Sony SLTA65V - a65 Digital SLR Camera 24.3 MP Body Only

I've owned every generation of the Sony/Minolta DSLR from almost the beginning of the Sony era (A200). Before that I had a Nikon F2AS for many years and loved that old mechanical monster dearly. When it came to be necessary to upgrade to digital I did a lot of research. Unless you have a lot of money and need to get rid of it, or you are a real pro, there is no reason to blow the thousands of dollars to get real high end camera. The super expensive models by Camera Manufacturers that will Go Unnamed in This Review are great for pros that need the name or need a camera tough enough to use all day every day for years. In the Semi-Pro arena nothing beats the Sony. 24 Mpx, mirror-less, AMOLED finder, great lenses and not ridiculously expensive. They do the hand shake compensation in the body so I get compensation on all lenses. No need to buy a special super expensive "VR" lens. It even works with my macro 50mm f2.8 or old Minolta lenses. I can't recommend the A65 for sports shooting. As with all of the current generation Sonys, the viewfinder gets behind so you can't see what is actually happening to the split second. 10 frames per second sounds good but if you can't see the action you can't shoot it. For video it is a lot better than the A55, which used to overheat in a few minutes, but still limits you to 20 minutes. You can't just stop and restart every 20 minutes, the sensor will overheat. So for the school play you need a camcorder, not an SLR. I shoot mainly landscapes or closeup product shots, and it is great for both of those uses. For flash work, you can RF slave the Sony dedicated flashes with no additional hardware. All in all I recommend the Sony lineup. You basically have to pay double to get the same feature/performance point with other manufacturers, and then pay more again for special lenses and flash slave units.

I've also got an a33, which is a good camera; the a65 is a GREAT camera. The image quality is fantastic! The controls are well-positioned & intuitive; the on-screen control menu is quick & easy to navigate. Build quality is good, in operation it is fast & quiet, and the slightly larger a65 fits my medium-sized hands even better than the a33. Built-in gimmicks like smile- and face-detection are easy to disable (and best left that way). HOWEVER... the a65 does NOT work equally well with all Sony lenses, let alone legacy Minolta lenses or 3rd-party A-mount lenses. It back-focuses with quite a few Sony lenses and there's nothing you can do about it. For example, with a Sony 85mm f2.8 lens it focuses as sharp as a tack, but with a Sony 35mm f1.8 it back-focuses about 1.5" at 3 ft. With a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 it focuses flawlessly, but with a Sony 28mm f2.8 it back-focuses about 1" at 3 ft. I have experimented with more than one a65 body with identical results. THE PROBLEM is in the firmware: The a37/57 are positioned as entry-level cameras for the amateur photographer, who isn't likely to have a problem with slight back-focusing (nor notice it, probably). The a65/77 are positioned as mid-range cameras for the advanced amateur or semi-pro, who will be unhappy with even a little back-focusing. Strangely though, the firmware in the a65 (currently v.1.05) has the limitations of the a57 rather than the utility of the a77 firmware. In the a77 the user can manually correct the way the camera focuses with specific lenses, thereby eliminating any back-focusing issues. You can't do that with the a65, unless/until Sony decides to upgrade the a65 firmware to include that feature. I still like my a65, and I would recommend it - with the caveat that one should purchase it body-only and get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for one's everyday lens. Any other lenses, new or used, should be tested for proper focusing prior to purchase. ...and I will keep my fingers crossed, hoping that Sony adds user-enabled focus correction to a65 firmware v.1.06 or v.2.0...

I THINK THIS IS THE BEST CAMERA I EVER HAD......

Overall this is a great camera that has since made it possible for me to capture thousands of photos from several events. I was able to shoot around 2000 photos for one event on a single battery! I have also been able to make large prints with with very little upsizing and also crop in on some where I wouldn't have been able to previously. Focus peeking is amazing. This is quite possibly the greatest feature ever put into a camera. It has made my macro photographs a thousand times easier to capture and I get the shot I really want. I do have some minor frustrations with the camera though. One is that the flash (HVL-42am) seems to be unpredictable in TTL but works wonderfully when choosing the power manually. My other frustration is with the selection of individual focus points which was extremely easy with the alpha300. With a few functions mapped to the d-pad you now have to go into the function menu select the focus on location setting and then set the focus spot you would like. Luckily the focus in the default mode is generally very good but it certainly can't read your mind. And one final problem with the camera is that in some cases of low light the EVF will only display a black screen. As long as you have a decent source of light its not bad; even a low powered street light. I had the biggest problem with trying to get some shots of the night sky. I was able to get the shots but I had to just focus to infinity and keep taking shots till I found the settings and angle I wanted. I have only used the video mode a tiny bit but it seems to work very well. You do need a fast memory card though to prevent stuttering in the write process and I would suggest sticking with manual focus as the autofocus seemed to want to refocus itself at times for no apparent reason.

I upgraded from my a100 and WOW! Flash photo's are 200% better. Video is great. Special effects are awesome. Love all the settings - plenty of different settings that will more than meet my needs. I do mostly family and landscape type (not a pro thought I could be one once but those guys are good!) I will have a lot to learn with this but so far completely satisfied. I do know I will need to get new glass. My old xi lens are a little old for this. Saving for the 16-50 Sony and the 55-200. The 35mm 2.8 works great!

i upgraded from the a55 i buy a year ago. all improved, all better, cant complain. the improvement in zoom and pictures effects is what i love the most. i just hope sony add the time-lapse function in the drive mode, or just put in the self-timer menu an "i will keep taking shots every second until you cancel it" also it would be great that ratter than gps (the thing most useless, i belive everyone turn it off) they put blutooth, why? it would not be great to use my xperia as a remote shutter, or an external microphone, i will love it. since i see most of my pictures in my bravia full hd, i will like a 1920x1080 picture mode (with the added zoom efffect please or increased iso) so my pictures will perfectly fit my screen, like my old hx1. well... i dream this features for this year upgrade, miss it, i hope at least one will do it when i upgrade next year.

My waiting has been rewarded over and over. I use my A65 for pics for Grandkids, macro photos, urban landscape, & nature. The controls are easier to understand that Canon & Nikons. I use an A55 at work and bought a A65 for personal use. I love the extras that the A65 affords. I was surprised when I ran the battery dry when using it for backlight for sunrise pictures. I attended the 2012 WPII conference's Sony booth and met the great crew at the Sony booth. They listened carefully to my questions/opinions and gave me great hints. I hope they relocate the movie button as I often press it when preparing to take shots.

overall a very solid camera performs very well in almost every scenario. lots of features for the price that I beleive the entry level shooter and advanced hobbiest can enjoy. the only cons are software related I hope sony takes this camera from good to great with a simple firmware update. the most comfortable grip i have ever had in a dslr style camera. I have nothing but love for this camera you definetly get your money's worth in this camera body. the cropping that occurs in video is a major issue for me because I bought this as a video camera for my job and at least half my shots are on wide angle lenses like fisheyes until this cropping issue is fixed I cannot use this camera effectively. considering I switched to sony after had thousand's of dollar's invested into canon equipment I have a lot at stake for this change in camera system I dearly hope this issue gets resolved

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-7â€"while priceyâ€"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 thatâ€"for the most partâ€"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 “logicalâ€� 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. 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 slowerâ€"though the AF is just as snappyâ€"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 “cinematicâ€� 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 only 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. Sidenote: 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.

This is a review that I am putting on also at BH Photo but I was not able to upload images to their site. I can only upload two limited images on this site although I have many examples which better show the camera's capabilities especially evident at 100% magnification. I have had the camera for about 3 weeks and have shot about 6000 images in Kruger NP in South Africa. The camera produces excellent photos at 100% at ISO 400. It really shines at ISO 1600 where the noise at 100% is just seen but is not a problem on most photos. Image stabilization is very good with many of my shots at 500mm or 750mm equivalent with the APC size sensor. Please see photos for examples. The first example is ISO 800, 500mm, f6.3 1/500 second. Notice the texture seen on the black skin of the nose. You can almost make out the papilla on the tongue. If the exposure was faster that might have been possible. The second example is the camera at extreme low light, 12800, 230 mm, f6.3, 1/13 second hand held. If this camera is on a good tripod or bean bagged, the limiting factor is animal motion. My yield of acceptable images when hand held at 500 mm and 1/30 second or faster is on the order of 50-65%. At speeds of 1/13 second the yield is about 10-25%. Truely amazing, much better than my back up A55. Camera excels under adverse lighting conditions and where you have to have ISO in the 800 to 1600 range in order to obtain exposure speeds in excess of 1/500 second. I wonder what Nikon or Canon can do with the chip if Sony makes it available to them since they generally seem to have better internal image processing alogorithms but I don't know if that will happen any time soon. At present I would rate this the best camera system available for hand held wild life photography. On images of leopard I have the flies flying around them visible including limited wing detail. The camera shutter noise is also relatively low compare to Nikon or Canon which can be critical when taking images of large cats at close(15-20 meter) range. The last thing you would want is an angry cat running away or even worse charging you. My pro photo guide commented on this and he was impressed with the images. Auto focus single point is excellent except under near dark conditions where you cannot see subject with naked eye but can with binoculars. If there is any light, this camera can capture the shot.