1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sony SLT-A65 or Nikon d5100 or Canon EOS 600D(EOS Rebel T3i)

Discussion in 'Sony Chat' started by Abhinew, Jan 6, 2012.

  1. Abhinew

    Abhinew New Member

    Hello All

    I need help of the experts / gurus in buying a camera. I have decided my budget which is £500-700 and these 3 cameras fall in this range (with 18-55mm lens). I am inclined to buy Sony SLT-A65 because it seems to have fresh technology and has good excellent reviews but then it is £100 expensive, relatively new and other cameras are no slouches.

    I am including some details about myself so that you can get an idea of my requirements and thought process:

    - So far I have used a point and shoot and now want to upgrade to DSLR (mid level)
    - I spend considerable amount of time on cropping / editing photographs (so do not mind spending time on RAW - whatever that means)
    - 75% of the snaps I will click will be of my young son (does not hold the pose so need to capture pose in real time) and my family
    - 25% will be clicked on holidays - beaches
    - I take a lot of videos
    - 50% of my snaps / videos are clicked indoors / in low light so require a camera that performs well in low light
    - Once I tried to click Niagara falls in night and London fireworks and my Point & shoot failed miserably. So I decided that my next camera will have to be effective in night conditions :)
    - I would not be buying too many lenses so wide availability of lenses is not an issue

    I have read a lot of reviews and am getting lost in all the geeky speak but these are my thoughts so far on comparison-

    - Sony's resolution is higher but really in practice does not result in a highly differentiated photo quality
    - Sony has some cool features like 10fp continuous shooting rate, GPS tagging
    - There is little difference in JPEG out put of the cameras

    Last 2 exam questions -

    a). for all the funky features Sony has does it justify the £100 difference that is currently there?
    b). How good is Sony's aftersales service compared to others. recently had a very bad experience re my PS3 which stopped reading Blue ray after 2 years - very annoying.

    In addition to experts will love to hear from people who own one or more of these cameras.
  2. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    Nikon d5100 performs the best at high iso.

    Sonys after sales service is not the best nor there lenses. If you were going down the Sony route i would go for the NEX range. Same sensors but a more compact size.
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  3. Abhinew

    Abhinew New Member

    Thanks - so you suggest I buy Nikon d5100? High ISO is used in low lights - right?
  4. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    Yes thats right to shoot in low light without a flash you need to increase the iso. Nikon performs the best at high iso. The d5100 is what i use, and a sony nex-5.
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  5. gussington

    gussington Member

    Comng from a paoint and shoot you will find any of these cameras amazing.

    To suggest that Sony's lenses aren't up to it is nonsense. I use a Sony A65 and the reason I went for Sony is the image stabilisation in the camera body. I believe that if you are someone that is planning to spend thousands over the next couple of years on lenses and can afford really good glass then perhaps Nikon and Canon do currently have the edge, but for amateur photographers who do not wish to spend loads on lenses I think Sony are the best bet. You can pick up much cheaper lenses that will then have the stabilisation from the camera body - rather than having to pay for it in each lens that you buy.

    If you look on Flickr or any other photo site you will find loads of people postign amazing photos with all of these cameras (and many more basic ones) plus many other people posting absolute rubbish shot with thousands of pounds worth of gear.

    I think A65 would be a great choice for you, then when you want to upgrade th basic kit lens you can get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for less than £250. You will not match that lens in any other mount (Nikon or Canon) for the money as with image stabilisation it will cost a lot more!
  6. MickLL

    MickLL In the Stop Bath

    I have to ask a question about that apparently ridiculous statement about Sony lenses.

    Where's the evidence?

    I admit that I'm a Minolta (therefore indirectly Sony) user and so there could be an element of bias. However in every test I can remember the Sony lens has been as good as any other marque.

    Then there's the 'G' range and the various Zeiss lenses. Yes they cost huge amounts but are quite superb - how they can be dismissed in a throw away line without evidence puzzles me.

    Then there's a huge range available secondhand right from the early days of Minolta AF.

    If you are into third party lenses (which I admit that I'm not) then AFAIK they all come in Sony fit as well as the others.

    Let me repeat - if Sony lenses are (relatively) poor then I would like to see some evidence.


    PS Can't comment about customer service because in all my years I've never had to use it.My cameras have been 100% reliable (Sorry an exception - I dropped and smashed my A900. Hardly Sony's fault). I have just used Nikon customer service for a scanner and they were excellent.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  7. gussington

    gussington Member

    I would just add that I would try out the A65 before you buy. Using an EVF is very different, but although I was highly dubious I have only had it for a day and love it! The EVF is massive compared to what you see through an OVF and I love the fact that with one button you can switch between seeing what is in front of you and what photo the camera will actually take ()for example - colour vs black and white)
  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    You have to weigh up if you need 10fps but a bit lower noise ceiling.

    Or higher noise ceiling but only 4fps.

    First we need to ask what photography you find exciting or peaks your interest?

    Also remember the stabilization is built-in on the A65 so you can choose any AF lens with Minolta fit.

    With the Nikon you have to make sure you buy IS lenses which may add cost later.

    Canon is the same the IS added via lenses.

    I would watch out because the newer NEXs has taken the same path in that IS part of the lens. Not in camera.

    We have been debating in another thread if 800ISO is enough. The A65 can do that without noise. Plus the IS does allow for lower shutter speed settings.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  9. RonM

    RonM Alpha Napper

    I must agree with Mick, as a long time minolta now Sony user and being fortunate enough to have been able to afford to buy a few 'G' and Zeiss lenses, the image quality is superb, to the point where a few of my photographic friends and acquaintances, in the main Canon users have envied my collection of glass.

    As for Sony aftersales, in relation to cameras, my alpha 900 developed a fault and the ease of getting it into the repair/maintenance system was pretty straightforward and was quoted a price upfront, the repair and return of the camera was within quoted time frame and all contact i had with Sony throughout was first class, so again I find the comments made go completely against all my experience.
  10. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    One thing that has not been mentioned the A65 has a electronic viewfinder (EVF) where as both the other makers use optical viewfinder (OVF).

    You need to see these to make a true consideration. Also some have not liked the feel or balance of the Sony's bodies against say a Nikon.

    Comfort is important because you might be holding your camera for hours on day out shooting.

    Personally I have handled a Sony and they seem ok to me.
  11. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Until you put a lens on![​IMG]
  12. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    I have no experience with Minolta lenses or the g and i'm not on about pro lenses, there consumer lenses are not up to Nikon or Canons. I have a NEX and the lenses are all pretty pants. Funny you say that reviews they come out as well as any other brands lens because when ever i see a group test the magazines recommend sigma/tamron over the sony equivalent.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  13. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    Try but still more compact than a slr. I also think that sony really wants to go places with the nex range. Saying that if Fuji's new csc wasn't over £1k i would sell the nex in a heart beat.
  14. TwoFace

    TwoFace Well-Known Member

    Your out-of-the-loop.
    If you go to this site and look at the photography on the "right" side of the page you will notice that most of it is Magazine quality.
  15. gussington

    gussington Member

    Not really sure what the problem is if a magazine recommends the 3rd party lenses that still fit your camera - surely you just buy that one that still fits yur Sony camer and get on with your photography/life..?

    Also - The post that provoked yourresponse here clearly asked if you might wish to point to some evidence about the points you make about Sony lenses. Maybe in your next post we will see a few links to back up what you say as from a few searches online I still have no idea what you are talkign about..?

    So - Any links to where good review sites are clearly stating that most the majority of Nikon and Canon lenses outperform Sony ones at the same price point..? Any time.....
  16. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    Yeah sure 'Digital Camera Magazine' they do group tests on specific type of lens macro for example test them then recommend on for each camera brand. Sony recommendations are rarely there own lenses. The magazine is part of the techradar group. I didn't say they were rubbish my words were not the best Nikon and canons cheap lenses are great.

    100m macro 3 stars

    16-80mm 3 stars

    50mm 1.4 prime 3.5 stars

    11-18mm wideangle 2 stars
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2012
  17. DaveG40

    DaveG40 Well-Known Member

    LOL, Digital Camera Magazine is about as biased as it gets, regardless of how good anything non Nikon, & especially Canon is it'll always be slated, Digital camera magazine is produced by the same people that knock out Canon & Nikon Specific magazines. Seen their fair and balanced reviews, seen the many dis-enchanted comments on forums from non NikCan users ?.

    Ref Lenses; Zeiss, G lenses, minolta and 3rd party lenses,, all no good then ;-).. I have the 70-300 Tamron USD unlike the great & wonderful Canon & Nikon versions mine does'nt need vc, because it's built into the Camera, which means that lenses like the F4 beercan etc are blur free, Nikon has alway been associated with producing good glass and as far as I am aware, only expensive Canon glass is truly good, (L series). I have a Minolta 70-210 f3.5-f4.5 it's in perfect working order and condition, it cost £26 on ebay, and I use it more than my USD, is there such a lens in Canon & Nikon's undoubtedly huge lens catalogue ?.

    If Sony glass is so horrendous compare "standard" kit lenses (canon would lose), and 50mm primes, etc.

    Regarding camera's and the original post; as an A55 owner, the choice is simple A65, D5100 or D7000; the D5100 has slightly better noise control due to the overly packed sensor on the A65, however at low Iso settings compare outputs & resolution and tell me which is better, 10fps is nothing to be sniffed at and if the A65 is anything like my A55 I have seen the outputs from big canon's mounted with big flash lenses compared them to mine, and lets just say; erm right ;-). Sony is pushing full steam ahead with SLT's (The A55 has had 2 firmware updates & the A65 one, so far), that indicates manfacturer support.

    Bottom line Canon & Nikon have been producing cameras for decades, since Sony's arrival in dslr land about 6 years ago the big two, as they were, have been playing catch up, how long has the nex been out when did the "other" 2 bring their clones out ? and which is still better ?. Even the A100 (Sony's first branded dslr) was rated higher by some magazines etc than the Nican equivalents at the time, the A700 Sony's first true dslr became legendary. Stand the A65 & D5100 side by side look at the outputs, consider what each is capable of and tell me which company has been making Slrs & dslr's for Decades ?.

    Regarding service, I've had Alpha's from day one and on the 2 occasions that I had problems the service was excellent and quick, I do wonder though for a camera out of warranty if the pricing is as expensive as it is for Canon owners ?.

    Just out of interest where does the D5100, D7000 etc sensor come from ?.

    Budget £500-£700; D5100, A55 or A65, around £1000; 60d, D7000, Pentax K5 or A77.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2012
  18. rjbell

    rjbell Well-Known Member

    I'm a Sony fan myself. Have you not read my 'is sony the future' thread? i have a nex-5 i love it. I'm not impressed with the lenses though, and can't wait for sigma's 30mm they have announced. A lot of what you say is true but the OP wants good low light shooter so i said d5100 which is better than the other 2. I also said sony lenses are not the best, not the worst. I also didn't say anything about Minolta or Zeiss.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2012
  19. DaveG40

    DaveG40 Well-Known Member

    I maybe wrong but I believe the A55 & Nex 5 are very compareable on the iq front, at higher iso levels the A55 is slightly better than the A65, personally I think Sony made a mistake by overpopulating that sensor, 24mp full frame yes, but 24mp on an Aps-c, a few megapixels too far I think, imho, the 16mp sensor as found in the A580, A55, D7000, K5 was awesome, and I do have to admit that I was very close to getting a d5100 myself, until I looked closer at the A55, and with the £50 cashback offer that was on at the time, £480 for a 10fps dslt with excellent iq was too good to pass up. I regularly use iso 3200 (great images), iso 6400 (good images), and on occasion iso 12800 (unexpectedly useable). And that's why I bought the A55 over the A65, that and the fact that essentially the A65 isn't much different (more mp & better evf).

    I think Nikon, Oly & Pentax have always been renowned for producing good glass, but Lens compatability enters the equation (in Nikon's case anyway), something to do with focus motors I think , Sony glass is expensive, yes there are duffers (I'm not a fan of the 18-70 or 75-300), but there are also great lenses, the £100'ish f1.8 50mm prime for example. You did'nt mention Zeiss or Minolta but again these should be considered, and in the case of minolta fantastic lenses can be bought for near peanuts (70-210 F4 Beercan around £100 for example).

    Nex camera uses the e-mount, which I believe is limited & pricey, A mount lenses are bountiful to say the least.

    Whatever the OP picks they can't go wrong, there ain't any duffers out there that I can think of :)
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2012

Share This Page