Sony SLT A77 vs Olympus E-5

Winner
Sony SLT-A77

100

Olympus E-5

64

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony SLT A77

Great image quality
Overall image quality
78.0
Great color depth
Color depth
24 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.2 EV
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.72x
 

Reasons to buy the Olympus E-5

Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism
Interchangeable lenses
Interchangeable lenses
Many lenses to choose from
Storage slots
More storage slots
2
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Olympus E-5.
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

$1,198 body only

$1,798 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Focus points More focus points
GPS No built-in GPS
Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$444 - $448 body only

$525 - $548 with 16-50mm lens

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Autofocus Slower autofocus
Sony SLT A58

Sony SLT A58

Entry-level DSLR

$632 with 18-55mm lens

Size Smaller
Battery life Slightly longer battery life
Screen size Much smaller screen

Olympus E-5 Competitors

Sony SLT A37

Sony SLT A37

Entry-level DSLR

$320 with 18-135mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
Viewfinder Has a digital viewfinder
Nikon D90

Nikon D90

Entry-level DSLR

$1,749 body only

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Overall image quality Much better image quality
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$998 - $1,498 body only

$1,701 with 14-140mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Color depth Better color depth
Viewfinder Has a digital viewfinder

discussion

Sony SLT-A77
SLT A77
Sony

Report a correction
Olympus E-5
E-5
Olympus

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments