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?


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.

  • Is 24fps a big deal?
    – Mohsen
    Sep 27 '11 at 0:04
  • it is if you do video. 24fps has a real cinematic feel. Sep 27 '11 at 0:18
  • Well, technically 24fps at 1/48th shutter speed is cinema. 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.

  • Does the A65 fix these issues?
    – mattdm
    Dec 2 '11 at 14:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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