Sony SLT A77 vs Olympus OM-D E-M5

Winner
Sony SLT-A77

53

Olympus OM-D E-M5

47

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A77

24p movies
Supports 24p
For that film look
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
124 ms shutter lag
Phase detection autofocus
Badge
fast and accurate
 

Reasons to buy the Olympus OM-D E-M5

Size
Really small
Standard size (122×89×43 mm)
Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Screen type
OLED Screen
Bright and vivid
Thickness
Thin
1.7"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony SLT-A77.

competitors

Sony SLT-A77 Competitors

Sony SLT A77 II

Sony SLT A77 II

Pro DSLR

$998 body only

$1,598 with 16-50mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Overall image quality Better image quality
GPS No built-in GPS
Sony SLT-A68

Sony SLT-A68

Boutique

Focus points More focus points
Weight Lighter
Screen size Much smaller screen
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$626 - $648 with 16-50mm lens

Size Significantly smaller
Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Weather sealed No weather sealing

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Competitors

Olympus OM-D E-M10

Olympus OM-D E-M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$479 - $499 body only

$549 with 14-42mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen
Olympus OM-D E-M5 II

Olympus OM-D E-M5 II

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$875 body only

$1,263 with 12-50mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Supports 24p Supports 24p
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen
Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,099 body only

$1,632 with 12-40mm lens

HDR Has in-camera HDR
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen type Doesn't have an OLED screen

discussion

Sony SLT-A77
SLT A77
Sony

Report a correction
Olympus OM-D E-M5
OM-D E-M5
Olympus

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments