Canon EOS 5D Mark II vs Sony SLT A65

Winner
Canon EOS 5D Mark II

80

Sony SLT-A65

74

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
400 ms startup delay
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pentaprism
Fast shutter speed
Fastest shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Phase detection autofocus
Badge
fast and accurate
 

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A65

Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.71x
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
10 fps
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT-A65.

competitors

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Competitors

Canon EOS 6D

Canon EOS 6D

Pro DSLR

$1,259 - $1,399 body only

$1,679 - $1,799 with 24-105mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Shutter lag Significantly more shutter lag
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Pro DSLR

$2,150 - $2,499 body only

$2,700 - $3,099 with 24-105mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Cross type focus points Many more cross-type focus points
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon EOS 70D

Canon EOS 70D

Pro DSLR

$756 - $999 body only

$839 - $1,099 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Video autofocus
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Low light performance More noise at high ISO

Sony SLT-A65 Competitors

Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$498 - $666 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Battery life Longer battery life
Screen size Much smaller screen
Sony SLT-A77

Sony SLT A77

Pro DSLR

$1,099 body only

$1,300 with 16-50mm lens

Weather sealed Weather sealed
Overall image quality Better image quality
Startup delay More startup delay
Sony Alpha SLT-A68

Sony Alpha SLT-A68

Boutique

Focus points Many more focus points
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
EOS 5D Mark II
Canon

Report a correction
Sony SLT-A65
SLT A65
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments