convince me to buy an A65

I am in the market for my first DSLR. I have always enjoyed taking pictures and trying to take the best ones possible but have really only used point and shoot cameras. I want a better camera to be able to do macro shots (mostly aquarium), nice indoor family/pets shots and a few nighttime landscape lighting shots.

With the budget I want to spend, I was looking at the T3i or D5100. I went to the store to get a hands on feel. Both were nice but I put my hands on the A65 and I am in love with the super fast shutter! I've been doing alot of reading the last couple of days about the A65 and it sounds like the two downfalls are the ok jpeg quality and high ISO noise. Being I am a novice to manual settings and how they interact with eachother, I am unsure how often I would be shooting over 1600 ISO. In the test pictures, the A65 quality looks similar to others up to 1600 ISO. From there on, I can see the extra noise. For indoor shots, do you regularly try to shoot higher than 1600? What about the really dark nighttime landscape lighting pictures I want to take? As an amateur, do I need to worry about high ISO noise or will I likely not push it to these limits often?

One other thing I've noticed is I do not find most peoples low light test pictures with the A65 are all that sharp and detailed. Is it me that just sees this or is that how it shoots. Being I like macro pictures, I am used to seeing everything clear and sharp. I don't see that in the A65 test pics.

Now, as far as the jpeg quality, I know its best to shoot in RAW anyway. When shooting in RAW, do you have to adjust and save each picture or can I do a mass download and convert them quickly to jpegs with no editing? When I am trying to get the best shots possible, I will use RAW but I like the convienance of Auto mode and jpeg for quick shots and transfers. If I just teach myself to shoot everything in RAW, is importing as RAW and converting a bunch of pictures to jpegs much more time consuming?

I know all the other benefits and features of the A65 and really like the camera. I am just scared that I won't be able to get the best pictures from it since I am not an advanced user or I will have to do lots of editing on every picture for good results. The T3i/D5100 seem to be easier to get good results from with minimal editing, esp. for a new user.

What I would be looking to buy to start with is the A65 with kit lens, the 100mm macro and 35mm prime lens.

So, in a nutshell, for a novice/amateur user, are the issues something that would truly affect me or would I be dealing with noise and soft pictures more often than not?

What Digital Camera site has the A65 at 91%, but on the shelves here, the latest issue has it head to head against the 60D and, well, it wins....

With what you want you could could almost have the a77 with kit lens, then save up for the macro later. The kit lens will do all the inside stuff for you and is quiet for video. I had the a65 and loved it, you will too, plenty sharp. I used the minolta 50mm 1.4 inside. But I traded it for the a77 and should have gotten it straight up (like I had planned). Either way you will not be disappointed.

Re: "it sounds like the two downfalls are the ok jpeg quality and high ISO noise"

Actually you only notice those two alleged "downfalls" if you PRINT your photos at sizes bigger than 16" x 20". Or if you look at them at a computer screen at 100% size because of their huge 4000 x 6000 resolution. But in photos printed at 16" x 20" or less you are not going to notice any noise, or notice any JPG's artifacts. Especially if you shoot at low ISO (1600 or less).

For nighttime shots you use a tripod anyway because of the long shutter speed, so you can choose the lowest ISO.

Noise is not the problem with this camera. It is very comparable with the other brands, you will hardly see any difference. Maybe the highest ISO's like 6400 and 12800. But Sony has multiframe noise reduction which works fantastic, for stills. So you get even less noise than the competition.

Don't judge a camera on pictures from the web. It takes a lot to take a beautiful picture. The lens is very important, more than the camera. On my gallery I have some pictures with the A77, plenty of sharpness.

If you can, take the 16-50/2.8, it is just better than the kitlens and quiet SSM for video. And in lowlight a fast lens works better with an EVF.

My biggest problem with the A77 is not having a live view during bursts in 8fps. In 12fps it is better though. In 3fps this problem doesn't occur, but you don't buy a A65/A77 to shoot only 3fps, right.

The EVF is much bigger than the camera's you suggest, so for macro better suited. You can magnify 6 to 12 times in the EVF. Also peaking is very helpfull for manual focus.

To be honest if you need convincing, do not buy one. Go to a photo store and speak to a sales person, it is their job to convince you to buy their recommendations. Most of the reviews I have read about the 65 claim it to be class leading camera but in the summary complain about the ISO noise and it is a bit plasticy but mainly that is from a different manufacturer than the big players. The over 1600 ISO fascination is beyond me. Back in the days of film, a photos character and the skill of the photographer was purely down to their use of light, the aperture, the shutter speeds, the lens and hundreds of other factors that made each photo unique. Todays big bucks spenders with the latest camera gear seem not to want to learn about the skill of photography and instead whack the ISO up to maximum and take the shot. I have just returned from a night of photographing a night time parade, standing next to idiots with kit lenses wittering away to each other about how they were ramping up their ISO’s, that combined with flashes that could not possibly illuminate the subjects from the distance they taken from. That is not the skill of a DLSR that is Point and Shoot land. Buy a camera you can learn with, it takes time to shot the perfect picture that is why we are not all professionals. If you take a bad shot consider what factors made the shot poor, what were the conditions like, what were you settings, what would make the shot better, the thought process and analysis of the situation is the development of a better photographer. Digital format is very forgiving you can edit the shot to make it better, but I believe the better shot out of the camera is the biggest buzz, that is the skill, the wow factor. The 65’s fast shutter is a nice show off piece, not very useful for macro shots. Any of the cameras you have mentioned will take cracking shots, they all have an auto mode that will do all the thinking needed. The multiframe noise reduction on still macro shots is stunning. I went through the choice when buying my camera and bought the 77, yes it has the bragging credentials but the feature set allows a massive amount of creative potential but the learning curve is steep. But when I get the shot that displays an atmosphere or look that was not at the apparent at time, I am one happy bunny. Whatever camera you buy, learn with it and be happy. Though if you do buy the 65’s the community of users are of a far better class than the other camera manufactures and very welcoming as we made own decisions to buy a different brand. I was the only Sony DSLR out tonight, and even though some of the others had a number of camera’s slung around their necks it was my camera they kept checking out. I can only think that they think, that I know something they don’t.

Thanks for all the replies so far, keep them coming, always want to hear more opinions.

It sounds like my feelings were right in that for my use, the camera will perform great. I think the biggest picture I've ever printed was 11x14 and its usually 5x7 or 8x10.

And although I'm a novice, I do understand that higher ISO inherently brings more noise so I'd always want to shoot with the lowest ISO possible. I just didn't know if it was common to go to 3200 ISO or more which is where the A65 noise really seems to come into play.

Of course whatever camera I buy, I'll grow into it and learn how to use it to its potential. I just like the idea of taking great pictures and doing minimal post processing rather than taking ok pictures and making them great. When you read reviews, you get the impression the A65 needs more post processing or NR when compared to the T3i/D5100.

Can anyone give me links to various A65 reviews? I've gone through dpreviews review. What's some other good ones?

Also, can someone fill me in on how much time it takes to convert RAW to jpegs? Will the program do a mass conversion or do I need to do each picture individually?

The 16-50mm is out of my budget to start. I really don't want the kit lens but for $100 I figured I'd take it. Would I be better off buying just an A65 body, 35mm prime and 100mm macro to start? Then save up for a nice telephoto lens? My thinking is the 35mm prime would be a great walk around lens and I wouldn't use the kit lens much. I considered getting a 50mm prime instead of the 35mm but thought the 50mm may not be wide enough for indoor shots in small rooms.

Save your money and get an a55. You don't need all the extra bells and whistles of an a65 if you have never owned a DSLR. The a55 is lower cost initially and the images it produces are just as good if not better than an a65 can produce. You would not notice any of the differences between the a65 and the a55. Here is a photo I took with an a330, which is only 10 megapixels.





--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

I'll look into that. I just got interested in the A65 2-3 days ago so haven't even looked at the A55. I just googled it and it looks similar. I don't care about the 24MP of the A65 so 16MP is fine with me. Does the A55 focus and shoot just as fast as the A65? Same EVF where I can see changes made on the fly? What about the level feature I saw on the A65's screen so I know I am holding the camera level?

Something to remember is P&Ss and DSLRs are quite different with respect to macro or closeup photography. Many P&S cameras can do excellent macros and when the users of those cameras upgrade to DSLRs they are shocked by the lack of depth of field they experience. I went to a dslr in order to get more control of depth of field (read less DOF), but for certain kinds of macros you want lots of depth of field. This is a huge difference with macros and I don't want you to be disappointed with your new camera.

The word macro includes a wide range. If you explain better what you want to do, people can advise you better.

Re easy to use, all modern dslrs are easy to use on the auto settings.

--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/

And I can't understand why some of us here don't understand that others of us are very happy that we don't have to use film any more and enjoy using high ISO and multi-shot features of my A55 and A77 that allow us to take photographs where we wasn't able to do it before. To each his own.

I don't criticize you for not wanting high ISO, why do you criticize people who do want good high ISO performance?

terrytoweling said:

The over 1600 ISO fascination is beyond me. Back in the days of film, a photos character and the skill of the photographer was purely down to their use of light, the aperture, the shutter speeds, the lens and hundreds of other factors that made each photo unique.

Click to expand...

--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/

Apparently the A65 and A55 have the same autofocus module. I have the A65 and it is, for my non professional use, quite fast. So expect the same for the A55 (which I do not have). The A55 MAY have better high ISO performance although there is plenty of debate about it. Unless you pixel peep it is not a problem in my view. For amateurs both are good. The EVF on the A65 is supposed to be better than the A55 in terms of resolution and refresh rate. Both however are limited at the fastest frame rates in that the view lags what is actually happening.

Tell me why you chose the A65? why not the A55 or the A77 ?

Why not ask what everyone else chose for their camera, and why.

I would never have anyone on an intenet forum tell me what " I" should buy... IM more confident in my own research than what anyone on this forum could offer me...

So the question is, " What are YOU looking for in a camera... " Not what someone else was looking for in their camera.

--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

Ferg77 said:

I'll look into that. I just got interested in the A65 2-3 days ago so haven't even looked at the A55. I just googled it and it looks similar. I don't care about the 24MP of the A65 so 16MP is fine with me. Does the A55 focus and shoot just as fast as the A65? Same EVF where I can see changes made on the fly? What about the level feature I saw on the A65's screen so I know I am holding the camera level?

Click to expand...

I shot with an a55 for a year and was very impressed. I sold it to buy an a65 and after one month I sold it and went back to the a55. The a55 and the a65 both have the same lightning fast autofocus, awesome EVF and the spirit level and both do 10 frames per second. The only real difference is the 24 vs 16 mp.
--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

Thanks both of you for the quick and dirty on the differences. I looked at the Sony comparison and they looked similar. It does look like the A55 is more than enough for my needs.

My current P&S is a Panasonic TZ5 and it does well at close up shots but I find myself wanting to get closer and the camera won't focus. And this is for stuff close to the glass in my tank. Fish and corals in the center or back of the tank are too far away for clear, close up shots.

As far as DOF, I don't mind the background blurred but do like my whole subject in focus. I thought DOF was adjustable though....can't I choose a deep or shallow DOF with settings?

did you read any further than the subject line?

Cool, so your on the a77...

Ferg77 said:

My current P&S is a Panasonic TZ5 and it does well at close up shots but I find myself wanting to get closer and the camera won't focus. And this is for stuff close to the glass in my tank. Fish and corals in the center or back of the tank are too far away for clear, close up shots.

As far as DOF, I don't mind the background blurred but do like my whole subject in focus. I thought DOF was adjustable though....can't I choose a deep or shallow DOF with settings?

Click to expand...

I don't think a DSLR will help with the focus problem in the fish tank, in fact it might be worse depending on the way you do macro. You can get a dedicated macro lens, get extension tubes or filter type multipliers and they all work different and have different depths of field.

I did a lot of underwater photography and underwater photography is one of the hardest fields of photography to master. What you really need to do is to get closer to your subjects. All water with living matter in it is full of contaminants. If you get too much water in between you and the subject it will highlight the contaminants. If you use a flash it must be used properly or else all you will do is light up all the crap in the water.

--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird