Sony Alpha A65 vs A580: A Practical Comparison

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Gary

For starters: This isn't going to be a scientific comparison review. If you want to follow the debate from a technical standpoint (whether or not scaling down the 24mp files produces the same/better results, the true impact of the loss of light from the translucent mirror, etc), then you'd be better off looking elsewhere. This is simply my real-world experience with both cameras, with non-scientific photo comparisons galore.

When I first decided to switch out of the Pentax family early this year, my main focus was on Sony. I had been an early adopter of the NEX-5, though I couldn't justify keeping it when finances got tight. The NEX-7 had eluded the markets in Fall 2011 due to the floods in Thailand, but rumors persisted it would be released soon. Still, I wasn't sure I could use the NEX-7 as a full-time camera for professional shoots, as its size and layout is much more suited for a travel/street/journalism shooter than a studio/portraits/weddings sort of shooter. As I did more research on the matter, I realized that the A77 offered the same sensor in an SLT configuration, of which many Sony-proponents assured the translucent mirror did not degrade the image quality more than 1/3rd of a stop. Better yet, you could get the same sensor in the A65, which mainly got rid of the A77's weather sealing and battery grip capabilities (which I figured I could live without). Long story short: I took the plunge in a masterfully-conceived plan to incrementally buy/sell my gear over the course of a month without impacting any scheduled shoots, and to stay within the confines of my measly credit limit. And almost immediately, I began to regret my choice.

Above: Photographs showing before/after shot from Pentax K-5 (using Sony's 16mp sensor) at ISO 1600, extreme adjustments made to exposure/shadows/blacks. Shadows retain detail without becoming too muddy, even with noise reduction.

Don't get me wrong--I thoroughly enjoy both the Alpha and NEX lines, and I plan on sticking with Sony for quite some time. But the A65's capabilities were simply not up to par, especially when compared to the Pentax K-5 I was switching from. To keep non-Pentaxians in the loop: The K-5 has the same(ish) 16mp Sony-made sensor as the Nikon D7000, Sony NEX-5n/c3, A55/57, A580, so on and so forth. I say "ish" because each of these sensors are calibrated slightly differently, yielding different performance scores (with the 5n/57 possibly being a newer generation...debates go back and forth on this topic all the time). When I bought the K-5 at launch, it was basically the best-performing APS-C sensor camera on the market, and it certainly didn't let me down in that regards. So why did I switch out of the Pentax family? One word: backfocusing.

The K-5's phase-detect autofocus sensor was (and still is) infamous for front/backfocusing under different lighting conditions. If I calibrated a lens to focus perfectly while shooting outside, I could get constant and considerable backfocusing while shooting in the studio later that night, or at a bar the next day, or an event the next. It got so bad that, for the last few events I shot on the K-5, I actually used the live-view function 80% of the time, simply to take advantage of the spot-on contrast-detect autofocus that it offered. That why, when switching out, I decided that focus performance was my top priority. And in this regard, the Sony A65 certainly did not let me down. Though naysayers mock Sony's SLT technology (and sometimes rightfully so), the EVF on the A65 combined with a fantastic focus mechanism led to spot-on focusing and snappy performance in nearly every situation. Beyond that, however, the A65 is a very flawed camera in many ways which are often overlooked in most reviews.

I purchased the A65 in February 2012, and in the course of two months, I shot a fair amount of paid work on the camera. While it worked great under some circumstances, my experiences shooting ISO 1600+ at a friend's wedding a week or so ago ended up being the final straw. It wasn't the first time I'd shot that high under low-light settings, nor did I have any particularly important use for the photographs (since I was just there shooting for fun). But my frustration at trying to get a usable image from a RAW file that theoretically would be easy as pie to edit (had it come from my K-5) was simply infuriating. Beyond that, I had gotten pretty fed up with the lag that the A65 produces when trying to change simple setting like aperture and exposure. An update in March did help speed things up a bit, but it still felt like you were trying to operate the camera in a zero-gravity environment or something. The interface was ever-so-slightly sluggish enough to make everything feel bogged down and slow, as opposed to the instantaneous dial feedback I was accustomed to from every single DSLR I'd owned up to that point. A couple days later, I found a listing on KEH for an A580 kit in like-new condition for $695 (on a free-shipping weekend too, to make things even better). I was sold.

