I know this is an old thread, but I found it when googling the differences between the D3200 and a65. I had to laugh because EVERY TIME someone compares another brand to Sony they mention Sony's "limited" lineup of lenses. I went to a site - www.dyxum.com I think it was - and counted up all the lens reviews. They list 38 macro lenses, 104 primes, and 242 zooms. 382 different lenses that will snap perfectly onto my $500 a37 and make me the master of all time and space. (well, maybe not ALL time and space) Even if Canon and Nikon have more lenses than Sony (counting third party and discontinued lenes) 384 choices is plenty for me, especially when I can pick up spectacular glass all day long for under $100 each! I even thought about trying out a NEX camera with some of the Rokkors I picked up in lot purchases. (I filled a Pelican 6100 case with prisine lenses for under $300)

It all boils down to what you want in a camera. If you dont want to shoot video or sports by all means save $100 and choose the Nikon.

If you want features like HDR, 3D photos, built in focus motor, built in image stabilization, 150% more fps in burst mode, faster autofocus, gps capabilities, less shutter lag, in camera panorama shots, better light sensitivity, larger viewfinder with better coverage, larger sensor, more focus points and a flip out screen, then get the a65.

The Nikon does have slightly better color depth and dynamic range and is about 4 ounces lighter. It starts up a whopping 2400ms faster than the Sony, but that matters less to me personally than being able to adjust the brightness on my viewfinder. Did I mention the fact that I love the translucent mirror because it doesn't sound like a manual typewriter when you take pictures? The only advantage I can find with a clacking mirror is to get the wildlife to look directly at the camera.

I haven't had the opportunity to do a walkabout with either a Canon or Nikon DSLR, but I would love to. The features in my Sony suit me just fine, but I am looking for an experienced Nikon or Canon shooter to do a walkabout shoot with me so we can swap cameras back and for and discuss their differences without my hands cramping from typing. As you can tell by now, I tend to be long winded and arthritis sucks. Thats the main reason I went with the a37 is because it is lighter and smaller than many of the "higher class" cameras, but has more features than most. So can I still take nice pics without those extra six focus points? Sure, doesn't bother me a bit. Could I do without a 3D panoramic picture mode? Most likely, but it doesn't weigh much anyway - I can carry it all day.