Sony SLT A65 vs Canon Rebel T3i

Winner
Sony SLT-A65

76

Canon Rebel T3i

56

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A65

Great image quality
Overall image quality
74.0
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 60fps
Great color depth
Color depth
23.4 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
12.6 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Canon Rebel T3i

Screen resolution
High resolution screen
1,040k dots
Sensor cleaning
Self cleaning sensor
Avoids dust in your photos
Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 30fps
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon Rebel T3i.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT-A65.

competitors

Sony SLT-A65 Competitors

Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$626 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Low light performance Slightly lower noise at high ISO
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Sony SLT-A77

Sony SLT A77

Pro DSLR

$1,642 body only

$1,500 with 16-50mm lens

Weather sealed Weather sealed
Overall image quality Better image quality
Startup delay More startup delay
Sony SLT A57

Sony SLT A57

Entry-level DSLR

$900 with 18-135mm lens

Continuous shooting Shoots significantly faster
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
True resolution Much lower true resolution

Canon Rebel T3i Competitors

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$319 body only

$360 - $399 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$389 - $649 body only

$445 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Autofocus Video autofocus
Color depth Worse color depth
Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Canon EOS Rebel T6i

Entry-level DSLR

$799 with 18-55mm lens

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

discussion

Sony SLT-A65
SLT A65
Sony

Report a correction
Canon Rebel T3i
Rebel T3i
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments