Updated (March 2012): Compare the Canon EOS 600D vs Sony SLT A57

Sony SLT A57 vs Canon EOS 600D

Winner
Sony SLT A57

138

Canon EOS 600D

109

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A57

Great image quality
Overall image quality
75.0
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
Great color depth
Color depth
23.4 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 600D

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
1,040k dots
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Sensor cleaning
Self cleaning sensor
Avoids dust in your photos
Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 30fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 600D.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT A57.

competitors

Sony SLT A57 Competitors

Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$638 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Sony SLT-A65

Sony SLT A65

Entry-level DSLR

$1,098 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
GPS Has a GPS
Continuous shooting Shoots significantly slower
Sony SLT A77 II

Sony SLT A77 II

Pro DSLR

$1,198 body only

$1,798 with 16-50mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Cross type focus points Many more cross-type focus points
3D Doesn't take 3D photos

Canon EOS 600D Competitors

Canon EOS 700D

Canon EOS 700D

Entry-level DSLR

$496 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Color depth Worse color depth
Canon EOS 1200D

Canon EOS 1200D

Entry-level DSLR

$348 body only

Autofocus Video autofocus
Size Smaller
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Canon EOS 750D

Canon EOS 750D

Entry-level DSLR

$507 body only

$569 with 18-55mm lens

Cross type focus points Many more cross-type focus points
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Viewfinder size Smaller viewfinder

discussion

Sony SLT A57
SLT A57
Sony

Report a correction
Canon EOS 600D
EOS 600D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments