This is a serially (and over time very extensively) revised review, as I have had a chance to spend lots of time with this camera over the last ten months and taken roughly 15000 pictures for sure one of the best electronics purchases I have made in the last 10 years. Some of the initial problems I saw (flash overexposure for one) have been addressed in firmware updates (or require some user adjustments). JPEGs (Sony's default jpeg algorithm could use some tweaking/sharpening) print out sharply at 30 by 20 print sizes (as long as I stay under ISO 800). RAW images at low ISO will print tack sharp to 36x24 easily. When paired with the new Sony 16-50mm 2.8 lens (see separate review for this terrific lens), takes some of the best pictures this side of a FF pro camera) if you stay to ISO 800 and under. The one Achilles heel of this camera is low light noise, but with flash, I mostly avoid shooting at anything over ISO 1600, so this weakness is really rendered a moot point. For those shooting in the virtual dark, see body text for comments (and confessions).
And for those curious about the cryptic header (that this isn't a DSLR), it is a DSLT meaning that a fixed translucent mirror that doesn't move replaces the standard SLR mirror that has to flop in and out of position in front of the sensor. That design difference is the key to the camera's unique strengths (and its weaknesses in the minds of many purists). However, that single design difference allows the much faster and more accurate phase detection autofocus system to be working all the time, including while shooting movies (something no other DSLR can do), and thus gives you full time live view, much faster hi-speed shooting, and a lighter body, but also requires an electronic (non-optical) viewfinder, and with a modest loss of light to the sensor (with some attendant noise penalty). The key issue is whether that balance of pluses and minuses works for you . . . . but for most people looking for the best possible still photography and video, this is, at least in IMHO, a truly brilliant stroke that in one fell swoop removes some of the chronic limitations of the classic DSLR environs. There are a few downsides, but with HUGE upsides. Whether its mix of features works for you might depend on what and where you shoot . . . .
Pros:
1) Best viewfinder in the sub-frame world (2.4 million dot OLED), as bright as any full frame viewfinder, and with far more useful information. Once you've used it, you may not be able to go back. Paradigm changing once you see what you can do creatively with this new tool, optical viewfinders seem primitive and confining.
2) Class leading 24 megapixel resolution (at low to medium ISO, yields remarkably detailed images, esp in RAW).
3) Many useful shooting modes including panorama and high dynamic range modes (but see cons on panorama mode). Intuitive and yet deep & customizable operating system. But can be put in simple AUTO and AUTO+ modes for the less technical.
4) Full-time live view system and full time phase detection AF for both stills and movies FAR better than the clunky live view systems 'tacked on' in traditional DSLRs, and the contrast detection DLSRs have to use with mirror-lockup and movie shooting.
5) Class-leading video resolution (1080 at 60p) with as good video capabilities as any camcorder. Takes as good or better video than any DSLR if shooting in 60p, and with option to use either viewfinder or LCD for framing video something no other DSLR can do.
6) Intuitive and well thought-out ergonomics.
7) Fast and responsive operation. Fastest continuous shooting in class (10 frames per second). Fast focusing, decent menu speed (improved w/ new firmware)
8) Excellent image stabilization system (and no more sensor overheating from the IS that plagued the Sony A55!).
9) In-camera GPS (can be defeated).
10) Decent battery life (significant battery upgrade from the Alpha 55) given that EVF sucks down a lot of battery.
11) Best features/price ratio in the middle to high-end consumer/prosumer model DSLR group.
12) Easy access to any Minolta lens and a decent selection of Sony lenses for reasonable money, particularly a superb new 16-50 mm 2.8 lens (see separate review).
13) Ability to remove virtually all CA, distortion, and vignetting in increasing number of Sony lens (firmware-based). When used with the new 16-50mm 2.8 lens, produces very sharp images, w/out any visible classic optical distortions (CA, vignetting, barrel distortion, etc).
Firmware correction of lens optical aberrations has to be one of most under-appreciated but valuable features of this new camera's operating system. These corrections work with many popular Sony lenses (now available for virtually all the Sony kit and telephoto zooms and most Sony primes), w/ more included in future firmware (wish Sony would make that full list more available to SLT owners!). This software correction makes a VERY discernible difference in large prints, and means that these classic distortions are basically a non-issue for corrected lenses (see DP Reviews treatment of this in their A65 review).
