This is a somewhat revised review, as I have had a chance to spend lots of time with this camera over the last two weeks and taken roughly 1000 pictures. Although I still feel this is one of the best electronics purchases I have made in the last 10 years, I can see some emerging problems that need addressing in firmware updates. JPEGs (and Sony's default jpeg algorithm could use some tweaking) print out sharply at 30 by 20 print sizes (as long as I stay under ISO 800). RAW images 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 are 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 virtually any DSLR if you shoot in 60p.
6) Intuitive and well thought-out ergonomics.
7) Fast and responsive operation.
8) Fastest continuous shooting in its class (10 frames per second). Fast focusing, decent menu speed (improved w/ new firmware)
9) Excellent image stabilization system (and no more sensor overheating that plagued the Sony A55!).
10) In-camera GPS (can be defeated).
11) Good battery life (significant battery upgrade from the Alpha 55).
12) Best features/price ratio in the middle to high-end consumer/prosumer model DSLR group.
13) 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).
14) Ability to remove most 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).
15 Most of the 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.
Firmware correction of lens optical aberrations is one of most under-appreciated but valuable features of the camera. These firmware corrections work with many popular Sony lenses, more to be included in future firmware. Makes big difference in large prints. It basically means that these classic distortions are really a non-issue for those corrected lenses (see DP Reviews treatment of this in A65 coverage).
Cons:
1) Some increase in noise, particularly in RAW images without NR. Not surprising in view of increased pixel density.
2) Early firmware bugs - some have been improved, but still lots of room for more improvements? Using Sony's HVL-F42 bounce flash and still getting badly overexposed pictures - this happens mostly with bounce flash at at preset ISO. Doesn't matter if flash set to TTL (through the lens) or ADI (advanced distance integration - usually thought of as upgrade to standard TTL metrics). Other firmware bugs and weaknesses (like JPEG definitions) could be improved.
3) 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.
4) Limited control in high-speed shooting modes.
5) 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.
6) Loss of live view in high-speed shooting modes can make aiming the camera a bit tricky.
7) Switching between viewing photos vs. videos is still a bit cumbersome and awkward.
8) Not able to buy bundled with Sony's superb new 16-50 2.8 lens (see separate review)
Although the Sony Alpha 65 might have flown under the radar in the context of the simultaneous release of the 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 goodies 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!). All this for a significant reduction in Price ($900 for body only versus $1400 for the Alpha 77). Unfortunately, it's very tough to get this model right now, and these are going like hot cakes.
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. 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), 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 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 with comparisons with the A900 (full frame 24MP sensor), the A65 does a very credible job as ISO rises. 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?? 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).
A recent comparison of this camera with the Canon EOS 7D (at the same price point as the A65) showed that the although Canon kept a higher percentage of its ISO 100 resolution at 1600, the Sony was still out-resolving it by ISO 1600. Given that the A65 does just fine up to ISO 1600 in terms of noise, I think the bashing of the camera by some of the DP press and few disgruntled low light fanatics should really be taken with a large grain of salt. As much as I often agree with almost everything that DP Review says, I think 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. 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 will 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 the full detail the 24MP sensor is capable of, but hopefully this can be addressed in new firmwares (see Cons).
Bottom line - there isn't another camera for $900 (body only) that even comes close, with a feature set that no one competes with, and with impressive speed and ergonomics. This is a shot across the bow that both Nikon and Canon must be very concerned about. Anyone who compares this to the Nikon 7000 or the Canon EOS 60D (and it's slightly cheaper than either) has to walk away thinking that the Sony is far and away the better deal - and the more capable camera. 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 Big Two). The viewfinder alone is a paradigm-shifting experience - once you've used it, most middle range optical viewfinders in traditional DSLRs seem primitive and confining. I think that this is overall an amazing value - can't see another 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.
The most interesting and telling development for me is to look over the Digital Photography Reviews during the last 18 months - they have given four different APS-C Sony cameras highly coveted Gold Awards in the last year and a half (the new Alpha 65, Alpha 55 (its predecessor camera that also won Camera of the Year from Popular Photography in 2010), the NEX 5N, and just recently, the NEX 7. They have given four other silver awards to the NEX 3C, the new Alpha 77 and the Alpha 35, while giving 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 KIND OF PERFORMANCE ON THE PODIUM IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO. If you put 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.
I really believe that a true shift of power is taking place in digital photography - and although professionals still gravitate toward the Big Two, there is increasing reason now to seriously consider Sony. Canon and Nikon privately have a lot to be worried about. In the space of just over one year, Sony has made traditional DSLRs look clunky, limiting and . . . . well, almost obsolete. Buy one or at least try one. Unless you are ideologically married to an optical viewfinder (or shoot in the virtual dark), you'll love this camera.
Review by D. F. Watt "dfwatt"
No comments:
Post a Comment