 3 years old now. When you bought it, did you think it would stay the best forever?
This is a GOOD sign. If they can get this image quality out of a cropped sensor, imagine what the next full frame will be like!
Full frame still has an advantage – thin DOF subject isolation that cropped sensors will never be able to compete with.
edit: Besides, what Canon full frame would you get? The 5d2 is pretty much equal to the a900 anyway. a900 has better focusing and dynamic range too.
David –
It’s called ‘mind game’ as me & others are actually boycott Sony.
In case if you haven’t read Sony last news about dropping OVF for
good. What the hell for ?!
Not everybody likes the idea and and why drop OVF ?
(Is this the reason why the like of Canon and the others are staying silent?)
Will Sony rise or fall?
(The a77 isn’t popular with the 2011 pre-booking order!!)
Fair enough the a900 is 3 years and 11 months old now, so how old
does it have to be old or out of date ?
Mmm?
P.S. No needs to be personal David, it’s all about Sony!
I am a a900 owner, I shoot semi pro and I will NOT be jumping because of SLT. As long as I can use it in and out of a studio with studio lighting, I can see what I need to see via the view finder, I don’t care if I am looking at a optical or electronic. Its about having equipment that allows you to capture the images you want/need/like. A EVF isn’t going to hinder that. I have yet to hear a intelligent reason as to why someone would shun a well performing EVF over a OVF yet. They had problems initially but it sounds like the a77 have addressed many of them. I am hoping the refresh rate will be fast enough come the time they introduce a full frame to keep up with action but other than that I don’t see the issue. Unless you are shooting grand touring races I don’t see how the EVF at this stage is a bad thing. You gain far more than you lose.
F.F.U., you’re boycotting Sony and yet still posting here?
Sony can do some hairbrained things some times, but if you have an active dislike for them wouldn’t the less stressful path be to just change camera system?
You’re still being stupid. Your a900 is still a great camera, regardless of what else is available 4 years later. Think of it as an amazing testament to the a900 that it takes four years for an APS-C camera to equal it.
Compare a phone or laptop from 4 years ago and see how well it stacks up…
EVF isn’t for everyone, but sooner or later the majority of camera will probably use that. OVF is a silly mechanism really – needing complicated flipping mirrors, viewfinder blackout, a ton of vibration and noise etc.
Why not try the a77. It’s already converted several reviewers. a99 can only be better. Instead of being all hysterical about it, just choose whichever camera helps you get the pics you want.
Of course a brand new APS-C is going to approach or exceed a 4yr old (?) full frame camera, that is the march in progress of technology. However your a900 is as good as the day you bought it, if you were happy with it then you should be happy with it now.
It is like bitching that a top of the line black and white screen Nokia is now being compared to budget smartphones and not being as good.
Also if you are not happy with your a900 why did you buy it? Sony don’t owe you anything, they gave you what you expected when you bought their product, they made no guarantees that you would be happy with their future product direction.
Personally I like what Sony are doing, no they aren’t perfect but no product ever is, ever. At least they are trying to innovate, which (without knowing what Canon’s future plans are) Canon don’t appear to be doing. All I see are wishlists from Canon diehards, all their product releases over the last year or two have been just more of the same old same old. Whole new models that do nothing but add an articulated display.
At the end of the day though, your a900 is a fantastic tool to go and take photos with, if it is somehow stopping you from doing that by all means try your luck with Canon, if not what do you really care?
i wouldnt abandon ship from sony just because of FFUs point. then u would have to sell off all lenses and flashes, just for OVF? ovf is on its way out. evf is in, and its very professional. just look at the hundreded thousand dollar video cameras from sony or red, they all use evf. so evf technology has always been here, they just need to make it cheap enough to use for dlsr’s. but i really think that sony will be #1 in the camera market because of the mirrorless future. what if they release fullframe NEX9? imagine using all your leica lenses on NEX9 instead of M9, thats like getting $6000 for free. who needs rangefinder anymore with the EVF manual focus peaking assist feature.
Sorry but is this a joke? For: bcs of this test all your nice pictures of before have now suddenly become shitty??
No matter what new stuff comes out your camera is still as good as it was. In 2 years (or 1 , or 0.5) the A65 and A77 will be “obsolete” if you want to believe that. Would that make you angry if you buy one now?
Isn’t photography about the pictures and not the gear?
I am very happy with a lot of pictures I made with a toy camera and a beerglas as some people with “gas” called it.
Fact is: some of them tried and thought my camera was broken. But I could still picture flying birds bcs I am used to my gear. And frankly I don’t care if I am the only one that likes them: I was there and that time will never come back. Besides I know for sure they are pretty good 🙂 and I only have A100…
Damn good camera, that A100. 46,000 pics and more yet to come…
🙂
Yep! And nice to meet someone else who doesn’t have g.a.s.!
@Full Frame User
Since you are so unhappy with your Sony a900, I will do you a favor and take it from you AND I wont charge you my typical fee to remove your camera. I’ll just charge you postage and handling. Isn’t that a great deal! Just think, no more unhappiness! All you’ll have to pay me is postage and handling, and you’ll be happy again! As for me, I will deal with another A900, but it is a cross I’m willing to bear for you.
Agree that A65 shows an impressive image result as an APSC sensor camera, but what I see that in terms of detail, A900 still excell. So it’s a bit too much to say that A65 image quality beats A900.
Thanks Andrea for linking this comparison. For me I am surprised that the out-of-camera jpg of the a65 is so good compared to a FF. Too often leading camera manufacturers have been let off the hook by well-meaning experts to say that to get any decent picture we need to shoot raw and post-process and the raw umbrella has been used by manufacturers as a cover for their poor quality such as noise, backfocus, frontfocus, poor wb, stuck pixels, etc that they unload upon the poor consumer.
@ Rog. That’s so true. I’d do most of my shooting in JPEG if I were confident of getting close to what I’m looking for and reserve RAW for the difficult and important shots.
It’s easy to beat A900 in High ISO jpegs.
Even 3 years old 600$ Canon rebel can do it…
But admin’s headline is true: ” A65 beats the A900 image quality!”
Exclamation mark in headline 🙂 tabloids 🙂
Things are looking very promising for the A65/A77, but I do wish the reviewers would start comparing raw image quality.
Me too, but that’s up to Adobe I guess. Lightroom and ACR should be updated shortly after release.
I’m as excited about the A65/77 as anyone, but these tests are useless and we have had a dozen of them now, all giving different results. One or two are interesting but thats about it. The next test I want to see is with the A700 against a production A77 on a retail fw!
A few thoughts about this…
To begin with, the comparison seems to have been done using in-camera JPEGs, which is kind of unfortunate because it gives no hint about what the sensor is capable of. The A900 is not popular for its JPEG engine, and apparent improvements in IQ could also issue from an improved JPEG engine in the A65.
Secondly, the test only compares sharpness/contrast. However, the real benefit of a FF sensor lies in its greater pixel size, resulting in a potentially better S/N ratio, greater dynamic range and color depth. Therefore, even if Sony’s improved sensor design compensates for these benefits of the A900, upcoming FF cameras using the same sensor technology will again be superior to the A65 in these aspects.
Thirdly, the author’s decision to use a zoom lens on the A900 (even though it is a Zeiss lens) somewhat weakens the argument that “even with the poor 11-18 mm the A65 is sharper than the A900 with the almighty Zeiss lens.” Fact is, FF zoom lenses are not that good, especially in on the wide end of the zoom range, even if they are Zeiss made. And the wide end is what was probably used here, given the fact the author used an ultra-wide zoom on the A65. FF lenses just can’t be that good, particularly when used relatively wide open, as was done here, it’s just physics. The big advantage of FF lenses is that the sensor is that big, so their overall requirement on sharpness can be much less than that necessary with “DT”-lenses. Additionally, in the centers (shown in the comparison) the 11-18 mm is not that bad! So on the whole, the two systems (lens+camera) are badly comparable.
And finally, the results are generally not that surprising!
The A900 is a few years old now, and one could have expected that sony make some major improvements in sensor design. Furthermore, a higher resolution sensor (meaning a higher pixel density) leads to a higher MTF. Since MTFs of lens and sensor have to be multiplied, a higher pixel density inevitably improves the performance of EVERY lens! Even poor lenses (of which many always think they easily get “outresolved” by today’s sensors) gain resolution when used on a 24MP body! A potential FF body with similar pixel density will undoubtedly be superior to the A65, and perhaps – on the whole – the A900 still is, assumed one uses the right lenses.
Best regards, Thomas
I think this is the first time I’ve thought Thomas needed a rebuttal (perhaps just a tweaking of conditions.)
If both sensors have the same pixel count, and the FF is covering the same image space (field) as the APS-C sensor, then (all other things equal) the advantage would naturally go to the FF sensor: Covering the same field with bigger pixels. Yes, there is a systemic MTF advantage to smaller pixels, but only when the patescale (field/mm) is constant, not when covering the same field/pixel.
Also, looking at the image, I see the S/N ration clearly represented, not just resolution. The A65 seems to handily beat the A900 in noise. Agreed: in-camera JPEGS do not tell the whole story.
Looking forward to the A99… In the meantime me and my two A900s will be happily shooting on Lake Powell October 2-8. (Still room for a few more shooters.) :o)
LifeStoryImages,
Just to clarify things:
I really appreciate your comments!
Concerning the MTF advantage, you are clearly right! What I wanted to say with that paragraph was that we should not be surprised by that “relatively good” IQ accomplished by a lens with not that good a reputation – at least better than what might be expected. Compared to other APS-C cameras (earlier models!) the A65 has that clear advantage in pixel density (NORMALIZED to sensor size is what i should have written), meaning on an A65 the 11-18 can be expected to be better than on an A55.
OF COURSE, things would look different if compared to the A900, but that’s not what I intended to do.
Concerning the S/N ratio, i chose my words carefully and wrote “potentially better S/N ratio.” Clearly, a sensor which is less noisy will have a better S/N ratio, maybe even if it had smaller pixels, hence the phrasing. But I didn’t want to judge it because of the JPEGs being used.
It’s a pleasure someone really reads my stuff.
Thomas
Thinking of it even more, contrast can’t be judged properly here either! Sharpness is a combination of resolution and contrast (and other factors as well), and can be estimated only subjectively in these pictures (not that anything else would be important). The eye can differentiate between high micro contrast and high resolution only poorly.
However, resolution is what really can’t be judged when comparing the pictures. Resolution provides information on the closest distance between two distinct objects at which they can still be distinguished from one another. So let’s settle down on the term “sharpness” alone.
While waiting for the 65/77 RAWs, I,m pretty happy with my A850 now.
Until then, I will be investing in CZ lenses first and by the time EVF technology gets really mature enough, I will be getting a Sony EVF body. XD
Yes, at least ! A65 can take better color chart pictures than an A900. A good news for all charts lovers. 😉
This whole idea of comparing cameras like this is almost moronic anyway.
While I’m sure the a65 quality will be excellent, sharpness and detail is such a SMALL factor in an overall image. Unless you NEED huge prints or to examine everything 100%, sharpness really isn’t a massive factor in an image. It will be sharp *enough* even with a 12mp cropped sensor. You could print that A3 size or view on a 22 inch monitor no problem.
Colours and dynamic range are far more important factors. And none of this bears in mind the usability of the camera and the skill of the operator which is *THE* single largest factor. If you can’t get the shots you want from an a65, the camera isn’t the limiting factor.. it’s probably you.
And all this pixel peeping on a consumer level aps-c camera is ridiculous. If you’re such a quality purist who demands the absolute pixel peeping best, get at LEAST full frame. APS-C was formed as amateur format. For most people, it is a good compromise between quality and cost/weight/size/etc. But if you’re a habitual pixel peeping idiot and you aren’t at least using full frame already, you are a hypocrite.
David –
The Full Frame is the same like the 35mm film and the APS-C is like those Point & Shoot cameras.
On the Full Frame Camera the 50mm lens is about the same as the 50mm Film and you won’t get that on the APS-C or Point & Shoot, nothing to do with pixel what you’re taking about.
Fish eyes lenses only works on FF & 35mm Film Cameras.
On the other hand cropping on a higher pixel i.e. a850/a900 you can’t tell the different, but with APS-C it is noticeable.
So if the a77 was a Full Frame Camera it will be in my & other’s hands by now!
No needs for name calling and negativity views on something that you really don’t know.
“The Full Frame is the same like the 35mm film and the APS-C is like those Point & Shoot cameras.”
Are you saying that sarcastically? I hope so because there is a big difference between Point & Shoot and APSC sensor sizes.
I would personally always prefer an APSC sized sensor for value and the Crop factor. Because, you see, I get a 1.5x teleconverter for free. Very usefull for wildlife photography… And it costs less too.
Ultimately its all about personal choices.
Raghav –
No it’s fact, in case you didn’t know you can buy a Point & Shoot even Bridge camera with the same sensor size as APS-C!
Regard on build-in 1.5x/2.0x teleconverter when using for wildlife or birds photography you’ll lose the picture quality with less pixel than normally used without. Also it’s not ‘fast’ as a f/2.8 super zoom or prime lenses.
Personal choices yes for a hobbyist, but not for pro for living!
I may be wrong here, but I thought that NEX was the only small sized camera with the massive APSC sized sensor.
When I said teleconverter, I meant the 1.5x crop factor of an APSC sized sensor Vs a full frame sensor. I did not mean the 1.4x / 2.0x teleconverter feature in the A65 & A77.
And yes, you are right. I am not a Pro… Actually far from it. I am a software professional & in my line of work I have to travel. So, that’s where my interest in photography comes from. This is just my hobby & I will never make a dime off any of my pics…
What I can understand is that you are very fond of Fullframe sensor cameras. Honestly, you can’t go wrong with them because, they usually mean an infusion of the best technologies of the camera manufacturer at the time of introduction. But you must also remember that the best technologies today will inevitably be outdated technologies in the future. So, you shouldn’t expect the A900 to be the best imaging device for eternity.
you r completely wrong. point and shoot has sensor size something like 1/2.3″ at best. not aps-c size.
if you’re not happy, jump.
no one’s stopping you.
so why are you still posting here?
i though that when, people commit suicide, they’d rather jump 20 floors alone, and not drag others down with them.
i see your only purpose is to convert more jumpers. frankly… it’s not good to promote suicide.
JMTC
“The A65 image is on the left, A900 on the right:”
Admin, from reading the original website, actually A65 at the top and A900 at the bottom. Except for ISO 6400 with A65 at top-left and A900 at bottom-right.
My opinion after looking at the comparison: A900 beat A65 in terms of lower noise at higher ISO.
Yes I believe it is top to bottom that’s how I compared them in first place. Fact is if is close and they are at least comparable. Which if not for advance over 3 years they should not be. So congrats to Sony for improving APSC efficiency and now those who need FF wait with expectation for new FF. I believe there will be 2 sensors one D3 style the other D3x style this will allow them to have 2 versions of there main FF (plus other variant) with different sensors and supply Nikon with sensors for D4 and D4x. I suspect one will be based on 24 MP sensor (up to 54MB) the other based on the 16(up to 36MP).The latter being for high ISO pixel peepers.
As a happy Alpha a850 user, I hope its true and hope that the RAW images make it even more true.
The a900 shipped in 2008!
I hope Sony and all of the others can and have make big improvements in IQ and IOS performance in three years as it means that when Sony releases a new FF camera it will be worth buying, because images will be even better.
The descriptions of images linked with this article do not make sense:
1) All of the ISO 100 and 200 images both have f/2.8 in the file name at the bottom of the pictures.
2) it seem sensible that the images with the same size and orientation are from the same lens/camera combination. Thus in the 100/200 ISO images the top are the same camera and so too are the bottom two.
Just looked at the translated pages which suggests that all photos were taken through the Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70 ZA lens, i.e. it was used on both cameras. Also the top images were the A65 and bottom A900. It now makes much more sense to me now.
TERRY
Regards
TERRY
Admin, headlines the final release of the A77 firmware for testing?
so if this is about same price as 5n, why get the a65? i know all the specs and stuffs, just want some interesting perspectives that i may not know…
There are many reasons to get the A65 over the 5N even if they are the priced similarly:
1. A65 is the natural choice for Alpha lens owners who already own quality A-mount lenses.
2. Quality and quantity of E-mount lens options are very limited at this point in time.
3. A65 has the built-in EVF and ext. flash mount the 5n does not have.
4. Many users may prefer the A65 size and ergonomics over the miniature 5N.
Those are the key considerations for me to pre-order the A65 over the 5N.
then what about things besides lens choices? does it justify the size differences, surly a65 has to have some kind of better IQ or performance over the 5n(lets say lens aside). with the size difference they should of jammed more things into that a65 to make it worth much more getting it over the smaller form factor of the 5n, the same situation goes with a77 vs nex 7. just feels weird knowing small performs about same as big… if you know what i mean. educate me
What’s up with the last image, bottom row? A900 doesn’t have a 12800 ISO, so what are those? The one on the left is clearly more noisy.
read the text. the extra is A65 at iso16000
Thanks Terry, had to look a little closer. In lower ISO’s not a real diff in noise, but it seems the A900’s 6400 is between the A65’s 12800-16000. Good news for what’s coming!
I would love a FF camera with this sensor technology with only 14MP or so… ISO 12800 would look amazing! (Sony could finally have a “D3 killer!”)
Why does the A65 not have a AF lamp?
Sorry I’m a newbie
Why is there no AF lamp on the A65?
Sorry I’m a newbie
Sorry for the double post. Sure it failed first time round.
Beats the a900?
A rather shortsighted title don’t you think? I had some faith this forum was run by more intelligent enthusiasts.
So…
Does the a65 have a Full Frame 16mm equivalent lens that will provide the same corner sharpness for landscapes?
Does the a65 have a Full Frame 85mm – 200mm wide aperture equivalent lens that will provide the same shallow depth of field in portraiture?
Does the a65’s EVF project the view as fast as the a900’s OVF?
Does the a65 take all my existing compact flash cards?
Please finish your sentence OP… “a65 beats a900… in a certain criteria” But please don’t contribute to lowering the perceived value of my existing equipment with such outlandish and unwarranted shortsighted comments. If you want serious togs to visit this site… then please avoid the hype and spin doctor headlines. And please exhibit some degree of professionalism by keeping comments in perspective.