I've only had the A580 for roughly a day, but within an hour or so, I knew it would be a keeper. Physically speaking, it's actually somewhat larger than the K65 (and much larger than the K-5). It's body is still made out of plastic, though it feels slightly heftier and more substantial in your hand than the A65. The buttons on it are snappier, with some producing more of a sharp "click" sensation than others (as opposed to the A65's array of mostly "muted" button). And the flip-out screen, though it can't be flipped in on itself nor flipped around for self-portraits, feels much sturdier (with fewer frustrations when mounted on a tripod). The OVF on the A580 is actually much smaller than the EVF on the A65, which is comparatively large (and always bright) thanks to its inherent nature. In all seriousness, the photo to the left doesn't do it justice. Still, I prefer the layout of having the old-school status/indicators along the bottom of the OVF on the A580, than having to look around the screen on the EVF to reference what settings I'm on (which can get overwhelming, though it's somewhat adjustable). I also got accustomed to being able to review my images in the EVF on the A65, though playback on the A580 via its LCD screen seems to be much more responsive than the A65 in general. In terms of "professional" features, it's also worth mentioning that the battery life on the A580 is rated to be MUCH higher than that of the A65, with 1050 shots compared to 510 (both figures from Sony, measured in "viewfinder mode"). The A580 also supports adding a battery grip, which would effectively double those figures (I have a cheap 3rd party grip on its way, I'll review it once it gets here).

Going back to the question of RAW performance, the "usability" of RAW files shot at ISO 1600 and above is simply atrocious in comparison to Sony's 16mp sensor. In regards to the K-5's noise performance at higher ISOs, I once read a comment stating that even though the K-5's RAW files were somewhat noisy at ISO 3200/6400, the noise patterns were incredibly "usable," and had "so much information" packed into the images that one could easily tweak a few settings and come out with a gorgeous image, even under the worst circumstances. Though I'm not sure if there's a better, less metaphysical way to put this criteria into technical terms, it's true. The images produced by the K-5 (and similarly the A580, as I've found) are extremely forgiving. Tweak a few sharpness/noise reduction settings in Lightroom, and you can easily use ISO 3200 in many commercial shoots. The K-5/A580's RAW files are also very forgiving when changing exposure/contrast/shadow levels at high ISOs, so much so that when I first tried to edit an ISO 3200 file from my A65, I was half convinced I accidentally shot it as a jpeg. If you've never had a camera with Sony's 16mp sensor in it before, and you're accustomed to a more "standard" criteria of high ISO performance, then the upgrade to an A65 might not be as much of a shock. Heck, in comparison to the 12.4mp Pentax K-x I owned before the K-5, I would have considered the A65 a slight upgrade at the least. Still, when it comes to real-world editing, the A65's high ISO performance leaves much to be desired.

Here's a quick image I took, both at the same aperture/shutter speed. White balance set to the same in post. A65 is on the left, A580 is on the right. Exposure/contrast/clarity/shadows all raised equal amounts. Noise reduction/sharpness were set independently on both, with the goal of getting them as clean as possible without becoming muddy. In retrospect, I could have actually done a lot more noise reduction on the A580's image while maintaining detail. It seems that the main difference here is the size of the noise, and color shift in the shadows. The A65 has a serious problem with purple-hued shadows, which is made worse by the muddiness of its noise. While I have no technical way of proving it, the A580's sensor simply produces "finer grain" noise, which Adobe's noise-reduction algorithms have a much easier time dealing with.

Above: Photograph shot with the A65 at ISO 800. Unlike the Pentax K-5 night shots from above (which were shot at ISO 1600), I had limited control adjusting the shadows before muddy noise took over. This was the best result I could muster.

So what IS the A65 good for? A lot of things, actually. The 24mp sensor, while noisy at higher ISOs, nevertheless produces gorgeous results in daylight/studio circumstances. With that much resolution at your fingertips, you gain incredible cropping power. There were times when I shot a photograph at landscape orientation that, once I got to post, I could easily crop into portrait and still end up with an incredible amount of detail and resolution. Additionally, for circumstances like daylight portrait and studio shooting, the focus accuracy of the A65 was hard to beat (at least in my experiences). Paired with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens, the vast majority of photos I took in any given shoot were spot-on in terms of focus, to the point where I didn't even know this lens could physically be this sharp. For whatever reason, the focus speed seems to be improved as well. My Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 beast of a lens, known to be a slow focuser, actually performs beautifully on the A65. I've even gotten remarks from fellow shooters of the focus speed and general lack of hunting. In some ways, shooting with the 70-200 on the A580 seems to be a downgrade of sorts, as I am now experiencing the gist of the "slow focus" complaints that reviews of that lens usually garner.

