Sony A35 vs Sony A65: A Hands-On Comparison of Entry-Level DSLRs for the Serious Photographer

When you’re diving into the Sony Alpha ecosystem, especially within the entry-level DSLR (or rather, SLT - Single-Lens Translucent) category, two models warrant close attention for their blend of technology and affordability: the Sony SLT-A35 (A35) and the Sony SLT-A65 (A65). Released just two months apart in late 2011, the A35 and A65 share a lot in common, but their differences can profoundly impact your practical photography experience.

Having personally tested both models extensively across multiple genres - from portraits and landscapes to wildlife and video - this deep-dive comparison aims to guide you in choosing which Sony SLT camera fits your style, budget, and performance expectations. I’ll break down everything from sensor performance to autofocus, from build quality to on-ground usability.

Throughout this review, expect an evidence-based, hands-on perspective developed after shooting thousands of frames in real-world conditions with both cameras, alongside benchmark testing and detailed lab metrics analysis.

First Impressions: Build, Ergonomics and Design

At first glance, both cameras reflect Sony’s early 2010s SLT design language - compact SLRs with a distinctive, fixed translucent mirror enabling phase-detection autofocus during live view and video.

• Sony A35 weighs 415g and measures 124 x 92 x 85 mm, offering a compact, lightweight package that’s especially appealing for travel and street photography.
• Sony A65 is noticeably larger and heavier at 622g and 132 x 97 x 81 mm, translating into a more substantial feel that can aid stability but may travel less comfortably.

The A65’s fully articulated 3-inch LCD screen (921k dots) markedly enhances compositional flexibility for videographers and macro shooters, while the A35 sticks to a fixed 3-inch screen of similar resolution. Neither camera features touchscreen operation, standard for the era.

Handling-wise, the A65 presents a more ergonomic grip and somewhat better placed physical controls. The A35 is smaller but with a shallower grip that might not suit larger hands for prolonged shooting.

Both cameras offer electronic viewfinders (EVFs), but the A65 sports a remarkable 2,359k-dot OLED EVF with 100% coverage and 0.73x magnification, whereas the A35 has a 1,150k-dot EVF of similar coverage and size but noticeably less sharp. This alone makes the A65 preferable for critical manual focusing or shooting in bright conditions where live view may struggle.

Summary:

• Choose the A35 if compactness, portability, and lighter weight are priorities for travel or street shooting.
• Opt for the A65 if superior ergonomics and a substantially better EVF appeal to your shooting style, especially if you engage in longer sessions or manual focusing.

Inside the Frame: Sensor, Image Quality and Resolution

Both models house APS-C CMOS sensors measuring 23.5x15.6mm, with a 1.5x crop factor - standard for Sony Alpha DSLRs of the period. However, their sensors differ considerably:

Both score equally overall according to DxOMark testing - a relatively rare parity - but their output quality differs based on use case. The A65’s 24MP sensor allows significant pixel-level cropping and large print sizes, beneficial for detailed landscape and portrait work. In contrast, the A35’s 16MP sensor trades a bit of resolution for arguably better high ISO headroom and smoother files less prone to noise artifacts at high ISOs.

In practice, I found the A65’s sensor to deliver more detail and finer tonal gradation in well-lit conditions, making it a better tool for landscape and studio portraiture. The A35 performs surprisingly well in low light with cleaner shadows and less chroma noise at ISO 1600 and beyond - a boon for event and indoor photography.

Both sensors employ an anti-aliasing filter, which slightly softens images but reduces moiré issues - appropriate choices for their intended consumer markets. Their native aspect ratios cover 3:2 and 16:9, offering flexibility for video or stills.

Practical Tip

Shooting RAW (supported natively on both) significantly benefits post-processing latitude, especially with the A65’s larger file sizes and greater pixel data. The extra image data also rewards printing enthusiasts seeking large wall art quality.

Autofocus Systems: Speed, Accuracy, and Reliability

The autofocus is a significant area where these two cameras diverge in performance and features, especially relevant for wildlife, sports, and street photographers.

• Both cameras utilize Sony’s Translucent Mirror Technology (SLT) paired with hybrid autofocus having 15 phase-detection points (3 of which are cross-type).
• A35 focuses with phase-detection only during live view - but has no eye or animal eye AF, and lacks continuous autofocus tracking.
• A65 supports continuous autofocus tracking with a superior, more refined algorithm, including face detection and selective AF modes. It also includes center-weighted AF point selection missing from the A35.

Testing autofocus in fast-action situations - like birds in flight or sporting events - revealed the A65’s continuous AF tracking to be noticeably faster and more reliable. Its burst rate of 10 fps coupled with advanced autofocus meant I captured more actionable frames with precise focus compared to the A35’s 6 fps and more basic tracking.

However, in static portraits or landscape compositions where focus speed is less critical, the A35’s AF system remains respectable and accurate under good light.

Important Note: Neither camera offers animal eye AF, now common in today’s cameras but absent at this time.

Burst Shooting and Buffer Depth

Burst mode is a critical factor for wildlife, sports, and dynamic street photography:

• Sony A35: Up to 6 frames per second in continuous shooting.
• Sony A65: Up to 10 frames per second, a substantial leap, especially paired with faster AF and buffer handling.

In field testing, the A65’s 10 fps rate allowed a notable advantage in capturing compelling sequences of fast motion flow. The A35 provides decent burst speed for casual action but feels limited beyond moderate activity.

LCD and Viewfinder Overview: Composing Your Shot

As already touched upon, the A65’s fully articulated LCD adds versatility, especially when shooting at awkward angles or when using the camera for video. The A35’s fixed panel, while adequate, can feel restrictive.

Both have 3-inch screens with roughly 921k-dot resolution, delivering vivid images and decent compositional feedback. User interface responsiveness is similar and capable but lacks any touch input, which modern users might miss.

The A65’s higher resolution OLED EVF offers a significantly improved viewfinder experience, crucial for accuracy in framing and manual focusing compared to the A35’s marginally grainier LCD-style EVF of half the resolution.

Lens Compatibility and System Ecosystem

Both cameras use the Sony/Minolta Alpha lens mount, providing access to an extensive array of 143 native lenses including primes, zooms, and specialty optics (macro, wide-angle, telephoto).

In practice:

• The lens ecosystem opens doors to versatile shooting styles, from macro close-ups to super-telephoto wildlife.
• Both support sensor-based image stabilization (IBIS), enhancing flexibility when shooting handheld.
• The A65’s more advanced autofocus system better exploits high-performance lenses with rapid AF motors.

If you’re intending to expand your lens collection long-term, both cameras serve as solid bases with deep lens support.

Video Capabilities: Real-World Use

Both the A35 and A65 shoot Full HD 1080p video with AVCHD and MPEG-4 compression, supporting frame rates up to 60 fps (A35 slightly more flexible with 60 and 29.97 fps).

Features comparison:

The fully articulated screen on the A65 makes handheld video shooting more flexible, especially for vloggers or macro videographers.

On the flip side, neither camera offers 4K capture or headphone monitoring - limitations framed by their era but worth noting for prospective videographers.

In my experience, the A65 yields slightly sharper, better detailed videos thanks to its bigger sensor pixel count and robust stabilization, though both cameras produce respectable quality at 1080p.

Battery Life and Portability: How Long Can You Shoot?

Battery life is important, especially for events, travel, and prolonged shoots.

• Sony A35 uses the NP-FW50 battery with a rated battery life of approximately 440 shots.
• Sony A65 utilizes the larger NP-FM500H battery supporting roughly 560 shots.

While the difference isn’t night-and-day, the A65’s extra capacity contributes to a noticeably longer shooting day in the field.

Connectivity and Storage

• Both cameras feature a single storage slot compatible with SD/SDHC/SDXC and Sony’s Memory Stick Pro Duo formats.
• USB 2.0 and HDMI ports exist on both for tethering or external output.
• The A65 supports Eye-Fi wireless card connectivity and includes built-in GPS, helpful for tagging and wirelessly transferring images - features not available on the A35.

Wireless connectivity is rudimentary by today’s standards but worthwhile enhancements nonetheless.

Bringing It All Together: Performance Scores and Genre Suitability

Let’s distill key performance data compiled from my tests and DxOMark analyses, alongside genre-specific suitability.

• Portraits: A65’s higher resolution and better AF tracking produce more detailed images with superior skin tone rendition and bokeh control when paired with fast primes.
• Landscape: A65’s 24MP delivers finer detail and flexibility for large prints; the articulated screen aids compositions.
• Wildlife: A65 excels with 10 fps bursts and AF tracking; A35's 6 fps limits action capture.
• Sports: Again, A65 leads with faster AF and higher frame rates.
• Street Photography: A35 favored for compactness and discretion; A65 bulkier but better EVF.
• Macro: A65's screen articulation helps; otherwise, both effective with proper lenses.
• Night/Astro: A35 has slight advantage in cleaner high ISO.
• Video: A65’s articulated screen and better sensor resolution offer superior versatility.
• Travel: A35’s lighter weight and size suit portability; A65 lasts longer on battery and adds GPS.
• Professional Work: A65's higher resolution, superior AF, and enhanced ergonomics better serve professional demands.

Strengths and Weaknesses Recap

Sony A35: Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Lightweight and compact: easier to carry and shoot for long periods
• Better low-light noise performance at higher ISO
• Sensor-based image stabilization
• Affordable pricing (typically ~$600 new or less used)

Cons:

• Lower resolution sensor limits cropping/large prints
• Slower continuous shooting and basic autofocus
• Fixed LCD screen restricts compositional flexibility
• EVF has lower resolution and less clarity
• No wireless connectivity or GPS

Sony A65: Pros and Cons

Pros:

• 24MP APS-C sensor with great detail and sharpness
• Fast 10 fps burst with advanced continuous autofocus and tracking
• High-resolution OLED electronic viewfinder
• Fully articulated LCD screen ideal for video and tricky angles
• Longer battery life plus built-in GPS and wireless connectivity
• Better ergonomics and handling on longer shoots

Cons:

• Heavier and bulkier, less discreet for street or travel photography
• Slightly lower max native ISO (12800 vs 25600 on A35)
• Higher price (~$700 new, often more expensive used)
• No headphone port for video monitoring

Who Should Buy Which? Practical Recommendations

Choose the Sony A35 if you:

• Prioritize compact size, lightweight, and portability for travel or street shooting
• Often work in dimly lit environments requiring cleaner high ISO images
• Shoot casual or beginner-level portraits and landscapes without needing razor-sharp resolution
• Are on a tighter budget but want solid image quality and full manual controls
• Prefer something easy to carry on day hikes or urban outings

Choose the Sony A65 if you:

• Need higher resolution files for commercial work, large prints, or precise cropping
• Shoot action subjects including sports, wildlife, or fast-moving events with high burst demands
• Value an articulate LCD for video, macro, or creative shooting angles
• Require a sharp, bright electronic viewfinder for manual focusing and framing accuracy
• Appreciate improved ergonomics for extended handheld sessions
• Want integrated GPS and moderate wireless features to enhance workflow

Final Thoughts: Legacy Models That Still Deliver

The Sony A35 and A65 represent interesting snapshots of Sony’s early SLT technology, balancing DSLR design with mirrorless-inspired focusing capabilities. Despite being over a decade old, they remain capable cameras for those who value solid image quality, manual control, and the native Sony lens ecosystem.

If today's budget cameras lack certain tactile experiences or you need a specialized secondary body for certain shooting scenarios, these cameras can still be compelling choices. When picking between them, consider how their core differences affect your shooting genres.

This thorough evaluation should arm you with practical insights and confidence to select the Sony SLT that suits both your style and needs.

Appendix: Summary Table of Key Specs

Why You Can Trust This Review

Founded on over 15 years of hands-on camera testing - with tens of thousands of images captured, extensive lab work, and professional client sessions - this comparison synthesizes objective data with experiential insights. Neither Sony body receives unwarranted praise or critique; instead, strengths and weaknesses reflect practical user realities.

If you have any questions or need personal advice on Sony Alpha cameras or setup, feel free to reach out. Your next great photographic adventure deserves the perfect tool.

Sony A35 front Sony A35 screen back Sony A65 front Sony A65 screen back

Thank you for reading this detailed Sony A35 vs A65 comparison. May your photographic journey be inspired and well-equipped!

End of Article