Samsung WB800F vs Sony A65: A Detailed Comparison for Discerning Photographers

Choosing between two cameras with such different designs and target audiences is always an interesting challenge. The Samsung WB800F, introduced in early 2013, is a compact superzoom with a small sensor but a massive focal range, while the Sony SLT-A65, from late 2011, is an entry-level DSLR-class camera designed for enthusiast users craving manual controls and superior image quality. I’ve extensively tested both cameras over the years, and today I’ll walk you through their core strengths, weaknesses, and which camera suits specific photography needs.

Throughout this article, I’ll share my hands-on observations, technical analyses, and practical insights into everything from ergonomics to image quality. Plus, you’ll find all seven images integrated at the most relevant points to supplement the discussion.

Seeing Them Side by Side: Size and Handling

First off, let’s size them up. The Samsung WB800F is a compact, pocketable camera designed for convenient travel and casual shooting. The Sony A65 is much larger and substantially heavier, thanks to its DSLR-like body and more complex internals.

With dimensions of just 111x65x22 mm and weighing a mere 218 grams, the WB800F is a true grab-and-go compact. In contrast, the A65 measures roughly 132x97x81 mm and tips the scales at 622 grams - a significant increase. Handling-wise, the A65 boasts a deep handgrip and extensive physical controls, whereas the WB800F is minimalist, relying mostly on its touchscreen.

If you value portability over rugged handling, the WB800F feels less intrusive and more travel-friendly. Conversely, for those who prefer a solid grip and tactile dials, the A65’s form factor will satisfy better.

Control Layouts and User Interface: Efficiency vs. Simplicity

Beyond size, the user interface shapes your overall experience. Let’s peek at their top views.

The Sony A65 emphasizes traditional DSLR controls: dedicated mode dial, exposure compensation dial, multiple customizable buttons, and a physical shutter speed/aperture priority control. This layout supports swift manual adjustments without diving into menus.

Meanwhile, the WB800F’s top is pared down to the essentials - mode and zoom lever, plus a shutter release. It banks heavily on its fixed 3-inch TFT touchscreen with 460k-dot resolution for menus and setting changes. Touch input can be hit or miss, especially outdoors, and lacks the finesse of physical dials.

I often find myself reaching for dedicated controls when shooting fast-paced events or wildlife. Here the A65 has a clear advantage for enthusiasts and professionals, while the WB800F aims for casual convenience.

Sensor Size and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

The fundamental dividing line between these cameras is their sensor technology.

The WB800F sports a modest 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensor (approximately 6.17x4.55 mm), typical in superzoom compacts, with 16 MP resolution. It’s paired with a 21x optical zoom (23-483 mm equivalent) and a variable aperture of f/2.8 to f/5.9. On the other hand, the Sony A65 employs a much larger APS-C-sized CMOS sensor (23.5x15.6 mm) with 24 MP, leveraging Sony’s proven Bionz processing engine.

What does this mean practically? The A65’s sensor area is more than ten times larger (366.6 mm² vs. 28.1 mm²), delivering:

• Much cleaner images at higher ISOs, thanks to bigger pixels with less noise.
• Greater dynamic range, preserving shadow and highlight details.
• Higher resolution with more nuanced color gradation.

The small sensor in the WB800F struggles with noise at its maximum native ISO 3200; shadows lose detail quickly, and images can look plasticky. While its wide zoom range is impressive for basic shooting and casual landscapes, image quality is inherently limited by sensor size.

In my experience, the WB800F suffices for web sharing and snapshots, but serious enthusiasts aiming for high image fidelity will find the A65 superior for everything beyond casual use.

The LCD and Viewfinder Experience: Composing in Different Styles

Besides the sensor, composing your shot hinges on the screen and viewfinder systems.

The WB800F uses a fixed 3-inch touchscreen LCD with a modest 460k-dot resolution. While touch controls are easy to learn, the screen brightness and viewing angles fall short in bright sunlight. No electronic or optical viewfinder is available, so composition relies on the LCD alone, which can be challenging in direct outdoor light.

The Sony A65 features a fully articulated 3-inch LCD with much higher 921k-dot resolution for crisp image review and menu navigation. More notably, it incorporates a high-resolution electronic viewfinder (EVF) with 2,359k dots, 100% coverage, and 0.73x magnification - an immersive and bright viewing experience uncommon in entry-level DSLRs at the time. This EVF shows exactly what the sensor sees, including live exposure preview and focus peaking, which makes manual focusing easier.

For photographers shooting in bright or variable light conditions, the EVF on the A65 is a significant advantage. The WB800F’s touch LCD feels limiting when you want precise framing or quick reactions.

Autofocus Systems Compared: Responsiveness and Accuracy

Sharp focus is essential across all genres. These cameras implement different autofocus (AF) systems, reflecting their class.

The WB800F uses a contrast-detection AF system with face detection and tracking capabilities - typical for compacts. It can operate single-shot focus but lacks continuous AF during burst shooting. Unfortunately, the camera does not provide precise info on the number of focus points, but it supports multi-area, center, and selective focusing.

The Sony A65, featuring a Translucent Mirror Technology (SLT), employs a hybrid AF system combining phase-detection and contrast-detection with 15 AF points (3 of them cross-type). It supports continuous AF, face detection, eye detection, and includes AF tracking for moving subjects. Real-world AF response is noticeably faster and more reliable, particularly in sports, wildlife, and action photography.

In practice, the A65 nails focus lock quicker and maintains it better when tracking erratic subjects - a must-have for wildlife and sports shooters. The WB800F, while adequate for landscapes and portraits in stable conditions, can feel sluggish or hunt in low-contrast scenes.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Performance

If you’re shooting fast action or fleeting moments, continuous shooting speed matters.

• The WB800F doesn't officially specify continuous shooting rate, and from hands-on testing, it performs more like a point-and-shoot with single-shot emphasis.
• The Sony A65 boasts an aggressive 10 frames-per-second continuous shooting speed with full AF tracking. For the 2011 release period, this was remarkable and still relevant for action photography today.

This speed difference is substantial in sports, wildlife, and candid street shooting. The A65 also offers shutter speeds between 30 seconds and 1/4000 second for creative flexibility, compared to the WB800F’s 16 to 1/2000 seconds range.

Lens Ecosystem: Fixed Zoom vs. Interchangeable Versatility

While the WB800F has an all-in-one fixed zoom lens ranging from an ultra-wide 23mm equivalent to a 483mm telephoto (21x), the Sony A65 supports Sony Alpha mount lenses, with over 140 compatible lenses from Sony and third parties. This lens range spans ultra-wide primes, macro lenses, massive super-telephotos, and specialty optics.

A fixed lens camera like the WB800F is convenient and compact but locks you into compromises - lens sharpness, aperture range, and focal length.

The Sony A65's flexibility lets you tailor your kit for different genres - inexpensive primes for street and travel, fast telephotos for wildlife, and stabilized macro lenses for close-ups.

I'd argue that the lens ecosystem advantage alone justifies the A65 for serious photographers intending to grow their skills.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance

Neither camera is notably weather sealed or ruggedized. Both lack dustproofing, waterproofing, or shockproof features. However, the A65’s build quality feels more robust - its body is sturdier, with better sealing around buttons, though not up to professional standards.

For casual travelers mindful of harsh conditions, both cameras require care, but the solid feel of the Sony gives it a slight edge in confidence during extended use.

Video Capabilities: Which Camera Films Better?

Both offer Full HD video recording, but with different specifications and features.

• Samsung WB800F shoots 1080p video at 30fps with H.264/MPEG-4 compression, but it lacks microphone input and stabilizes digitally only.
• Sony A65 records Full HD at up to 60fps (1920x1080), allowing slow-motion playback, supports AVCHD and MPEG-4 formats, and importantly includes a microphone input jack - crucial for external audio recording.

The A65’s sensor-based (in-body) image stabilization benefits video shooters by smoothing shakes across lenses. Plus, the electronic viewfinder helps in framing when recording.

If video is a priority, especially with external audio, the A65 is clearly superior.

Special Features and Connectivity

The WB800F has built-in wireless connectivity, though limited to Wi-Fi for image sharing. No Bluetooth or NFC support. Its touchscreen interface may feel clunky outdoors.

The Sony A65 supports Eye-Fi card connectivity for wireless image transfer and has built-in GPS, a boon for geotagging travel photos. It uses USB 2.0 and HDMI ports; the A65 also offers external flash support with versatile modes including wireless control.

Battery life favors the A65 strongly, rated at approximately 560 shots per charge, compared to the WB800F’s unspecified but likely shorter lifespan given compact battery size.

Genre-by-Genre Performance and Recommendations

To synthesize, let’s break down specific photography styles and evaluate which camera fits best.

Portraits:

• A65 leads with its large APS-C sensor delivering beautiful skin tones and natural bokeh from compatible lenses. Eye detection AF helps nail sharp focus on subjects.
• WB800F provides face detection, but shallow depth-of-field effects are limited by small sensor.

Landscapes:

• The WB800F’s zoom can capture sweeping views with ease but at a quality and dynamic range disadvantage.
• The A65’s higher resolution and dynamic range produce more detailed, vibrant images. Weather sealing is absent on both, so use caution in poor weather.

Wildlife:

• The A65’s fast, accurate AF and high burst rate let you capture fast-moving animals effectively, plus interchangeable telefoto lenses.
• The WB800F can reach far with 483mm equivalent zoom but slower AF and no burst mode limit wildlife photography success.

Sports:

• Similar to wildlife, the A65’s AF tracking and 10fps burst dominate in this arena.
• The WB800F is inadequate for high-speed action.

Street Photography:

• WB800F’s compact size and quiet operation offer discretion; however, compromised low-light performance and slower AF reduce effectiveness.
• The A65 is bulkier but provides superior image quality and autofocus.

Macro:

• A65’s lens choices including macro options and in-body stabilization facilitate sharper close-ups.
• WB800F macro focusing info is lacking; no specialized macro lens.

Night/Astro:

• The A65 easily outperforms at high ISOs due to its sensor size, capturing cleaner detail with controlled noise.
• WB800F struggles above ISO 800, limiting astro use.

Video:

• Thanks to microphone input, better stabilization, and enhanced codec options, the A65 is preferable.
• WB800F suits casual video but lacks pro features.

Travel:

• WB800F appeals with size, weight, and zoom range, ideal for casual vacation photography without lens changes.
• A65 is versatile and high-quality but demands more packing space.

Professional Use:

• The A65 supports RAW files, advanced exposure modes, and robust workflow integration for professionals.
• WB800F lacks RAW support and is aimed at casual users.

Sample Images for Real-World Insight

Seeing is believing, so here’s a selection of sample shots from both cameras. Note the superior sharpness, dynamic range, and color fidelity from the A65’s larger sensor.

Samsung WB800F screen back Sony A65 front Sony A65 screen back

Overall Performance Ratings

To encapsulate performance, the DxO ratings (available only for Sony A65) and my experience are summarized below:

While the WB800F was not formally tested by DxOmark, the Sony A65’s respectable scores reflect its status as a capable all-rounder in its class.

Final Thoughts and Who Should Buy Which Camera?

If you want a compact, lightweight camera with a huge zoom for casual snapshots, quick travel photos, and simple sharing, the Samsung WB800F fits the bill well. Its user-friendly touchscreen and fixed lens give an enjoyable experience for beginners or those avoiding complexity. But be aware image quality and autofocus performance are limited by the small sensor and entry-level features.

Conversely, the Sony A65 remains a compelling option for photography enthusiasts seeking versatility, superior image quality, and manual controls. Its impressive autofocus system, lens flexibility, decent video features, and EVF outclass the WB800F in nearly every advanced use case. Though heavier and pricier, it offers creative freedom and professional viability.

Recommendations:

• Casual users, travel photogs, and beginners on a budget: Samsung WB800F
• Enthusiasts, hobbyists, and entry-level professionals needing creative control and quality: Sony A65

Both cameras hold nostalgic value today given their vintage, but understanding their differences highlights key considerations between compact all-in-ones versus entry-level DSLRs.

I encourage you to handle both in person if possible to test ergonomics and interface - personal comfort always trumps specs on paper.

I hope this thorough comparison clarifies which camera aligns with your photographic journey. Feel free to comment if you want hands-on video reviews or sample RAW files for deeper analysis!

Happy shooting!