Sony Alpha SLT-A65V (With 18-55mm lens)

• Average user rating: 4.5 stars out of 3 reviews
• My rating: 0 stars

• Sort by: Most helpful Highest rating Lowest rating Most recent

• 10 stars

  I compared the Sony A65 vs. Nikon D5100 vs. Canon T3i

  by EricTessmer on March 5, 2012

  Pros: See my summary

  Cons: See my summary

  Summary: Review of the Sony A65 DSLR Camera
  by Eric Tessmer, Honolulu Hawaii
  
  Overview:
  
  I'm writing this with the hope it might save time for others, since I just invested ...

  Read more

  Summary: Review of the Sony A65 DSLR Camera
  by Eric Tessmer, Honolulu Hawaii
  
  Overview:
  
  I'm writing this with the hope it might save time for others, since I just invested many hours doing camera comparisons before buying my own new camera. I have been a biomed technician for 35+ years, so my experience evaluating equipment and its features may be useful to others.
  
  Before I purchased this camera, my experience had always been with Nikon or Canon cameras. I have been using Canon cameras for over 15 years and have been happy with all of the models I owned. I had no interest in Sony originally, but a friend of mine, who has considerable photography experience, suggested comparing the three top cameras in this DSLR class before buying.
  
  I compared the Sony A65 vs. Nikon D5100 vs. Canon T3i. I also spent a fair amount of time looking over photos, specs, and reading what professional and "average Joe" photographers think and feel about Sony and specifically the A65.
  
  I started out biased towards Nikon and Canon, not even liking Sony cameras, based on the ones I had seen a few years back. But some of the reviews and comments about the new Sony DSLR were from nationally known professional photographers whom I respect. Also, I saw that Trey Ratcliff, the HDR guru, stated that the newest Sony cameras will be real game changers in the DSLR world. With all of this, I took a closer look at what all the buzz was about.
  
  I am a member of DP Review and have posted numerous questions about this camera there. I have also spent time in camera shops holding, inspecting, and taking photos using the Canon T3i, Nikon D5100 and Sony A65. I poured over a lot of reviews, professional opinions, specs, and technology, learned a lot, and ended up really liking the approach Sony was taking - not trying to copy, but to truly innovate. Sony is obviously investing very heavily in their camera division.
  Look, Fit and Feel:
  
  Although the Canon and Nikon have a good feel to them (Nikon getting the definite edge), I liked the Sony quite a bit better because the body felt better balanced, was slightly lighter and smaller, and the button layout was intuitive and had a real solid feel. Also, the hand grip side was sculpted and deeper with a larger thumb pad which gave a surer, more confident grip to my hands than either the Canon or Nikon.
  
  View Finder (VF):
  
  Both Nikon and Canon use optical VF and Sony has an Electronic VF. Both the Nikon and Canon VF were quite small, but were also fairly clear. The Sony looked very good and I took several pictures which were very easy, especially with the useful overlays (similar to what you would see on the monitor). Here are the specs:
  • Eye-level fixed XGA OLED, 1.3 cm (0.5 type) electronic viewfinder
  • 2,359,296 dots resolution
  • Magnification approx.1.09x
  • 100% frame coverage
  From Image Resource Website: "In a class of cameras that tend to be fitted with comparatively small pentamirror viewfinders, the large, bright and high-resolution EVF of the Sony A65 stands apart. Unlike optical viewfinders, the size of an EVF doesn't have to be constrained by the size of the camera's sensor, which means it's possible to offer a finder much closer to the size photographers enjoyed when they shot film SLRs. In terms of size, clarity and utility, the finder in the A65 at least rivals, but in some respects surpasses some of those found in much more expensive conventional DSLRs. Compared to its direct APS-C format DSLR peers, there is simply no contest. The A65's EVF is close enough to the quality of a high-end optical viewfinder that it has advantages (the ability to preview exposure and white balance, or to gain-up for working in low light). The OLED Trufinder that Sony is now using over older EF technology is a very different beast - its 2.4M dots are able to provide a 1024 x 768 pixel display and do so with a progressive update. As a result, the viewfinder not only gives a more detailed view but also one that's free from tearing. After extended use, we're confident in saying that it is the best EVF we've ever used.
  Low refresh rates were often a bugaboo of early EVFs, but the problem seems pretty completely banished with the combination of the Sony A65's sensor, fast processor, and OLED EVF technology. The area where EVFs completely crush optical viewfinders is, of course, in on-screen information display. With the whole viewfinder area a full-color high-resolution image display, readout, status and other information can be displayed anywhere you please. Not only that, but full menu displays are a button-press away, so your eye never need leave the viewfinder while operating the camera."
  I particularly liked the 3-axis level indicator which you can turn on in the VF.
  Shooting and Controls:
  
  Shooting: all three cameras were pretty much the same, but with a slight edge to the Sony, since with Sony, there seemed to be zero lag when the exposure button was pressed and the control layout seemed better.
  
  Controls: all were very good, but the exposure control being on the left side of the Sony made it much easier to control your settings while looking through the VF.
  
  Photo Reviews and other photographers comments:
  
  Of the numerous comments from owners of this camera, the only major negative I read was that it does not do as well in low light situations. If you do a lot of action shots over ISO 1600 in low light, then the Nikon and Canon will outperform the Sony. This is due to the fact that Sony has 24MP vs. Canon at 18MP and Nikon at 16MP in about the same size APS-C sensor. The Sony also uses a pellicle (transparent) mirror. There's no reflex mirror to raise, but there is a 20% light loss to the sensor.
  
  I have the same issue with my current Canon at 15MP with a CCD sensor, which is worse because I cannot shoot anything over ISO 400 without seeing some noise and over 400 it is really noticeable. I have managed with ISO 400 or less for my quality shots for over three years, so I can deal with 1600 or less. Thus I still feel the other advantages of the Sony A65 outweigh this disadvantage. Plus, as one user pointed out, there is a noise-reduction multi-frame mode which allows you to take six shots in less than 1 second and it combines these into one low-noise image for low light photos. The sample photos look very good.
  
  The pellicle (transparent) mirror in the A65 uses the same technology as on Sony's high-end semi-professional A77 model.
  
  Another edge Nikon has over the Sony was that several reviewers felt that the JPEG algorithm was slightly better in the Nikon at higher ISOs and recommended shooting the Sony RAW at over 400 to get the best image quality. In the RAW format, the Sony image quality was judged to be significantly better than either Nikon or Canon up to 1600 and was comparable to full frame DSLR sensors.
  
  A bit more information on the pellicle mirror from Imaging Resource: "The defining feature of the Sony SLT-series cameras, the translucent (or pellicle) mirror allows most light to pass through to the imaging sensor beneath, while a small portion is reflected for use by the camera's phase-detect autofocus sensor. This unusual design brings three main advantages over a traditional SLR: full-time phase detection autofocusing (even during video capture), improved burst shooting performance, and a modest reduction in camera body size. This, combined with use of an electronic first curtain, allows the Sony A65 to capture 10 frames per second with less noise and vibration."
  
  One reviewer, Michael Reichmann of the Luminous-Landscape.com, summed up his perspective on Sony and their position well: "Never underestimate Sony. They are the new kid on the block when it comes to mid-to-high-end digital photography, but they are an 800 pound gorilla in the electronics industry, and the digital cameras industry is now the electronics industry.
  
  When Sony purchased Konica/Minolta in 2006 they acquired substantial SLR, DSLR, and optical lens technology along with staff and expertise. They also added a licensing / manufacturing relationship with Carl Zeiss, so that they could use that company's lens technology for both digicams and DSLRs. Not to be discounted is the fact that Sony is one of the few camera makers that designs, engineers, and fabricates their own sensors and other semiconductors. Indeed competitors such as Nikon and Pentax reportedly have Sony fabricate their sensors for them, sometimes based on Sony designs as well.
  
  It's now five years on, and Sony has had decent success with their Alpha cameras, and during the past 12 months with their NEX series of CSC (Compact Systems Cameras). Their A900 and A850 cameras have been the least expensive full-frame 24MP cameras on the market, and last year the A35 and A55 introduced Sony's unique "Translucent Mirror" technology - a pellicle mirror that allows extremely high speed shooting, and continuous autofocus in video mode.
  
  The NEX cameras have offered up the smallest and lightest weight APS-C sensor cameras available, and have been very successful in some markets. Now, in late August 2011, Sony has announced four new cameras, three of them with 24 Megapixel APS-C sensors, along with a new NEX model with a 16MP sensor, and a number of lenses and accessories. This isn't just a large number of new products all at once - it's a full-court-press on the rest of the industry."
  
  DP Review gave the A65 it's Gold Award, meaning it was rated the best in its class.
  
  Photo Quality:
  
  From various websites, I looked at hundreds of side-by-side photographs of the same image using the A65 vs. D5100 vs. T3i and I have definitely come to prefer the Nikon images over Canon. But I also believe Sony has a big edge over both. Even with high ISO limitation, I still prefer the Sony A65 image quality over the Nikon D5100 & D7000 even at ISO 1600.
  
  At 3200 both Nikon and Sony images are compromised, but the Nikon is definitely better. See this terrific link to do camera photo comparisons: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
  
  For further A65 photos please see this link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA65/AA65GALLERY.HTM
  
  Nikon Comparison:
  
  I did a direct comparison with the D5100 and here were the main A65's advantages:
  • Much larger viewfinder - more than 90% larger
  • Built-in image stabilization vs. none
  • Faster continuous shooting - 10 fps vs. 4 fps
  • Much higher sensor resolution 24 MP vs. 16 MP
  • Built-in panoramic creation vs. none
  • 3D photo capable vs. none
  • GPS vs. none
  • Better light sensitivity 12,800 ISO vs. 64,000 ISO
  • Faster autofocus phase vs. contrast detection
  • Much better viewfinder coverage 100% vs. 95%
  • Built-in focus motor vs. none
  • More focus points 15 vs. 11
  • More cross-type focus points 3 vs. 1
  
  The main A65 disadvantage to the D5100:
  • Noisier image at high ISO (over 1600)
  • Fewer lens selections
  • Slightly larger and heavier (by a few mm and grams)
  • $200 more expensive than the Nikon D5100
  
  Conclusion:
  
  While I initially took a skeptical approach about the Sony camera, I gradually became convinced that the Sony A65 was my best choice. I made the purchase through Amazon and it is interesting to note that from the dozens of stores and websites I checked, no one was discounting the camera. They all were the same price - a very good sign of the quality and value of this camera.
  
  Now I have had this camera for a month, have taken over 1,000 pictures of various types and settings, and absolutely love this camera. It both lives up to the hype, and has also exceeded all my expectations. I have had ZERO issues with this camera and here are some of my favorite features:
  • Built-in panoramic stitching - fabulous job stitching together a bunch of photos into one seamless photo in a few seconds - all without having to use a tripod - it really works amazingly well.
  • Noise reduction Auto-ISO - multi-frame merged shots for great low-light shots
  • Several choices of built-in High Dynamic Range (HDR) shooting modes - with stunning results
  • Built-in help and explanation menus
  • Intuitive menu selections and controls
  • Incredible detail and full shooting information in electronic viewfinder
  • Easy to use and flexible HD video mode
  • Very sharp high resolution photos
  
  For a full set of specs on the A65: http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&searchType=search&storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&productId=8198552921666375303#specifications
  
  Eric Tessmer, CBET, Biomed Technician
  Honolulu, Hawaii

  Show less

  6 out of 6 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 9 stars

  Best equipped prosumer DLSR (that's not even a DSLR)

  by drdfwatt on January 22, 2012

  Pros: 1)Best viewfinder in the business
  2)Class leading resolution
  3)Many useful shooting modes
  4)Full-time live view system
  5)Class-leading video resolution(1080/60p)
  6)Intuitive and well thought-out ergonomics, w/fast, responsive operation
  7)Great IS

  Cons: 1)More noise at higher ISO
  2)Early firmware bugs-some have been improved but still room for more improvements? JPEG definitions could also be improved
  3)Not as svelte as A55
  4)Limited control in high-speed shooting
  5)Screen black out in HS shooting

  Summary: This review is, as much as anything, an attempt to balance the dismal digital camera reviews foisted on readers by CNET. CNET is TOTALLY out of their depth in this ...

  Read more

  Summary: This review is, as much as anything, an attempt to balance the dismal digital camera reviews foisted on readers by CNET. CNET is TOTALLY out of their depth in this area of technology and their camera reviews are almost worthless. Have you ever seen an area of hi-tech where virtually everything is rated 3.5 out of 5 stars? When in doubt, consult DP Reviews as a truly professional-grade resource, and ignore CNET.
  
  I have had a chance to spend lots of time with this camera over the last five weeks and taken roughly 2000 pictures - for sure one of
  the best electronics purchases I have made in the last 10 years, but I can also see some consistent problems that need addressing in future firmware updates. JPEGs (Sony's default jpeg algorithm could use some mild tweaking/sharpening) print out sharply at 30 by 20 print sizes (as long as I stay under ISO 1600). RAW images at low ISO will print sharp to 36x24 easily. When paired with the new Sony 16-50mm 2.8 lens (see separate review for this remarkable lens), takes some of the best pictures this side of a Nikon D3x ($8000 full frame pro camera) - if you stay to ISO 800 and under.
  
  Pros:
  
  1) Best viewfinder in the business (2.4 million dot OLED), as bright as any full frame viewfinder, and with far more useful information. Once you've used it, you won't be able to go back. Paradigm changing - once you experience 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 terrific panorama and high dynamic range modes. 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 - far better than the clunky live view systems 'tacked on' in traditional DSLRs.
  5) Class-leading video resolution (1080 at 60p) with as good video capabilities as any camcorder. Takes better video than any DSLR if you shoot in 60p.
  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).
  14) The few legit knocks on the camera are potentially addressed in firmware updates, unless Sony is falling asleep, which is doubtful, given what they have invested in this new technology (curious to see a full frame 'A99').
  
  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 (such as popular kit and tele zooms), w/ more included in future firmware (wish Sony would make that 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. Not at all surprising in view of increased pixel density.
  2) Early firmware bugs - some have been improved, but still room for more improvements? (i.e., Sony's HVL-F42 bounce 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 in high-speed shooting 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.
  7) 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) Not able to buy bundled with Sony's superb new 16-50 2.8 lens, only standard kits lens (see separate review for 16-50mm) - not sure why Sony does that?.
  
  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??).
  
  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 for its high noise particularly in RAW, and its somewhat 'mushy' JPEG rendering, I disagree (at least with their emphasis on this point), and as the best evidence, would actually reference DP Review's own images (!). If you look on their website (on 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 (think Sony A900 - admittedly not a low light phenom), 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 the new Canon EOS 1Dx for lots less money, and some Canon devotees are upset about potentially spending 8 grand when this camera comes out, and getting only 18 MP worth of detail. On the other hand, that camera will take good pictures in the virtual dark. If you love to shoot in very low light, get one of the 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. Little question 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.
  
  Updated on Jan 27, 2012

  Apropos of earlier comments about slightly mushy default JPEG definitions, and how noise becomes an issue in higher ISO settings, I have discovered that there are some easily accessed menu settings that can substantively improve these issues. I have found that if I set sharpening to 3+ on all of the various creative modes, and then set high ISO NR (noise reduction) to its maximum, I get the least noisy and sharpest JPEGs. This combination of settings appears to get closer to the maximum capacity out of the sensor without having to go to the RAW file format.
  
  You probably would not want to set sharpening to its maximum on any Canon DSLR (their default JPEG definition is already a bit crunchy), but Sony on the other hand is perhaps too enamored of the 'smooth look' and benefits from some extra sharpening.

  Show less

  1 out of 1 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 9 stars

  Almost perfect camera

  by HTCANDROIDFANBOY on January 26, 2012

  Pros: High res 24 mp pictures
  Controls in the right place
  Really Easy to change modes
  Panorama
  10FPS mode
  Picture Effect
  Light weight feels right in hand

  Cons: Movie not in focus
  Viewfinder not optical but has screen
  Doesn't have the nice metal feel of a550

  Summary: Best camera I ever had everything is located in a logical and easy to reach place. You can switch settings in seconds even without having to take eye of viewfinder ...

  Read more

  Summary: Best camera I ever had everything is located in a logical and easy to reach place. You can switch settings in seconds even without having to take eye of viewfinder only movies not in focus (anyone else have this?) Viewfinder is uncomfortable because I have to look at screen not through lens. Doesn't have a cold metallic feel. Also no vertical grip support :(

  Show less

See pricing