SteveGJ
Senior Member
Perhaps satisfying his need for a little longer rather than future proofing. Of course, given human nature that is probably untrue too.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A350 v A300 - advice please.
- Thread starter jimsav
- Start date
wmussatto
Forum Enthusiast
At what ISO do you plan to shoot? I've seen at least one review which compared the resolution as ISO increased and, I believe, at or above ISO 800 the 300 could resolve better than the 350 because of noise issues.
I've been shooting with an older Minolta 75-300 Zoom and it works quite well and will take an Olympus TC-1.7 attached to the front. Of course for that I think even with IS I'd use a tripod as the camera doesn't know about it. However, the pictures seem to come out quite clear.
One adjustment I've had to make from the FZ-20 is the loss of light at the long end of the Zoom (it was 2.8 throughout its range) almost offsets the ability to safely go to ISO 800 (vs. 200 on the panny).
The live view really helps with the amateur media scrum around a cake cutting at a recent 50th wedding anniversary.
Bill
I've been shooting with an older Minolta 75-300 Zoom and it works quite well and will take an Olympus TC-1.7 attached to the front. Of course for that I think even with IS I'd use a tripod as the camera doesn't know about it. However, the pictures seem to come out quite clear.
One adjustment I've had to make from the FZ-20 is the loss of light at the long end of the Zoom (it was 2.8 throughout its range) almost offsets the ability to safely go to ISO 800 (vs. 200 on the panny).
The live view really helps with the amateur media scrum around a cake cutting at a recent 50th wedding anniversary.
Bill
Landscapephoto99
Veteran Member
For high ISOs, if you reduce the image size from 14+MP to the 10MPs of the A300, the A350 actually has lower noise. (or run it through Neat Image).
Contrary to common wisdom, more pixels can actually be better for noise:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise !
Contrary to common wisdom, more pixels can actually be better for noise:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise !
AlphaDSLR
Senior Member
Going from 10MP to 14MP is only about at 18% increase in resolution
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Which is quite a LOT - more than noticable for both printing large and cropping ability .. think of the difference as being a whole DSC-S85 or Canon G3.
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Thanks all for your contributions.
Definitely going to buy this evening.
Two final questions please.
1) will the lenses that i am willing/able to afford, be good enough to take advantage of the etra mps of the A350 -
18-70 kit ?
minolta 50mm 1.7
minolta af 35-70 f4
tamron 18-250mm - my limit for a lens
temron 18-200 - if i bottle out of paying £300 for 18-250!
If the extra 4mps will not be able to have a beneficial effect due to the quality of the glass that i can afford then it would be £50 down the drain if i choose A350 rather than A300.
2) no one has answered this question yet If i set the A350 to shoot at 10mp (presuming i can do this?), then will it increase the FPS to that of the A300?
Thanks all
Jim
Definitely going to buy this evening.
Two final questions please.
1) will the lenses that i am willing/able to afford, be good enough to take advantage of the etra mps of the A350 -
18-70 kit ?
minolta 50mm 1.7
minolta af 35-70 f4
tamron 18-250mm - my limit for a lens
temron 18-200 - if i bottle out of paying £300 for 18-250!
If the extra 4mps will not be able to have a beneficial effect due to the quality of the glass that i can afford then it would be £50 down the drain if i choose A350 rather than A300.
2) no one has answered this question yet If i set the A350 to shoot at 10mp (presuming i can do this?), then will it increase the FPS to that of the A300?
Thanks all
Jim
JerryCurtis
Veteran Member
Almost dfefinitely not
Yes
Don't know
Yes
Questionable, but probably yes.
The A350 can't be set to 10mp - only 7 (or 7.7, I think) and 3.5 (or something like that) - and only then in JPEG. RAW will always be 14MP. I don't think reducing the resolution will increase the FPS, since the cam still uses the whole sensor to take the image, then reduces the image in cam before saving. Of course, FPS is a little faster with OVF than with LiveView.
--
-Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350 - Still learning...
'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange
http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root
Yes & no ... at the right settings and with the right technique, most of those should show a bit more detail with the 14MP camera. Do you do landscape photographer stopped down for DOF on a tripod or in bright light with fast enough shutter speeds that you're recording ultra fine detail ? And does it make sense to buy a camera without DOF preview, without main sensor LV that lets you magnify the subject matter for manual focus, with a small OVF to do the kind of photography that warrants 14MP ?
You mention "future proofing" but what are you "proofing" it against ? 6MP files can be printed quite large; do you foresee printing really large ? Enough that you're willing to sacrifice money spent on the camera and money spent on storage in exchange for settling for lesser lenses ?
Is the 18-250 a lens you think you'd like to have for convenience as well as quality ? Would the A350 make you settle for the 18-200 instead ? If so, what exactly are those extra 4MP buying you ? A smidgeon of cropping (which you'll have to do with the shorter tele) and/or a smidgeon of larger printing capability (instead of a 13x19 you could do a 15x22 with the same level of detail assuming you really capture more detail to start with ... that's not significant IMO).
I'm not trying to talk you into anything - I know I mentioned earlier that I'd opt for the A300 myself. Just trying to point out tradeoffs. I view the A350 as sort of an odd duck; a camera with a handheld snapshooter design (compact, fast AF live view - nothing insulting about that; I wouldn't mind it myself) with a sensor designed for recording lots of detail with good glass and careful technique.
Tests of the 18-70 vary, but mostly indicate that the 18-70 isn't up to snuff. The 18-250 is a remarkably good lens for its range, and supposedly even competes well against the CZ16-80 in the overlapping portion of its range.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Adam-T
Forum Pro
No
Yes
Probably
yes
NO even the Kit is better - it's Poo even on a 6Mp KM
The best lens for the A350 IMO is the Tamron 17-50 - faster than the CZ 16-80 and beats it for distortion / CA both lenses wideopen whilst being just as sharp wideopen (the Tam is F2.8 compared to 3.5-4.5 remember) -- It loses out on range but is a LOT cheaper and faster .. Great for the A350, far less of a compromise than the 18-250 and at the same price - just add the 55-200 later
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Ed at Ridersite
Forum Pro
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/
Within category they are ordered by increasing focal length (minimum focal length for zooms). If there are more than about ten reviews or so and the sharpness rating is up close to 4.5 or higher, you are good to go - even a little lower for some lenses maybe.
Note that the kit 18-70mm averages out to 3.70 for sharpness based on 83 reviews. Thus, it's probably not going to give you what you are looking for:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=312
Of course there are many other considerations, but these user reviews are a good place to start and many reviewers have useful comments.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!
Within category they are ordered by increasing focal length (minimum focal length for zooms). If there are more than about ten reviews or so and the sharpness rating is up close to 4.5 or higher, you are good to go - even a little lower for some lenses maybe.
Note that the kit 18-70mm averages out to 3.70 for sharpness based on 83 reviews. Thus, it's probably not going to give you what you are looking for:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=312
Of course there are many other considerations, but these user reviews are a good place to start and many reviewers have useful comments.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!
Perhaps I don't understand the definition of resolution, but I would guess that the Bionz processor of the a350 has to process 3996928 extra pixels per photo which is by mathematic rules about 40% more? So why did the resolution only increase by 18%?
That's linear resolution.
A300 gives you 3872 x 2592
A350 gives you 4592 x 3056
About 18.5% more pixels in either direction. That means that if you're really capturing enough detail to justify the extra resolution, you can make prints that are 18% bigger along each dimension. (The area will be 40% greater).
If you aren't shooting with a sharp lens (or with a lens at an unsharp setting), are shooting handheld at moderate shutterspeeds, not nailing your focus then you can print just as big with either because captured detail is no greater in the bigger file.
If you look at dpreview's test of the A350, the resolution figures don't even achieve 18% higher than the A200 (same sensor as A300).
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Well not in JPG - not suprising, when has a Sony JPG engine ever made the most of a sensor? and the more pixels there are the worse they get .. look at an A900 JPG at 100%, very unimpressive, only in RAW does it also shine - RAW is a different matter with the 350 too and the resolution increase over the 10Mp bodies very real
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Well, I finally did it – got my new ‘baby’!
My 2 last questions were 1) A350 or A300, and 2)Body only or Kit.
After listening to all the good advice and information from many of you, I was able to make a (more) informed choice on what would suit my needs as a newbie DSLR user.
I chose the A350 because although I might not be able or willing to pay for lens good enough to get the best out of it at this very moment, I am pretty sure I will regret it in a short while when I have forgot the cost of the body, got fed up changing lenses, and the 18-250 has crashed in price- well 2 out of 3 aint bad!
I am really looking at working in RAW and that plus NR software will take care of most of the noise issues. I got a 8gb Sandisk Extreme 3 Cf card for less than £40- and will start off using RAW + JPEG.
FPS not too great an issue for me as I don’t shoot sports or wildlife
I also got the Kit instead of the body as for just £50 it gave me at least something to compare my other lenses against. If I just had my old lenses an I was disappointed by the results I wouldn’t know if it was me, or the old lenses not working properly. Also, looking on ebay, I could sell it for £30-40 – so the small loss I make on it if I don’t like it is something I can live with.
So now all I got to do is start using it – going to Tenerife next week, so Teide and the mountains will provide a great backdrop to my first efforts.
Just one more question please. I have been given a Minolta SRT101 with 50mm 1.7 lens and 135mm 3,5 lens.. As you probably all know these are MC mount. Looking on internet, I can get an adaptor for about £20 to £30. The lenses will work but only in AE exposure and obviously no AF.
Anyone use one of these adaptors, or have any knowledge about whether the quality of these two very nice lenses would be too compromised to be worth the (relatively) small outlay.
Also, has anybody bought/read The Complete Guide to Sony's Alpha 300 and 350 Digital SLR Cameras by Gary Friedman! at http://www.friedmanarchives.com/alpha350/index.htm .
Any views on it? - remember i have been a PnS convert for more than 20 years so and forgot most of what i knew in my old SLR days!
Thanks again for helping.
Jim
My 2 last questions were 1) A350 or A300, and 2)Body only or Kit.
After listening to all the good advice and information from many of you, I was able to make a (more) informed choice on what would suit my needs as a newbie DSLR user.
I chose the A350 because although I might not be able or willing to pay for lens good enough to get the best out of it at this very moment, I am pretty sure I will regret it in a short while when I have forgot the cost of the body, got fed up changing lenses, and the 18-250 has crashed in price- well 2 out of 3 aint bad!
I am really looking at working in RAW and that plus NR software will take care of most of the noise issues. I got a 8gb Sandisk Extreme 3 Cf card for less than £40- and will start off using RAW + JPEG.
FPS not too great an issue for me as I don’t shoot sports or wildlife
I also got the Kit instead of the body as for just £50 it gave me at least something to compare my other lenses against. If I just had my old lenses an I was disappointed by the results I wouldn’t know if it was me, or the old lenses not working properly. Also, looking on ebay, I could sell it for £30-40 – so the small loss I make on it if I don’t like it is something I can live with.
So now all I got to do is start using it – going to Tenerife next week, so Teide and the mountains will provide a great backdrop to my first efforts.
Just one more question please. I have been given a Minolta SRT101 with 50mm 1.7 lens and 135mm 3,5 lens.. As you probably all know these are MC mount. Looking on internet, I can get an adaptor for about £20 to £30. The lenses will work but only in AE exposure and obviously no AF.
Anyone use one of these adaptors, or have any knowledge about whether the quality of these two very nice lenses would be too compromised to be worth the (relatively) small outlay.
Also, has anybody bought/read The Complete Guide to Sony's Alpha 300 and 350 Digital SLR Cameras by Gary Friedman! at http://www.friedmanarchives.com/alpha350/index.htm .
Any views on it? - remember i have been a PnS convert for more than 20 years so and forgot most of what i knew in my old SLR days!
Thanks again for helping.
Jim
JerryCurtis
Veteran Member
What makes you think these lenses need an adaptor and won't have AF? As far as I know, both versions of the 50mm 1.7 don't need an adaptor and will function perfectly in every way on the Alphas. I have the older version (non-rubberized ring) and it functions perfectly without an adaptor. It has the designation AF on the lens. I suspect the 135mm is no different.
Congrats on your purchase. I'm sure you will have no regrets. I look forward to seeing some of your shots from the trip.
--
-Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350 - Still learning...
'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange
http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root
JerryCurtis
Veteran Member
The MC is a different mount from the Maxxum... I wasn't familiar with the different Minolta mounts...
--
-Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350 - Still learning...
'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange
http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root
--
-Jerry
Sony V1, H5 and A350 - Still learning...
'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange
http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Excellent - I use Capture One V4 which works well, Dunno about ACR as CS2 is way too old for native A350 support, freebies like RAW Therapee are way way too slow updating when making adjustments
the Kit is sharp in the middle but you may find decentering issues (soft at one side) which are masked more with lower rez cams and it suffers CA, but you certainly wont be losing out using this lens on an A350 as opposed to a lower rez cam such as an A300, A700 etc.
The JPG engine isn't bad at base ISO but it needs sharpening a lot - I'd not shoot above ISO100 with it though as Sony's overzealous NR is very crude (little more than gaussian blur) - I'd spend the time experimenting with RAW converters and post processing etc - Live view gives metering better than any other Sony or KM, it's excellent but I think you'll find the viewfinder is a lot better than its made out to be (especially if you've looked through an Olympus DSLR or an older canon or Nikon budget model)
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum