Nikon D7000 vs Sony SLT A65

Winner
Nikon D7000

83

Sony SLT-A65

76

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 D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$512 - $597 body only

$480 - $697 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$828 - $1,047 body only

$1,347 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Movie continuous focus Doesn't focus continuously recording movies
Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$649 - $797 body only

$925 - $1,097 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Screen size Much larger screen
Battery life Shorter battery life

Sony SLT-A65 Competitors

Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$598 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Lowest price Much cheaper
Screen size Much smaller screen
Sony SLT-A77

Sony SLT A77

Pro DSLR

$800 body only

$1,698 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 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