Summer Start

by VonSchnauzer

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When I look at dpreview's side-by-side camera comparison page, there is no difference between two cameras except pixel count (24MP vs. 16MP).

If that's the only difference then $200 isn't worth it for just more pixels, because I don't need them. Is there anything else?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I can a spot a few differences; 24 fps video vs 30, more WB settings, different battery (longer lasting), heavier and bigger but thinner body (probably easier to hold), extra connectivity options, ±5 EV (at 1/3 EV steps) as oppose to ±2 EV (at 1/3 EV steps), AE bracketing option.

The Sony SLT A77 seems like a better alternative though.

share|improve this answer
    
Is 24fps a big deal? –  Mohsen Sep 27 '11 at 0:04
    
it is if you do video. 24fps has a real cinematic feel. –  Jakub Sep 27 '11 at 0:18
    
Well, technically 24fps at 1/48th shutter speed is cinema. –  Nick Bedford Sep 27 '11 at 2:31

I feel that the heating problem in A55 is a little troublesome. Plus the short battery life. It takes me almost 5 hours to charge but less than 2 hours to use it up full. But taking all this into consideration I have my doubts to put in so much extra for an A65.

share|improve this answer
    
Does the A65 fix these issues? –  mattdm Dec 2 '11 at 14:06

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.