Nikon D7000 vs Sony SLT A65

Winner
Nikon D7000

100

Sony SLT-A65

92

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000

Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.9 EV
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
400 ms startup delay
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pentaprism
 

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A65

Movie format
Full HD
1080p @ 60fps
Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.71x
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
True resolution
High true resolution
24 MP

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D7000.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT-A65.

competitors

Nikon D7000 Competitors

Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$650 - $697 body only

$997 - $1,060 with 18-105mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Shutter lag More shutter lag
Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$410 - $597 body only

$479 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
HDR Has in-camera HDR
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$779 - $997 body only

$1,120 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies

Sony SLT-A65 Competitors

Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$627 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-A68

Sony SLT-A68

Boutique

Focus points Many more focus points
Screen resolution Much lower resolution screen
Sony SLT A57

Sony SLT A57

Entry-level DSLR

$592 body only

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

discussion

Nikon D7000
D7000
Nikon

Report a correction
Sony SLT-A65
SLT A65
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments