Reading mode: Light Dark

A65 review is up

Go to last post
ser dpreview said:
I did this test, in the review of the A65 , I went at the studio scene comparison (RAW) , and I have added the A77.

Well, the shots of the A77 are more noisier than those made with the A65. Should be the same as they have the same sensor and firmware. The difference increases with ISO.
Click to expand...
I can confirm your observation. More color noise on the a77 shots, the higher the ISO the worse. I suggest you start a new thread with this interesting observation, it may get lost. I am sure it will ignite interesting discussions.

The a65 looks pleasantly better....there are some bad artifacts in the ISO 1600 RAW on the little globe in the a77 shot for example.
Member said:
Why?
Click to expand...
No clue. Maybe someone touched those default settings of their converter?
Use the feedback link to ask the crew here (I just did that).
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/
 
....

What I'd like to know is how the A65 compares with the A55! IMHO the A65 could be a natural upgrade for the A55, so besides from the obvious MP count and AMOLED EVF, it's interesting to list:
1. What features the A65 has which the A55 doesn't?
2. How does the A65 compares to the A55 concerning performance:
  • AF speed & accuracy
  • burst speed
  • buffer limit
  • battery capacity ( nº of shots )
  • others...?
3. Ergonomics / size / weight impact

I'm sure there are other aspects to be considered but anyway I'm seriously considering the A65 as an eventual upgrade to my A55.

On top of that, I may still consider the A77 in the future, if the coming FF SLT turns up too expensive and impossible to justify.

... Lucas
--
Always having fun with photography ...

http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/

 
seilerbird666 said:
Lars Rehm said:
What we are saying is that while the 10fps mode ins unrivaled in its class it is, despite of the impressive numbers, not up at the same level as the fast continuous modes you get on professional sports cameras such as a EOS 1D or D3s. It's perfectly alright for experimenting with sports photography (and as you can see we got some great shots at the moto cross), just don't expect the same hit rate and precision you'd get from one of the cameras mentioned above. Sports aside, a 10fps can also ve quite useful and fun in social photography...
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree with you Lars. I shoot mostly birds and a lot of BIF and I have found it is absolutely incredible with a great success rate. I have never used a 1D or a D3s but I can't imagine that either one could get better results than I am getting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=36889801

The ability to follow fast action is not a function of a camera, it is a function of the photographer. It is a skill that takes years to develop. I see lots of people comment on how poor the a55/65/77 is at following fast action but yet I don't have a problem at all.
Click to expand...
So you wont be selling the A-65 and going back to the A-55 as you speculated in another thread?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39856024
--
"Pru, it's kicking off!"
I am a Toadie and proud!
 
The A65 belongs there but the A77 is a $1400 camera and Sony's top offering. That is why a lesser camera - the A65 - got a gold award and the A77 a much superior camera got a silver.

If it makes anyone happy though they can put it in any category they want. Even make their own category.
--
tom power
 
Is it just me, the light there, or is there a faint cobalty tinge in these ?
Is Jpegging (and down sizing?) all those pixels, over-"saturating" the blues ?

--

 
Gavin 11 said:
seilerbird666 said:
Lars Rehm said:
What we are saying is that while the 10fps mode ins unrivaled in its class it is, despite of the impressive numbers, not up at the same level as the fast continuous modes you get on professional sports cameras such as a EOS 1D or D3s. It's perfectly alright for experimenting with sports photography (and as you can see we got some great shots at the moto cross), just don't expect the same hit rate and precision you'd get from one of the cameras mentioned above. Sports aside, a 10fps can also ve quite useful and fun in social photography...
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree with you Lars. I shoot mostly birds and a lot of BIF and I have found it is absolutely incredible with a great success rate. I have never used a 1D or a D3s but I can't imagine that either one could get better results than I am getting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=36889801

The ability to follow fast action is not a function of a camera, it is a function of the photographer. It is a skill that takes years to develop. I see lots of people comment on how poor the a55/65/77 is at following fast action but yet I don't have a problem at all.
Click to expand...
So you wont be selling the A-65 and going back to the A-55 as you speculated in another thread?
Click to expand...
I haven't decided yet. I love everything about the a65 except I just can't get decent bird shots. I keep thinking the problem is me and not the camera. I hate when someone automatically blames the camera when photos don't come out as expected. I always suspect the photographer.
 
dlkeller said:
OK, thanks, that is GREAT to hear. I assume you then press and hold the +/- to for exposure compensation as on my old KM5D?
Click to expand...
It's a toggle rather than a hold, but you've got the basic idea :)
 
Frenske said:
The A77 costs £1200 whereas the A65 costs £700. You would expect £1000+ camera to do well and get a good score. Also you need to compare it with other cameras in the same price segment. You cannot compare Granny Smiths with Golden Delicious.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point of the VALUE score? To judge the value of the camera at its price point? The a65 is just as much of a value at $900 as the a77 is at $1400, yet the a77 scores higher and is awarded lower. It's silly. If the awards are that meaningless, they might as well create a new system, such as Pineapple Awards and Firecracker Awards.
--
This is the world, the way I see it: http://twenty200.com
 
tompower53 said:
The A65 belongs there but the A77 is a $1400 camera and Sony's top offering. That is why a lesser camera - the A65 - got a gold award and the A77 a much superior camera got a silver.