Cons:
1) Some increase in noise at higher ISO, particularly in RAW images without NR (noise reduction). Not surprising in view of increased pixel density (see #9 below).
2) Early firmware bugs some have been improved, but still room for more improvements? (i.e., Sony's HVL-F42 flash yields still badly overexposed pictures this happens mostly with bounce flash. Other firmware bugs and weaknesses (like JPEG definitions) could also be improved.
3) As great as the EVF is, sometimes the view is too contrasty, yielding either blown highlights or 'blackout' regions needs contrast adjustment function.
4) Not as svelte as the Alpha 55 (but for those with big hands, the extra heft and size work). A bit porky with the 16-50 2.8.
5) Limited control options in high-speed shooting modes and in movie modes.
6) Screen blacks out once you fill up the buffer in high-speed shooting and you have to wait until all the images are dumped onto your card with poor buffer depth (common problem across all Sonys even the new A99). Why can't Sony get this better implemented????
7) Resulting loss of live view in high-speed shooting modes can make aiming the camera a bit tricky.
8) Switching between viewing photos vs. videos is still a bit cumbersome and awkward.
9) Default JPEG settings are both too soft (need sharpening), and too noisy at higher ISO requires users understand menu options and make adjustments to get best possible JPEGs (set NR to high on high ISO, and sharpening to 3+ gives you the best JPEGs).
10 Sweep panorama modes distinctly poor in resolution (because of having to remove panning effects and image smear with very high shutter speeds/high ISO?) compared to stitching together your own panorama images (i.e. using Microsoft ICE). Sony should really fix this as it limits a very useful mode.
BEST IN CLASS SPECIFICATIONS?
Although the Sony Alpha 65 might have flown under the radar in the context of the simultaneous release of Sony's flagship Alpha 77, I believe it's actually the better deal for everyone who's not interested in a pro-style body. It contains most of the high technology of the flagship model Alpha 77, minus the top LCD panel and the 12 frame per second shooting rate (you'll have to suffer along with a measly 10 frames per second), a slightly less complex AF system, and a few other minor 'downgrades'. But the sensor and the EVF (in my judgment, the most important innovations of the A77) are intact. All this for a significant reduction in Price ($949 for body only versus $1449 for the Alpha 77). Unfortunately, it's very tough to get this model right now minimal supply and lots of demand.
If you're interested in video, there is nothing right now that beats the video specification of this camera as most DSLRs will only shoot in 60i (often times interpolated from 30p), whereas this camera will shoot a true 60 frames a second in progressive scan. Still pictures are spectacular, and with more resolution than virtually anything outside of the full frame 24 megapixel Nikon D3X. A large 19x13 printout of a standard test image shows the A65 very, very close in detail to the Nikon D3x (the current resolution king in 35mm photography and able to resolve detail comparable to 35mm Kodachrome 64 (remember that stuff??). (UPDATE the new full frame Nikon D800 will have a 36MP sensor but will cost $3000 and will really compete with Sony's new A99 full frame pro camera.) Nothing in the subframe APS-C market will outresolve the A65 in fair to decent light or provide better video.
LOW LIGHT PROBLEMS?
Although the recent Digital Photography Review (the closest thing to a definitive source on digital cameras on the web) slammed the Alpha 77 (same sensor and basic image engine as the A65) for its high noise particularly in RAW, and its somewhat 'mushy' JPEG rendering, I generally agree, but think some clarifications are called for. First of all, the default JPEGs can be significantly sharpened. I run the camera in the standard mode (one among several 'creative modes') but with sharpening maxed out. You wouldn't want to do this with a Canon (they are already a bit crunchy in terms of their default JPEG settings), but there is no artifact effect that I have been able to find, and it gets much closer to the maximum detail out of the 24MP sensor. Also, you have the set the HIGH ISO NR to high, instead of its default. This combination gets much more out of the sensor than its default settings. Someone at Sony is (my guess) just too enamored of the 'smooth' look all of their cameras are set up with default JPEG definitions that could benefit from modest sharpening.
Furthermore, DP Review's own images show that even at those soft and somewhat noisy default settings, the camera does pretty well compared to the competition and really quite well indeed given the high pixel count. If you look on the DP reviews website, and use their very revealing and useful standard studio scene comparator tool, and pull up images from several full frame cameras like the Sony 900, and the Nikon D3S and the pro-Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, the Sony A65 more than holds its own at low ISO, with frankly more detail than any 35mm camera (outside of the Nikon D3x and the NEX 7), only giving ground a bit as ISOs get above 1600 (with a much higher pixel density as a major disadvantage). Even there, in low light, I believe that the camera does a credible job, and trades off a little of its resolution advantage for more noise reduction. However, as it has more detail than any of the other cameras in its class, competing well with full frame 24MP pro cameras at low ISO, it's got headroom to trade. Even in head-to-head comparisons with the A900 (full frame 24MP sensor), the A65 does a very credible job as ISO rises and with the disadvantage of a smaller APS-C sensor. Admittedly, the full frame Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mark II (and esp. the new Canon EOS 1Dx a low-light phenom) are going to beat it soundly at 3200 and 6400, but realistically, who willingly or often shoots at 3200 and above?? I certainly don't. Plus, both the Nikon D3x and Canon EOS 1Dx are HUGE full frame cameras, costing roughly 8 times what this camera costs . . . really not a fair comparison. That's almost as unfair as comparing an APS-C sensor with a point and shoot sensor the sensor with the low pixel density always looks better in low light (all other things being equal).
More telling are the comparisons on a level playing field. A recent comparison of this camera with the Canon EOS 7D (at the same price point as the A65 and also an APS-C sensor) showed that the although the Canon 7D kept a somewhat higher percentage of its ISO 100 resolution at 1600, the Sony was still handily out-resolving it at ISO 1600. So take the "low-light noise" knock on this camera with a large grain of salt. Given that the A65 does just fine up to ISO 1600 in terms of noise, I think the modest bashing of the camera by some (not all) of the DP press and few disgruntled low-light fanatics is somewhat overblown. If it beats some full frame cameras in low light at least on the JPEG side if not in RAW (think Sony A900 admittedly not a low light phenom or with great low light JPEGs), it can't be terrible. As much as I often agree with almost everything that DP Review says, they put too much emphasis on RAW noise, and not enough on overall image quality. If you shoot in RAW, you will have to use significant noise reduction at higher ISOs, but you've got more resolution to begin with to trade against. If you need convincing, check out DP Reviews JPEG image comparator for yourself. Pixel peepers only. Also, I would expect that its low light performance might still improve somewhat as firmware updates progress there has been huge progress in that area from early firmware to current 1.04 versions. Admittedly, its JPEG definition could be sharper to show off all the detail the 24MP sensor is capable of, but hopefully this can be addressed in new firmwares (see Cons).
BOTTOM LINE SONY AND THE BIG TWO?
It's all about which tradeoffs you want to make. Sony made a clear decision to trade low light ability for speed, resolution and detail in better light. For me, that's a good-to-great tradeoff, but for some others, perhaps not so much. Obviously, it's just a matter of priorities and personal preferences. You really can't have everything. In bright light, the A65 is going to outresolve both the new Canon EOS 1Dx and the Nikon D4 for lots less money, and some Canon devotees are upset about potentially spending 7-8 grand when this new pro camera comes out, and getting only 18 MP worth of detail. On the other hand, that camera (and the new Nikon D4) will take good to great pictures in the virtual dark. If you love to shoot in very low light, get one of the new Nikon or Canon full frame cameras (just bring a truckload of money for the camera and lens systems!) If you are willing to trade some of the low light ability for 1) more compact lenses/body; 2) much less money than a full frame system; 3) the best video you've ever seen from a DSLR camera, then this system is for you . . . and is a very good deal. If you believe (like some purists) that HD video is a modern corruption of the original function of SLRs, you probably aren't someone who is going to like Sony's approach anyway.
Bottom line there isn't another camera for $900 (body only) that even comes close to this feature set, and with impressive speed and ergonomics. This is a shot across the bow that both Nikon and Canon are very concerned about. Anyone who compares this to the Nikon 7000 or the Canon EOS 60D (two other prosumer models with the A65 slightly cheaper than either) has to walk away thinking that the Sony is the better deal and simply a more capable camera except in very low light. If you're interested in live view, the live view on this is so much better than the clunky live view on both the Canon and Nikon it's not even funny. And one look through their dim optical viewfinders, after you've used the amazing EVF on the Sony Alpha 65, and you won't be able to go back to Canikon. The viewfinder alone is a paradigm-shifting experience once you've used it, optical viewfinders in traditional sub-frame DSLRs seem primitive and confining. Overall, this is an amazing value there is no other camera for under a grand that can compete at least in decent light with full pro cameras, while beating them all in video quality. Videos shot in 60p are just stunning, as are most photos at ISO 100-400.
If you look at Digital Photography Reviews over the last 18 months (the closest thing to a definitive reference on the Internet about digital photography), they have given four APS-C Sony cameras highly coveted Gold Awards in the last year and a half (the Alpha 65, Alpha 55 (its predecessor which also won Camera of the Year from Popular Photography in 2010), the NEX 5N, and just recently, the NEX 7. They have also given four Silver Awards to Sony (the NEX 3C, the Alpha 77 and Alpha 35, another silver to the more traditional DSLR Alpha A580). Four Silver and four Gold Awards in 18 months. NO OTHER CAMERA MANUFACTURER HAS EVEN BEEN WITHIN SPITTING DISTANCE OF THIS PERFORMANCE ON THE PODIUM IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO. If you put all of Nikon's and Canon's awards in the DSLR and APS-C classes together during the same period, they aren't even close to this medal haul.
This suggests that a subtle but real shift of power is taking place in digital photography. Although professionals still clearly gravitate toward the Big Two (where Sony has been seen as an interesting distraction and lightweight), there is increasing reason now to seriously consider Sony, at least in the APS-C segment. Most believe that Sony is now making the best compact ILC cameras (the NEX series), and starting to challenge Canon and Nikon in areas of their traditional dominance. In the space of just over one year, Sony has made traditional DSLRs look clunky, limiting and . . . . well, almost obsolete. Unless you are ideologically married to an optical viewfinder or shoot in the virtual dark you'll love this camera. There is nothing better in the APS-C segment right now. As far as the high-end full frame pro market is concerned, let's see how the upcoming full frame Sony A99 stacks up against the full frame Canon 5D Mark III and the new Nikon D800 (all in the pricy 3-grand-and-up range). Although Canikon have completely dominated that market, they may finally have some serious competition, even in the pro territory.
April 2012 UPDATE
Several interesting new developments. First of all, the new Nikon D800 has blown away the competition in terms of resolution, and with surprisingly good low light abilities too might be the best sensor residing in any camera including medium format (and most people believe it's a Sony sensor too, probably roughly the same sensor as the new Sony A99 will have, with different microlenses). Just need 3 grand to get the Nikon D800 body (and $3400 for the Canon 5D Mark III), making the A65 still the best deal for almost the same level of detail, at least in decent to moderate light. These two new cameras are about 1.5 (Nikon) to 2 stops (Canon) better in terms of noise than the A65/77, but it will be really interesting to see what the new full frame Sony A99 brings to this heated up pro camera territory sometime this summer or fall. Sony will have its work cut out for them, given the kind of initial reviews that both the new Nikon and Canon FF (full frame) cameras are getting. You will see a full review of both the Canon 5D MkIII and Nikon D800 on Digital Photography Reviews website soon. I expect them both to easily secure Gold Awards. Pressure will be on Sony to hold serve. The problem is, historically anyway, Sony is not really into competing in the high-end pro FF arena two cameras there over the last 5-6 years compared to, what, 10-12 FF Canikons? Sony appears to have decided that APS-C is its preferred market. Hope they really give a full effort on a new FF A99. Could be something special.
On the home front, the new Sony firmware 1.05 (for both the A65/77) is a huge improvement in several areas it (mostly) resolves the overexposure problem in ADI flash mode, speeds up picture preview (it's now virtually instantaneous), provides correction profiles for some additional Sony lenses (distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting corrections) including the 70-300 mm G (pro) telephoto (good news for me simply because I own that lens), and fixes a few other items. The speed of preview is really impressive. As soon as you finish the shot, it is available for review on the LCD. Shutdown is MUCH quicker. Nice job Sony.
June 2012 UPDATE
Not surprisingly, both the new Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 easily secured Gold awards on DP Reviews. I think just to avoid controversy and bickering between the two camps, they gave them both the identical score (82). Sony's full frame A99 however appears delayed and probably is not going to be out this summer. I continue to be impressed overall with the A65 and have now taken at least 8000 pictures. Clearly the one Achilles' heel of the Sony A65/77 is low light noise, particularly above ISO 1600. However, with the current 16-50 2.8 lens (with F4 being very sharp), I get a full two stop advantage, relative to a typical kit lens which has to be stopped down to get really sharp, which pretty much balances out the two stop noise disadvantage that this camera has relative to a full frame camera like the Nikon D800 or Canon 5D Mark III (shooting at F8). There are a few times when I wish the camera had somewhat better performance at ISO 3200, and certainly the RAW files have significant noise at that setting, but Sony's RAW editing software can potentially do a pretty good job with even those somewhat noisy files in terms of cleaning up the noise without losing all the fine detail. I think if you want to put the extra time into shoot RAW you can mitigate the low light disadvantage of this sensor, although still this is its one weakness. Again if you are shooting in bright conditions, or using flash, this really never is an issue.
September 2012 Update:
So where do things stand now that several new competing cameras have been released including the new Nikon 3200, and the Olympus OMD5? The Nikon 3200 at $699 looks like a fantastic deal and is slightly better at high ISO (about a half f-stop) in terms of noise than the Sony A 65/77, with the same 24 megapixel resolution as the Sony. The Olympus OMD 5 has fantastic high ISO performance for a micro 4/3 sensor (better than either the Nikon 3200 or the Sony A65), underscoring that manufacturers are continually moving the goalposts in terms of improving both high ISO performance and resolution at the same time. The Sony A65 still looks like a great deal as it undercuts the Olympus significantly in price, and although it's somewhat more expensive than the Nikon 3200, it has a significantly better viewfinder, much better high-speed shooting, and better movie modes. So . . . the short form of the story is while the competition is getting better, the Sony is still a very solid choice in the mid-range DSLR segment. Of course, if you are an absolute resolution freak, the Nikon D800 has everything in the 35mm world beat, and with surprisingly good performance at high ISO very close to the competing full frame Canon 5D Mark III. These two FF models are very serious money at three grand and up for just the body, while the Sony A65 can be had for $800. Still a great deal. What about the new Sony A99 Sony's first full frame pro camera in 4+ years? It will certainly have much better low light capability than the Sony A65/77 and (one would hope) better low light capabilities than the Nikon D800 and possibly equaling the Canon 5D Mark III in that area, which has a 22MP sensor. It will probably have better movie and marginally better high speed shooting (6 FPS and 10 FPS in cropped mode) than competing Nikon or Canon FF models. It will be lighter than either Canikon FF, suggesting that Sony is aiming to undercut price and weight, while offering more speed, and (one hopes) better low light ability rather than more resolution. A real change in emphasis for Sony!
Back to the home base (the A65). All these great (but REALLY expensive!!) FF cameras make the $800 price on the Sony A65 look like a great deal, by any standard. Although initially I was tempted to go full frame and will certainly look closely at the A99, I'm going to stick with my APS-C sensor (and lenses!) at least for now. Gets expensive to jump ship once you have serious money in glass :-)
October 2012 Update:
Sony just released its new firmware version 1.06. It does a number of things, including most significantly improving if not virtually eliminating ADI and TTL flash over-exposure. Flash exposure is still not perfect, but it's vastly better than earlier versions of the firmware. I'm using one of Sony's dedicated flash units (the now discontinued HVL 42 flashgun) and was very troubled when bounce flash consistently overexposed. It's now leagues better but I still have an occasional over exposure (on both flash direct illumination and on bounce flash), and baseline exposure appears about a 1/2 EV overexposed suggesting that there is still something modestly amiss from time to time with flash computation. This was never an issue on the A55 so there is something about this camera's firmware or control system that is still not quite optimized on this point. In any case, it's good that Sony has acknowledged the problem because initially it looked like they were refusing to admit it. In addition, there is now a very large group of Sony lenses that have built in firmware correction profiles (correcting the three primary optical distortions of chromatic aberration, vignetting, and pin/barrel distortion issues). Virtually any lens that you can buy on the Sony website with this camera now has software correction for these classic optical distortions. Advantage Sony.
Some interesting new options in the mid-range DSLR segmentPentax just released the K-30 at roughly the same price point as the A65. Best high ISO performance outside of a FF sensor (and full weather sealing unheard of at this price point), but limited movie mode support (no options for external mic, no dedicated movie button, no still shooting during movies) Pentax was really thinking about stills when they made this camera, and although its low light abilities are clearly better than the A65's and anything else in the sub-frame world if you are not shooting in low light much of the time, the Sony is the more 'balanced' choice. Pentax uses the 16 MP sensor that Sony supplies to Nikon and also uses in their own A33/35/55/57 APS-C product lines, which is the best current 16 MP subframe sensor in my opinion. Nice job overall by Pentax, so if you find the A65's Achilles heel of low light noise a real hindrance, you will likely love the Pentax K-30, unless you are a serious videographer. Casual video on the other hand will be fine on the K-30. So now you have many options in the subframe semi-pro or 'prosumer' segment. Still think that for most people the EVF, great movie ability and support, superb 16-50 2.8 lens option (really a Gor Zeiss quality lens for just over kit lens money), great resolution, etc. of the Sony A65 outweighs its one big deficit of high ISO noise, but if you disagree with that, by all means, get a K-30. Very close to FF noise performance with fully usable ISO 3200/6400. Credit to Pentax (and to Sony's great mid-res sensor).
November 24th Update
I have had a chance to spend almost two weeks shooting with the Sony A99 (See my Amazon review of this at [....]
Very fine camera, wanted to keep it but after much vacillation, decided against that and just returned it with no small tinge of regret. Here's why it's just not $2000 better than the A65 for my purposes, although if I was a pro shooter, or shooting mostly in low light, I would have kept it. Here is how I think it stacked up against the A65 and Sony is competing not just with Canikon, but with themselves now too the clearest indication that Sony's SLT environs has really altered the mid to high end DSLR scene.
Pros of the A99 vs the A65:
1) Superb low light performance, almost as good or as good as the new Nikon D600 and competitive with any FF camera. Credit Sony's fine development work on the FF sensor for this. Two stops (perhaps even 2.5 stops?) better in terms of noise than the A77/65.
2) Somewhat better autofocus performance than even the A77, but only if using AF-D lenses and not many of them.
3) Weather sealed (advantage vis a vis A65 but toss up with A77)
4) Better video support and somewhat (marginally) better video most of the time compared to the A65.
5) Much better low light video with much less noise.
Cons of the A99 vs the A65:
1) $2000 more pretty big ticket item that requires you love at least something in the PRO: column a LOT!!
2) Weight with comparable lenses, (15-50 vs 24-70) the A65 is almost a full pound lighter (1200 grams for the A65w/lens vs. 1720 for A99w/CZ lens).
3) Lens (and other ecosystem) costs the 16-50 2.8 (see my Amazon review of this amazing lens) is every bit the equal of the CZ 24-70 for $1000 less one of the great values in walk around lenses anywhere.
4) Speed high speed shooting on the A65 is up to 10FPS while the A99 can only do 6FPS both are stuck with seriously undersized buffers a really stupid mistake that was repeated on the A99 for unfathomable reasons.
5) No built in flash on the A99
6) No differences that I can see, even at 100% view in RAW if ISO is 100-200. Barely (and I do mean barely) noticeable by ISO 400 in terms of noise, but cameras really start to separate only at 1600 and up.
Of course, this looks like just a predictable summary of tradeoffs of full frame cameras (weight and cost vs. better high ISO) compared to their subframe cousins. It is a real testimony to the A65 that most of the time I couldn't take a better picture with the A99, except when it got dark. So if you shoot a lot in low light, and have the funds, the A99 looks pretty attractive. If funds are more limited, the A65 is still a real deal and offers a lot for the money.
Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>
