Why A350 and not A300

Hello All,

A newbie in dSLR zone, impressed with LiveView and in-body stabilization of Sony so looking for either A300 or A350. The mini/major reviews around the web state that its only the difference in the sensor and nothing else. Still I fail to understand, why people want to run so much after the pixels? Am I missing something?

The reasons I am zeroing down on Sony are

• Glasses user who doesn't like sticking camera to the face, LiveView comes handy
• In-body stabilization, looks like thats the future, reduces the price and weight of the future lenses
• Price, one of the major factor.

Any comment on

• why I should NOT go for in-body stabilization? (I heard that it fails on long telephoto)
• If you are the owner of either of these, what you didn't like in these cameras?

I do not want to split hairs on these issues as no equipment is perfect and also depends on the user so general idea would be welcome.

Wandering said:

Any comment on

• why I should NOT go for in-body stabilization? (I heard that it

fails on long telephoto)

Click to expand...

Just how long is long? The longest focal length I have right now is a 300mm and it works just fine with the a700 IS. AFAIK the in-body works just fine on long lenses. However, the in-lens stabilization used by Canon and Nikon fails to exist on prime (single focal length) lenses.
-Phil

I bought the A300 a month ago and love it. I chose it over the A350 after shooting test shots in the store and taking them home to review. For my personal evaluation of shots I might take, I thought there was possibly less noise in the A300, and I was happy with fewer megapixels in earlier cameras--all the way back to a Kodak 2.1 MP camera that gave me landscape shots in 12x18" that are still hanging on my wall.

However, my spouse got the Nikon D300, with 12 MP, and is sure he can bulls-eye his subject in shooting and still have enough pixels to re-compose in cropping.) His Nikon D300 also has ev+ & -5 !!! That's amazing. My A300 goes to + & - 2 (or 3, I'm uncertain at the moment) and I've sometimes wanted more. But that's the only drawback I've found.

In-body stabilization is a life-saver; I need all the steadying help I can get because I've never been a steady holder, and with the stabilization, I can go to 1/30 second. I also rented the big white 70-200mm lens from AlphaWorld, and the stabilization helped with that. The stabilized lenses that my spouse uses are heavier and I prefer the new lightweight ones.

I have not learned to use the lens in a tilting position yet; I wear contacts & look through the viewfinder, but I think the tilt will come in handy from time to time.

Good luck! You can hardly go wrong. - JeanR

A good place to read up on both cameras is http://www.alphamountworld . Carl Garrard reviews both in a way I can concur with...

I first bought the A300, the sent it back for an A350 with the thought the extra megapixels would help with resolution/cropping as you mentioned... then sent it back and re-got an A300. To get all that the A350 offers, you really need to get a lens like the CZ16-80. I wanted the 18-250 lens as my main walkaround; it's quite sharp but doesn't seem to bring out the very best of the A350 resolution, but does just fine with the A300. I also feel that there's a bit less noise at higher ISO's with the A300.

But either way, they're BOTH fabulous cameras.

Another great article to read is on David Kilpatrick's site, http://www.photoclubalpha.com , entitled "Which Sony Alpha?"

William

Phixel said:

works just fine on long lenses. However, the in-lens stabilization
used by Canon and Nikon fails to exist on prime (single focal length)
lenses.

Click to expand...

Canon has several primes with IS from 200 through 600mm. They do not have IS in a prime shorter than 200mm because primes of that length are generally wide aperture and that attribute alone compensates for the need of IS.

Jean Ricket said:

re-compose in cropping.) His Nikon D300 also has ev+ & -5 !!! That's
amazing. My A300 goes to + & - 2 (or 3, I'm uncertain at the moment)
and I've sometimes wanted more. But that's the only drawback I've
found.

Click to expand...

Please tell me a situation, other than an "hdr" attempt, where you would need + or - 5 exposure compensation yet alone + or - 3.

I researched long and fastidiously - I chose the A300 for less noise at higher ISO and faster shooting....the very reason I needed to supplement my R1. The xtra megapixel A350 to me, seemed like more of a marketing gimmick than anything. I print 20x30+ sizes from my 10mp R1 with great success...I see no need for more.
--
http://www.karenengel.com

• Karen

RedFox88 said:

Phixel said:

works just fine on long lenses. However, the in-lens stabilization
used by Canon and Nikon fails to exist on prime (single focal length)
lenses.

Click to expand...

Canon has several primes with IS from 200 through 600mm. They do not
have IS in a prime shorter than 200mm because primes of that length
are generally wide aperture and that attribute alone compensates for
the need of IS.

Click to expand...

Yes because thats what they chose.. many people here shoot primes at 100mm and under and that is where there is no IS option, choice Canon.. no choice for stablization for non long telephoto lenses..

------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

RedFox88 said:

Jean Ricket said:

re-compose in cropping.) His Nikon D300 also has ev+ & -5 !!! That's
amazing. My A300 goes to + & - 2 (or 3, I'm uncertain at the moment)
and I've sometimes wanted more. But that's the only drawback I've
found.

Click to expand...

Please tell me a situation, other than an "hdr" attempt, where you
would need + or - 5 exposure compensation yet alone + or - 3.

Click to expand...

You here a lot these days.. must be thinking about going to Sony and want to see what;s up right
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

most of my shooting is at low ISO and I do a lot of cropping. I have reasonably good lenses, but I am not sure they do justice to the A350 resolution.

Lately, there have been extensive discussions of the A350 exceptional dynamic range. I have salvaged crops from some pictures that were strongly over exposed. I am not sure a camera with less dynamic range would have done it so well.

The A300 uses the previous generation sensor. It is a safer bet. The A300 has less noise, but it is not a low noise champion. The Canon's have much less noise. So I am not sure that the noise difference between the A300 and the A350 is all that significant; particularly since I seldom use high ISO's

The A350 is a new generation sensor. There might be some values in this sensor that users still have to learn to use properly. Some users, who appears well experienced and who were quite critical of the A350 at first, seem to warm-up to its virtues.

I do not plan to keep the camera forever; I will probably trade-up in a year or two and I figure that the A350 will have better resale value.

So I am sitting on the fence, waiting for the review on this site to advice on how best to use the A350.

Frank

i am using the A350 and choose over the A300 because it allows me to do a bit of cropping if the situation calls for; some reviews did mention that the A300 has better noise control at iso800 and over, but i hardly shoot my subject beyond iso400, that's not an issue for me. Just like other members have said, the smaller sensor of A350 calls for a much better glasses, in another word be prepared to invest in Sony's G and Carl Zeiss series. If you are on a tight budget, the A300 would do fine in many aspects and happy with the regular Sony lens and 3rd party ones, as many A300 users can testify here. So Wandering, i hope that helps a bit with your decision and don't forget to try them both out at your local camera store to get a feel of them, as i read some users are not that happy with the optical view finder, which i find no issue probably because i used to have a p+s before ;-) oh yes, one more thing .... the A350 has a lower burst shooting rate than the A300, if you like sport photography the A300 would make you happier.

RedFox88 said:

Canon has several primes with IS from 200 through 600mm. They do not
have IS in a prime shorter than 200mm because primes of that length
are generally wide aperture and that attribute alone compensates for
the need of IS.

Click to expand...

If aperture was only about setting the amount of light, that statement would almost make sense, but as it's also controlling depth-of-field, it doesn't. And just because a lens has a wide aperture giving more light doesn't mean you suddenly don't need stabilisation any more. You just expand the scope of use a few stops. You will still benefit from stabilisation no matter how bright the lens is.

--
Yours etc.
Torsten Balle Koefoed

RAW should be raw, not cooked!

http://www.elgsdyr.dk

edkwan said:

Just like other members have said, the smaller sensor of A350
calls for a much better glasses, in another word be prepared to
invest in Sony's G and Carl Zeiss series.

Click to expand...

I've heard this a lot and, I'm probably being thick here, but please could someone clarify something?

Does it mean that with less expensive lenses (e.g. my Tamron F2.8 28-75) the pictures from the A350 would actually be worse than from the A300, or is it just that I wouldn't see much (or any) improvement from the A350 compared to the A300 without better quality lenses.
Sorry if that's a stupid question.

Edkwan mentioned about the viewfinder of the A300/350. In case it seems too small of a magnification, there is a perfectly fine solution/remedy to that...

There are two magnifiers that fit perfectly on these cameras that will increase the viewfinder magnification from .74 to .87 -- which is about the same as the A700. They are the Pentzx ME-53 1.18x magnifier and the Nikon DK-21M 1.17x magnifier. You simply remove the eyepiece cup and install either one of these on the same grooves.

There is a thread discussion on these starting at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=27954897 .

It includes pictures of how they fit/look on the camera, how they affect (or not) the auto-eye-deection/focus, glasses-weares, etc

William

Wandering said:

Hello All,

Click to expand...

Wandering said:

• why I should NOT go for in-body stabilization? (I heard that it

fails on long telephoto)

Click to expand...