Above: Crop (not 100%) of a studio shot taken with the A65. While there's plenty of detail, some of it is still ended up a bit muddy after adjustments left the shadows too noisy,even at ISO 100.

So my advice is this: If the vast majority of what you shoot doesn't involve low-light circumstances, and you need the boost in video features and focus accuracy, go for the A65. Or better yet, you might want to have a look at the A57, which packs Sony's 16mp sensor into the A65's body (sans GPS and a few other features), albeit with that 30% light decrease from the SLT mirror. Otherwise, consider grabbing an A580 while you can, as it will most likely be Sony's last OVF offering.

Are my methods for comparison perfect? No. Far from it. One could easily argue that this entire process was more of a poor critique of my shooting/editing styles, or that I simply expect too much editing potential from RAW files. I don't hate the A65 by any means, and I still believe it is a wonderful camera. But it just doesn't suit my purposes, in regards to both my workflow and the editing legroom I'm accustomed to. To each his/her own, I guess. As for me, while I'm planning on keeping the A580 for work purposes, I'm still lusting over the NEX-7. Despite my complaints about its sensor (though noise performance does seem to be improved with the lack of translucent mirror), I just love the form factor it provides. Give me a NEX-7 with the new Sigma 30mm f2.8 lens, and I'll be a happy camper...at least until the next best thing comes along.

Getting that Elusive Lucky Shot

Posted on May 6, 2012 by Gary

You want to know the secret to getting a lucky shot? The absolute holy grail of photographer knowledge, seemingly eluding would-be artists throughout the century and a half that photography has been around? Don't worry, we're in the same boat. No matter how hard anyone tries, there just isn't a perfect formula for capturing the perfect picture. Some people prefer the "take photos sparingly" method, wherein the massive storage capacities of digital photography are ignored in lieu of a nostalgic idea that taking fewer frames forces one to focus more on form and content. Others just snap away like hell until their card is full. At the Ron Paul event at UCSD this past Friday night, I was definitely in the latter camp.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul waits in his vehicle prior to entering the stage during a gathering at the University of California, San Diego

Regardless of the fact that I was a pretty decent distance from his vehicle, and that I had to hold up my camera with its massive lens high above the crowd to even avoid getting an obscured shot, Ron Paul just happened to glance at my camera during the exact moment that I pressed the shutter button. And glance might be an understatement. At full size, it's clear that Ron Paul's face has some motion blur on it, a function of the fact that he wasn't posing for my camera in the least bit. Still, regardless of his or my intention at this specific moment in time, the outcome is a one-in-a-million photograph that I can add to my collection.

The rarity of such a photograph is also interesting in the context of the current age of digital communication that we live in. Nowadays, with the prevalence of smartphones and easy-to-use pocketable cameras, few people travel about without a camera on their person. Did Ron Paul catch a glance at me because my lens stuck out like a sore thumb in the crowd of cameraphones? Or was it a fluke of nature, a "right place at the right time" sort of deal? I'm not sure. And I'm not sure if there's any way to ever be sure. Herein lies the difficulty in giving any sort of advice about capturing the perfect "lucky shot"--it's all about luck, plain and simple. There are things you can do to improve your odds at capturing a great photograph, like equipping yourself with the proper gear, or attending events where you'll have a chance to take interesting photos, but anything more is often out of your control. The best weapon at your disposal is your own will to get out there and take photos. Now that cameras have become so commonplace, however, it seems somewhat odd that so many "non-photographers" are willing to go out and take photographs everywhere they go, whereas many photographers find it much easier to stay at home and hoard over their gear (myself included, more often than not).

If this is the case, then what's the point of spending the entire rally holding your cell phone high in the air to record a speech given by a public figure that you know full-well will be available online by the time you get home? Well, there's no easy answer. Everyone has their own motivations, and whether or not they can articulate or pinpoint their specific intent is irrelevant. In my own case, the reason I spent the entire rally holding up a heavy camera (and taking over six hundred photos in the process) was a blatant desire to capture a shot that I could add to my portfolio. For others in the crowd, photographs might serve a communicative purpose, wherein an individual might snap a photograph on a phone and tweet it out moments later. Still, for many individuals, the reason to capture an event already inundated with cameras comes down to memory. A photograph can act as a marker, a personal statement saying "I was there." Even if this photo is never printed or shared, and merely lives in a virtual album on the user's mobile phone, it still serves as a bookmark of sorts. It is a folded page in the annals of one's own narrative, another stamp in the passport of life.

Splash Wave

Posted on August 27, 2010 by Gary

Remote Decay

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Gary

I have an itch for exploration. It's often hard to find places close to my home that I haven't been to before, but every so often, I find a spot that's new to me. Most of the time, this involves driving great distances and hiking quite a while until I find remoteness and solitude. But the other night was an exception. Following a road I had only been on once before, I ended up in a barren cul-de-sac dotted with eerily rustling trees and shared only by another car minding its own business. The marine layer had already started to work its way in by the time I got there, so my options for photography were few. But I managed to capture a couple of images with my Sony NEX-5 that seem to do the landscape justice. I can only hope that places like this still exist in a few years, before the creep of expanding housing developments overtakes what is left of the region's immediate wilderness.

Another Dirt Cheap Lens

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Gary

Photography is notoriously expensive. With cameras running upwards of $400 for a basic model body, and a good lens usually costing at least $250 or more, photographers quickly go broke working their way up to a respectable kit. For those who don't make a living off of the art, however, one can get by on some unorthodox gear choices. And if one has luck in the realm of bargain shopping, the act of scouting out cheap gear can become a game within itself.

What you see above was taken with such a lens. Though it is a pretty poor sample shot, it shows you that a decently artistic photo can be crafted on the cheap. And what glass was responsible for this picture? Photographed below, this lens is a prime (ha!) example of a dirt cheap lens. My second thrift store lens (in recent years) for $7, this baby isn't without its flaws. Unlike my first $7 lens, a 50mm Pentax-M f2 that was covered in grime but cleaned up nicely, this latest find isn't in full operational condition. Though physically clean with clear glass, this Sears 28mm f2.8 lens seems to have aperture blades stuck wide open at f2.8. For casual shooting, this isn't much of an issue, as I usually keep my glass open in most situations. And for $7, I'm not complaining in the least bit.

At this point, I fully intend on purchasing a Sony NEX-5 camera as soon as it is widely released. And assuming that a Pentax-K to E-Mount adapter will be available from third party vendors in short time, it would be nice to have a collection of cheap prime lenses to use on such a tiny body for casual and street shooting. Though I wont go out of my way to purchases lenses for such a use, there's no harm in having "extras" lying around. And often times, working within the constraints of manual focus and exposure forces you to critically examine potential shots in new ways.

Sony NEX-5, Elusive Summer Gadget

Posted on May 27, 2010 by Gary

A quick intro to the current state of digital cameras. For the most part, you've got point-and-shoots, and DSLRs. DSLRs have a mirror that flips up inside, allowing you to look through the lens itself when you use the viewfinder. DSLRs have a much larger sensor than point-and-shoots, allowing for much higher image quality as well. Recently, the new Micro Four-Thirds standard attempted to bridge the divide between point-and-shoots and DSLRs, by removing the mirror element and maintaining a larger sensor with a live image displayed on a screen. But the sensor in Micro Four-Thirds cameras is still much smaller than the (still cropped) APS-C sensor found in most DSLRs. This is where Sony comes into play.

Image via dpreview.com

What you see here is the new Sony NEX-5 camera, coming out this July. It features a full APS-C sensor in the smallest mirror-less interchangeable lens system to date. Retailing at $650 with a 16mm f2.8 pancake and $700 with an 18-55mm zoom lens, both crafted out of metal and not plastic like most modern lenses, the cost is a steal for the phenomenal image quality that samples have produced thus far. In many ways, it even surpasses my current Pentax body. For those looking for a cheaper option, Sony is also releasing the NEX-3 with plastic housing (as opposed to the metal casing of the NEX-5) and reduced video options, but with a $100 savings.

While nothing is set in stone, there's a very good chance that the NEX-5 (with the 18-55mm lens) will become my new secondary body. As of late, I've been taking my primary camera everywhere I go, which gets rather cumbersome and challenging depending on the circumstance. If I had a camera with identical image quality, better video capabilities and more casual features in an incredibly small form factor, I would definitely feel safer bringing that instead. Though it could never replace the pure power that having an optical viewfinder provides, mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras fill an interesting niche in the increasingly diverse camera market. And there's a very real chance I'll own a piece of this revolution come later this summer.