Sony A6500 Image Quality

Here we compare the Sony A6500 to its most recent sibling, the A6300. They use the same sensor, however Sony stated processing has been improved, especially at higher ISOs. As you see, virtually identical results here at base ISO with sharp, crisp detail, few visible sharpening artifacts, and pleasing contrast. You can see some moiré patterns in the red-leaf fabric, however that's pretty common these days among cameras with a weak or no anti-aliasing filter. Fine detail in the fabrics does look at little better from the A6500, but otherwise image quality here at ISO 100 is very similar, which is to say excellent. Our only real complaint is that color could be better, as both models tend to push yellow to green, orange to yellow and pink to red, and aren't quite as saturated as most cameras (except in reds which are heavily boosted).

In this comparison, we pit the A6500 against Canon's enthusiast 24-megapixel APS-C mirrorless, the EOS M5. The Sony has a very weak or no AA filter which helps maximize per-pixel sharpness and detail, and with Sony's excellent default processing the combination produces a sharper, crisper image without the obvious and unsightly sharpening halos produced by the Canon's default processing. We do see stronger aliasing artifacts from the A6300, though, especially in the red-leaf fabric, however the Canon blurs a lot of fine detail away in the fabric already here at base ISO. Color is however noticeably more pleasing and accurate from the Canon, with far fewer hue shifts than the Sony.

Here we compare the A6500 to the 24-megapixel APS-C Fuji X-T2 with the main difference being X-Trans vs Bayer color filtering, and of course in-camera processing. The Sony produces a slightly crisper, sharper image yet its sharpening algorithm produces less noticeable halos around high-contrast edges. Contrast is also higher from the Sony, especially in the red-leaf swatch, however it does contain visible moiré patterns while the Fuji image does not. Luma noise is a bit higher from the Fuji (but keep in mind its higher base ISO), however chroma noise in the shadows is much lower, a trait Fujis are known for. Color is more pleasing and accurate from the Fuji as well, with less orange to yellow, yellow to green and pink to red shifts, but the Sony preserves more of and perhaps even exaggerates the subtle coloration caused by offset printing in the mosaic label.

The Sony A6500 closely matches the 24-megapixel APS-C Nikon D7200 in terms of resolution, though there are plenty of differences otherwise. The D7200 image has lower chroma noise which is perhaps why the red-leaf swatch isn't as detailed, while the A6500 image has lower luma noise. Both produce sharp images, however the Nikon image contains much more obvious sharpening halos as seen in the olive oil bottle crop at the top, but the Sony exaggerates the offset printing coloration in the mosaic label which the Nikon attenuates, perhaps also treating it as chroma noise. Overall, colors are more pleasing and vibrant from the Nikon.

Here we compare the 24-megapixel APS-C A6500 to the 20-megapixel Micro Four Thirds Olympus PEN-F which has a list price and form factor much closer to the A6500 than Olympus' latest ILC, the E-M1 Mark II. At base ISO, the Sony A6500 produces a crisper, more detailed image with fewer sharpening halos. Fine detail and contrast are much better in our tricky red-leaf swatch from the Sony, however moiré patterns are much more visible. The A6500 also exaggerates the offset printing coloration in the mosaic label which the PEN-F attenuates, perhaps treating it as chroma noise. Colors are again more pleasing and accurate from the Olympus.

Very similar results here at ISO 1600 from these two siblings, however it appears default processing has indeed been tweaked. The A6300 image appears just a touch noisier with some green or turquoise tinted pixels in shadows and midtone areas that aren't present in the A6500 image, but detail is slightly better in the red-leaf swatch. (Noise in their respective RAW files looks identical, so the differences seen here are due to modified processing.)

Like we saw at base ISO, the A6500 delivers a much sharper image with better detail at ISO 1600 than the M5, though aliasing artifacts are more visible. Noise levels are comparable, however the noise "grain" from the Canon is more consistent and film-like, while the Sony's noise reduction processing produces some darker pixels and some rectilinear artifacts which give flatter areas a sightly less natural look when examined closely. Colors continue to be better from the Canon.

The Sony A6500 continues to produce a slightly sharper, crisper, more contrasty image at ISO 1600, and the offset printing coloration in the mosaic crop is no longer present in the A6500 image, suppressed by the Sony's high ISO noise reduction. The Sony also appears to do better in the red-leaf swatch, however much of the fine detail is distorted and false while the Fuji manages to be much more faithful to the subtle leaf pattern but with much lower contrast. The A6500 definitely does better with detail in the pink fabric, though, however the X-T2 continues to deliver much better overall color.

The D7200's fairly strong blurring of the red-leaf fabric jumps out in this comparison, and its rendering in the mosaic crop appears softer as well. Noise levels are a little higher from the D7200 but its noise "grain" is more natural and film-like than the A6500's. Colors from the Nikon continue to be warmer and more pleasing than from the Sony.

Here at ISO 1600 we can see the Olympus was working hard to produce a cleaner image than the Sony, however fine detail suffers as a result, with much more noticeable blurring and smearing in the mosaic and fabric crops, leading to a slightly water-colored painting effect. Almost all subtle detail is already lost by the PEN-F in our troublesome red-leaf fabric. It goes without saying that the Olympus continues to do better in terms of color, though.

The differences in default processing between the two siblings is more apparent here at ISO 3200, with the A6500 leaving behind a bit more luminance noise in flatter areas while preserving slightly better and more natural-looking detail and edges in the bottle crops. However, the A6300 appears to retain a bit more detail in our troublesome red-leaf swatch, though again much of it is heavily distorted and false.

Here at ISO 3200, the Sony A6500 continues to produce a much crisper, more detailed image than the Canon M5, however its area-specific noise reduction can produce more noticeable artifacts in flatter areas and along edges than Canon's more traditional approach to noise reduction. The M5 blurs our tricky red-leaf fabric a lot more here at ISO 3200, but much of the A6500's apparent detail in that fabric is false. The Sony does better in the pink fabric, but colors are again more accurate from the Canon.

The Sony A6500 still produces a slightly crisper, contrastier image with more punch here at ISO 3200, however noise levels are higher. Again, the red-leaf pattern may look more detailed from the Sony, but much of that detail is false, while the Fuji still renders at least some accurate detail though with lower contrast, and of course still produces more pleasing colors.

Once again, the A6500 and D7200 retain similar levels of detail in most areas, however the Sony produces a crisper image overall. The Nikon's noise pattern is more natural and film-like, though, and its colors are warmer and more accurate. And while the A6500 seems to do a bit better in the red-leaf fabric, much of the apparent detail is heavily distorted at this ISO, as mentioned previously.

Similar to what we saw at ISO 1600, the Olympus PEN-F managed to produce a cleaner image here at ISO 3200 with default noise reduction, but subtle and low-contrast detail really suffers leading to a very soft, smeared image compared to the Sony's which still retains a lot of fine detail in most areas. Color is still better from the Olympus, though.