That is not correct... I use both systems and both work you can always argue that the in-lens IS is better in the long telephotos and I wouldn't disagree with that but remember your in-body SSS will work with all your lenses

--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

JaneB said:

edkwan said:

Just like other members have said, the smaller sensor of A350
calls for a much better glasses, in another word be prepared to
invest in Sony's G and Carl Zeiss series.

Click to expand...

I've heard this a lot and, I'm probably being thick here, but please
could someone clarify something?
Does it mean that with less expensive lenses (e.g. my Tamron F2.8
28-75) the pictures from the A350 would actually be worse than from
the A300, or is it just that I wouldn't see much (or any) improvement
from the A350 compared to the A300 without better quality lenses.
Sorry if that's a stupid question.

Click to expand...

Jane, it's the latter, that you will see some limited improvement (not worse) using the A350 with the "consumer grade" lenses. To take full advantage of the 350's higher density sensor you will probably have to get the better glass. IMHO David K. did an excellent job on a concise yet fair comparison of Sony Axxx models - worthy of a read if you are considering the purchase of one of the Axxx.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/05/26/which-sony-alpha/

On vacation, some lovely torches lined the streets and provided real ambiance to tourists like me, and when I shot them, I found I had to experiment quite a bit and ended up with as much under-exposure as I could get in order to not blow out the bright flames and still keep some detail in the metal holders.

I set my ev to -2 (the maximum) and then tried different apertures & shutter speeds and did get some good photos.

My spouse with the Nikon D300 set his ev to -4 and instantly got a beautiful yellow flame with fine detail on the black metal holders. He then set it to -5 ev and got a red-orange flame and good detail on the dark holders.

Perhaps the D300's extreme ev adjustments could be called the lazy-man's way to extend dynamic range. I'm not sure if I used my A300's DRO in that shooting instance or not. Admittedly, this wouldn't be an everyday situation.

JeanR

Ken_5D said:

You here a lot these days.. must be thinking about going to Sony and
want to see what;s up right

Click to expand...

No, just from time to time. I enjoy reading other forums and look for intriguing discussions to take part in. Like I said in a very recent post, I have no plans for any new cameras as my 5D and film cameras do everything I need them to do.

In answer to your questions, let me start by saying I just purchased the A300 after sitting on the DSLR fence for some time. I adore this little beast for so many reasons which I will post when I have more time to reflect and write.

Re the pixel count, couldn't agree with you more. I purposely waited for the A300 and stand 100% convicted I made the right decision - for me. Having said this, one of the joys I quickly came to realize is that RAW is the way to go. 10 megapixel when utilizing RAW, all I can say is wow! Anyone not getting the crisp P&S results they expected need to walk down this path. But if you don't have access to a p.c. with an apptitude for a little tinkering, RAW will not be for you and stick with a P&S.

Re Image stabilzation - there is no miracle cure for bad picture taking (i.e. zoomed out and you're not totally stabilized ) but I find the A300 IS good. The A300 and 350 have a unique IS feature which, when IS is turned on, has a little bar meter that shows how much movement it senses. Kinda cool. Lurk in the Canon forums and you will see polarized comments re Lens IS which will difinitively prove there is no one right answer, just user preference. In my opinion, neither one hold a superior advantage so much so that it can be clearly identified as such. Another way to put it, don't sweat this too much. Best choice would be a little gyro device on bottom of camera to counterbalance physical camera shake - used by some arial photographers.

Re What I don't like - very, very little. Only things are small quibbles - low light is good but would like it to be better. However, all the other killer things I adore about the camera more than make up for this. And.....small percentage of my shots are in extreme low light conditions, so not that big of an issue.

Also, I am in love with the live view for many reasons ( one of which is how beautifully crisp it is ) and keep it on all the time. As a result, I wear the battery down a little quicker than non live view. But the counterpoint(s) to this are: Sony batteries are very good - I shoot using the flash frequently taking lots of kid pics ( I find flash deals with face shadows nicely and give colors a bit of pop, I know many will disagree with me on this ) and the A300 recycles between flash shots very quickly even down to about 25% of remaining battery life ( and yes the % remaining time is another feature I really like). I am not a professional taking 600 shots a shoot so the battery is fine as far as I am concerned. I am going to buy a second one, which I would do regardless of what camera I bought and would suggest everyone does the same, which further makes this a non issue.

On a closing note, regardless of what the so-called "purists" may say, live view makes picture taking so much more pleasureable and adds a new dimension which most of us could previously only dream of had we enough coin to purchase a Hasselblad.

And to close on a smile, my kid pics no longer have them looking up at me.

--
Bobby

Thank you - that makes sense.

I have read David's article and I hope that by the time I have saved up the money I will have made a decision - I keep changing my mind.