If it makes anyone happy though they can put it in any category they want. Even make their own category.
--
tom power
Click to expand...
I think it would have made Sony a lot happier if the A77 had been awarded a GOLD!! Have a look at this Sony web page:

http://www.sony.co.nz/microsite/alpha_review/dslr_nz.html

This page links to external reviews of the A55, A33, A900, and A390. The DPR gold award for the A55 heads the list, but so far, there is no mention of the A77. This page shows that Sony really cares and takes notice of external reviews, particularly DPR reviews. No doubt the A65 gold award will be added to this page shortly.

I can appreciate the difficulties in making camera assessments that are truly comparable and objective. After all, even if a camera has the best technical features in the world, such as viewfinder and controls, and handling ability, it shouldn't be awarded a gold if its image quality isn't as good as other similar cameras.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that the A77 didn't get a gold mainly because of concerns about its high ISO image quality in comparison to that produced by other similar cameras. To me, this doesn't really put me off buying the A77, but because it was awarded only a silver, it puts buyers on alert that other similar cameras can produce better image quality in certain circumstances.

Cheers
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-SLT-A77-A900.html

Explains why the A65 and A77 have a huge "telephoto advantage" over the A900 and A55
 
BMWX5 said:
Check mzd's history so you'll know.

Lars is not discussing how to be a great photographer...
Click to expand...
Whereas BMWX5 doesn't actually take photographs at all, he just praises anything that comes out of Sony's bottom.
Jules
BMWX5 said:
HDaRt said:
this must be an inside joke, don't get it. if it isn't someone needs a hug and a check up from the neck up.
BMWX5 said:
Are you like a broken record or what? This forum is about gear not about taking better pictures. Go to the photography forums if you want to talk "better pictures"
mzd said:
sye46 said:
thank you for the review! but how does the A65 get a score of 78% and gets the Gold award while the A77 got 81% and got a Silver award?
Click to expand...
With that gold award the a65 is for sure gonna take better pictures than the a77!
--

Madness is when you start talking about the a77 EVF lag but you've never used the camera once.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
HDaRt
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
cgarrard said:
Read the review, good job guys.
Click to expand...
This is going to sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth but the 'numerical ratings' and 'award levels' tell more about the reviewers than they do about the cameras themselves.

I personally feel that in both the short and long run, Dpreview is shooting themselves in the foot by assigning these numeric values. For a proper assessment, a number is just too much of a moving target. Some of the criteria that they apparently use has to do with what feature sets they personally consider valuable on the actual date they performed the test… and of course…since the dates change, the preferred feature sets change as well. I even suspect that some feature sets that have not come into favor yet will not weigh properly and feature sets that fall out of favor will slant the ratings in favor of older reviewed products.

Dpreview already acknowledges this, as the awards are already weighted according to the ‘class of camera’. Thus they are especially dependent of the technological feature set a camera falls into and those feature sets will be dependent on the date of the review as well. To a lesser degree the numeric weighting is also dependent of what Dpreview thinks is appropriate as of the date of review and independent of the intrinsic picture taking capability of the camera.

Obviously, my point is not that they do a poor job of reviewing cameras because they perform a superb technical review. I just think that these scores and awards are inherently flawed and must be judged in the context of what the reviewers personally want.

The overwhelming majority of the discussion of the reviews here on this forum is about the last one fifth of one page of the entire 20 page review. Ironically in that last one fifth of a page, nothing of substance is revealed about the camera being reviewed. In the a77 review some people complained because the a77 didn’t get a Gold Award and on the a65 review they complained because it did. If I’m correct, only time will tell if the staff assigned an appropriate numerical value but maybe the better question will be if a numeric value CAN be assigned validly. Personally I don’t think so. The only people that can do so are the individuals actually looking at the cameras and I come round-robin back to my initial premise that any attempt to weigh the qualities of the camera for their usefulness, tell more about the people weighing these qualities than the object of their attention.

I know I’m splitting hairs here because for any reviewer to do their job they have to somewhere make personal assessments and even the terminology they use will often have positive or negative connotations. I’m a gear-head also; as in car fanatic. Just this month I bought a new WRX sedan and had an STi short-shifter installed. The ‘German automaker oriented’ reviewers typically call this transmission ‘notchy’ while I would characterize it as ‘mechanically crisp’. One has negative and the other positive connotations for the exact same thing. Personally I like ‘mechanically crisp’ and can’t stand the ‘rubbery, somewhere up there by the selection knob on the radio’ shifting in your typical BMW and Porshe. But the realities are that someone has to use some sort of dialog to describe the attributes of the gear we use. I just think that Dpreview is going out of its way to unnecessarily invite criticism with both the 'awards' and the numeric ratings.

If you read this far… regardless of what you think of my statements above, the bottom line is that Carl is right…"read the review". I think it’s excellent.

Thank you, Dpreview.

Bruce

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpixel
 
I think it was more because of the price of the camera thats why A77 got a silver and gold of A65. DP think A77 is expensive for its features and specs but in my own opinion, it is actually a bargain.

A77's 81pts is still the highest in the same camera category by DP so I think Sony should use it for their advertisement.
Robsphoto said:
tompower53 said:
The A65 belongs there but the A77 is a $1400 camera and Sony's top offering. That is why a lesser camera - the A65 - got a gold award and the A77 a much superior camera got a silver.

If it makes anyone happy though they can put it in any category they want. Even make their own category.
--
tom power
Click to expand...
I think it would have made Sony a lot happier if the A77 had been awarded a GOLD!! Have a look at this Sony web page:

http://www.sony.co.nz/microsite/alpha_review/dslr_nz.html

This page links to external reviews of the A55, A33, A900, and A390. The DPR gold award for the A55 heads the list, but so far, there is no mention of the A77. This page shows that Sony really cares and takes notice of external reviews, particularly DPR reviews. No doubt the A65 gold award will be added to this page shortly.

I can appreciate the difficulties in making camera assessments that are truly comparable and objective. After all, even if a camera has the best technical features in the world, such as viewfinder and controls, and handling ability, it shouldn't be awarded a gold if its image quality isn't as good as other similar cameras.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that the A77 didn't get a gold mainly because of concerns about its high ISO image quality in comparison to that produced by other similar cameras. To me, this doesn't really put me off buying the A77, but because it was awarded only a silver, it puts buyers on alert that other similar cameras can produce better image quality in certain circumstances.

Cheers
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-SLT-A77-A900.html

Explains why the A65 and A77 have a huge "telephoto advantage" over the A900 and A55
Click to expand...
 
I was thinking of the A77 when I wrote that as DPR already compared the A65 with the Nikon 5100. Sorry it come off my keyboard wrong!
--
Dave
 
It makes perfect sense to compare cameras with other cameras in the same class. I have no problem with it as long as DPR tells us that is what they are doing.
--
Dave
 
Are you sure?

Check out how the a77 fares against the a55, Nex5N and a900 when the DPReview RAW files are processed via Apple Aperture and all sized to 16 MP for direct comparison here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39829871

and come back. IMO, the 16 MP APS-C cams still look cleaner compared to the 24 MP APS-C sized down to 16 MP in my unsophisticated workflow, but not "hands down" better.

Once I have time enough, I will repeat this with the a65 RAW files to see wether the difference in DPReviews a65 vs. a77 RAW sample shots gets even more noticeable, which would be in favour of the 24 MP sensor and would raise my level of expectations WRT the Nex 7 even further.

DPreview has not yet answered why their a65 vs. a77 RAW results are noticeably different.
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/
 
Ralf Bliesener said:
DPreview has not yet answered why their a65 vs. a77 RAW results are noticeably different.
Click to expand...
(1) A65 is getting more light. 1/3 stop. A77 images are slightly darker.

(2) I also wonder if the ability to do 12 fps has negative affect on noise. A65 can only do 10 fps.
 
So you think that a camera that gets over 80% should automatically awarded gold award and maybe above 70% silver award; something along those lines. Perhaps in the future we give all cameras gold awards and we need new one like platinum and diamond awards. Or maybe we should give Oscars to thousands of actors every year; after all there are many great actors out there.

Of course not, an award becomes meaningless then. Awards are given to the ones that stand out from its direct competition and not because it is simply a good camera.
twenty200 said:
Frenske said:
The A77 costs £1200 whereas the A65 costs £700. You would expect £1000+ camera to do well and get a good score. Also you need to compare it with other cameras in the same price segment. You cannot compare Granny Smiths with Golden Delicious.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point of the VALUE score? To judge the value of the camera at its price point? The a65 is just as much of a value at $900 as the a77 is at $1400, yet the a77 scores higher and is awarded lower. It's silly. If the awards are that meaningless, they might as well create a new system, such as Pineapple Awards and Firecracker Awards.
--
This is the world, the way I see it: http://twenty200.com
Click to expand...
--
http://frenske.zenfolio.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top