What's A57 advantages over A65?

Started May 14, 2012 | Discussions
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 36,265
Re: What about flash exposure?

PhotoCycler wrote:

tbcass wrote:

I have tens of thousands of photos on my 2GB hard drive and they barely make a dent.

Must be a typo.... I haven't seen a drive that small in 10 years or so.

Yes, I meant 2TB.

-- hide signature --
 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +9 more
Tom2572
Tom2572 Senior Member • Posts: 1,129
Re: What about flash exposure?

philbot wrote:

tbcass wrote:

ET2 wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that A57 is a better deal than A65 for many people, especially if they are on tighter budget. Cameras come and go. A65 will be replaced by newer model by next year.

That is true but people shouldn't be deluded that overall the A57 is somehow "better" for less money. The way I see it it's 90% as good as the A65 for $200 less. I look at the A65 vs the A77 the same way with the A65 90% as good as the A77 and costs $500 less. For me among the 3 cameras the A65 is the best value. Others may feel differently.

-- hide signature --

Well put!

I've discussed A65 / A57 with friends who are impressed with the A77 but don't want to spend that much..

I tell that it's basically

  • 24 vs 16 MP which means Better High ISO vs Better Resolution

  • OLED Viewfinder vs Only slightly smaller but field sequential EVF

  • GPS vs no-GPS

  • 12fps @ 8MP, A65 maxes out at 10fps @ 24MP

  • One or two new software features like Auto-portrait/clear zoom..

It's very much impossible to pick a 'winner' when you have some healthy positives on both sides..

The thread title/purpose was slightly misplaced, since the A57 is not a successor to the A65, it's a different variant..

I don't see the a57 as a different variant of an a65 at all even though it shares the same body, in fact I see it as an upscale version of the 16mp sensor especially when an a37 arrives which will no doubt be a down-scale version of the 16mp sensor in the same manner that the a65 is a down-scale version of the 24mp sensor. I think the fact that the a65 shares the same body as the a57 says more about the down-scaling of the a65 rather than the up-scaling of the a57.

Photoviewer Regular Member • Posts: 464
Re: What about flash exposure?

Hi all, both are good. Also good to the user at least and think of some point as follow:

For ppl who op for a65 (Maybe due to):

  • already used 16mp.

  • love a77

  • Need the 24mp resolution.

  • better cropping still retain denser pixel

  • used to LCD EVF before and like higher OLED.

  • Like RAW

For who op for a57 (maybe due to):

  • Better low light

  • cheaper (in some location)

  • love the old 16mp but need updated/bigger body

  • already have bigger 24mp and need smaller body with better low light for day to day use (A pro blogger who love a77 low ISO and get a57 for low light walk around shoot in jpeg)

  • newer model

  • More in Jpeg

I also think DPR sum the a65 review in the IQ session very well and actually give clear direction for who like RAW and who only into jpeg.

Cheers

Conclusion(Pick from DPR):
IQ:

The Sony SLT-A65's 24MP CMOS sensor, which is also used in the SLT-A77 and NEX 7, is currently the highest pixel-count APS-C size sensor available in any camera. In terms of pixel count the A65 is way ahead of the most direct competitors in its class such as the Nikon D5100, Canon EOS 600D/T3i or Pentax K-r. However, if you've read the image quality sections in this review you know by now that you have to shoot in raw mode in order to see the full potential of of the camera's 24 million pixels. If you are willing to put in the extra time and effort required for the conversion of your raw files then - certainly at low ISO settings - you'll be rewarded with results that are close to what we've seen from high-end full-frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II or Sony's own Alpha 900.

In the final analysis we're far from convinced that the sort of consumers at whom the A65 is aimed actually need 24 million pixels. Certainly if you're a habitual JPEG shooter, we suspect that for everyday photography you might be better served by the cleaner, significantly smaller files produced by the 16MP SLT-A35 and original A55.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 36,265
Re: What about flash exposure?

Good post although my experience with the A65 indicates the jpgs are a lot better than DPR gives them credit for. I also own an A55 and the A65 easily out resolves the A55 up to iso1600 and 3200 where they are about equal. I don't use either camera higher than that because the IQ is unacceptable to me and quite frankly I never have a need to go above 3200. When it gets that dark I use my 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.7 or 90mm f2.8 macro.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +9 more
bookmatch Junior Member • Posts: 30
Re: What about flash exposure?

Ten thousand 21MB photos would be 210GB, which is more than a small dent in a 2T drive. Tens of thousands would fit, but take a non-trivial amount of the drive.

 bookmatch's gear list:bookmatch's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 +2 more
ET2 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,110
Re: What about flash exposure?

philbot wrote:

I have an A77, I have no issues in recommending the A65 or A57 as a cheaper alternative, all he was pointing out is that people should not delude themselves into thinking the A57 is universally better then the A65 and an educated decision needs to be made based on individual value for money..

No, I have seen him several times now in these threads telling people why he bought a better "deal" camera than A77/A57...

A77 is a much better camera than A65, 1200 or 1400.

konradsa Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: What about flash exposure?

bookmatch wrote:

Ten thousand 21MB photos would be 210GB, which is more than a small dent in a 2T drive. Tens of thousands would fit, but take a non-trivial amount of the drive.

Don't forget the effort and cost of backing all of this up. Nobody wants to lose all their memories.

konradsa Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: What about flash exposure?

I have to say that I don't understand the current Sony lineup. To me, the A65 is totally misplaced. You have A35 for entry, A57 for mid, and A77 for high-end. Why you need a model between 57 and 77, I don't understand. I mean, there is also no A45 after all. Sony should cut back on the number of camera models, but do the ones it delivers right. The A65 doesn't have anything unique and outstanding about it. With the introduction of the A57 and soon A37, I am sure not many people will buy A65 anymore. Most professionals that really need 24MP will go for the bells and whistles of the A77, and all others are probably best served with A57 while saving some money. So I would not be surprised if Sony phases out the A65, especially once the A77 becomes not the highest-end model anymore with the rumored introduction of the A99.

PhotoCycler Regular Member • Posts: 387
Re: What about flash exposure?

konradsa wrote:

and all others are probably best served with A57

I'm not sure how an A57 best serves me when the A65 is the same body size while including a much better viewfinder, higher resolution sensor, and GPS. I'm no professional, but I can appreciate the advantages of all 3. So, "best served by A57?" I'm not seeing it.

while saving some money.

They're almost the same price in some countries. The difference is $200 in the US, but over 4 years, that's only $50/yr difference, mostly inconsequential for what would be my primary camera.

I'm still considering both cameras myself. The exposure issues concern me though, and it's too early in the A57 lifetime to come to any conclusions about its exposure. I like that Sony offers the choice. I wish they had at least added AF micro adjust to the A65 so that I know I could get sharper focus for that 24 MP sensor as A77 can get.

The large size of the A77 turns me off, and at $700 more than the A57, I start to feel the pain in the wallet a little.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 36,265
I disagree. A65 just right for me

konradsa wrote:

I have to say that I don't understand the current Sony lineup. To me, the A65 is totally misplaced. You have A35 for entry, A57 for mid, and A77 for high-end. Why you need a model between 57 and 77, I don't understand. I mean, there is also no A45 after all. Sony should cut back on the number of camera models, but do the ones it delivers right. The A65 doesn't have anything unique and outstanding about it.

The A65 has the better viewfinder of the A77 along with the 24mp sensor. The A77 is too expensive for me. The A65 fits my needs just right. Next time think beyond yourself because I for one am very happy Sony offered the A65. Choice is good.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads