Sony A350: Full-Time Live View at 14.2MP
by Wesley Fink on April 3, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Final Thoughts
Recent years in the photo industry have seen Canon and Nikon as the 800-pound gorillas playing in the DSLR jungle. Everyone else was further down the food chain. There have been some interesting cracks in that perception with Pentax teaming with giant Samsung who is making their new 14.6MP CMOS sensor in the K20D. However, no one has seemed quite so serious a challenge to Canon and Nikon in DSLR space as has Sony in the last six months with their unending parade of new models with significant new features.
Sony now has more interesting new entry DSLRs than any DSLR maker. The top entry DSLR - the A350 reviewed here - is truly unique and comfortable for those stepping up from point and shoots. It will also appeal to buyers impressed by high-resolution numbers, and frankly it delivers quite well on the promise of its 14.2MP sensor. Those who want to step up from entry DSLR can stay in the Sony line and choose the A700, and later this year Sony says they will introduce a full-frame Pro-oriented 24.6MP that will likely be called the A900.
There is absolutely no doubt that the A350 is the right camera for you if you mainly want to shoot using Live View. Nothing else comes close to the smooth and seamless Sony Live View for ease of use that makes every other implementation of Live View look complicated and slow. The A350 will certainly appeal to new DSLR buyers moving up form point and shoots. It will also attract a number of serious amateur photographers with the 14.2MP sensor, which is currently the highest resolution sensor available in any current or announced entry-level DSLR.
The good news about the sensor is that output is very clean and noise remains low up to ISO 1600. However, ISO 3200 is usable for only small prints. Color is very accurate across all ISO settings. While the A350 does not equal the CMOS sensors of the more expensive Pentax K20D 14.6MP or Canon's low-end Pro 12.2MP full-frame, side-by-side comparisons are better than we really expected. That is certainly good news for those looking for a bargain high-res DSLR.
Serious photographers need to also be aware, however, that the nifty Live View only shows 90% of the image you will capture, and the optical viewfinder is downright awful, with a somewhat dim view at the end of a very long tunnel created by the .74x viewfinder magnification. If you plan to do most of your shooting with the optical viewfinder the A200 is a better choice at a lower price, but you won't get Live View or a 14.2MP sensor if those features are important to you. The $1399 A700 seems to have it all with the best .90x viewfinder on a bright true pentaprism and the excellent 12.24MP CMOS sensor also used on the Nikon D300. However, you won't find Live View on the A700 as Sony believes it is not needed or wanted by photo enthusiasts.
The other good news is that the A350 is exceptionally easy to use. It is easy to reach a comfort level very quickly with the A350 - even if you are new to digital SLR photography. The flip side to this is that you won't find a submenu of custom functions on the A350 as you will on competing Canon and Nikon cameras. You can reassign some button functions if you would like, but you won't find anything that remotely resembles a custom functions menu. We doubt that will matter much to the A350 target audience, but you are forewarned if that matters to you.
At its price point, the Sony A350 is an exceptional value. It is easy to use with the highest resolution sensor in its class. One of our Editors just got his A350 this past week and he commented that in 15 minutes he felt comfortable with all the features of the A350 and was ready to go out and shoot like a pro. It's hard not to like the easy and fast focusing full-time Live View and the quality of the images you can take with the A350. If others feel similarly comfortable with the A350 in such a short time, this could become a best seller.
It is becoming clearer that Sony has ambitious plans in the DSLR market, and that they are willing to invest the resources for a large and varied product line to attract buyers and provide them a line to grow with. We strongly believe it takes great products, wonderful service, and competitive prices to win the market share Sony covets. The A350 is a great value in what has become a good DSLR line. Recently Sony also serviced a first DSLR product for us and the service far exceeded our expectations. That is certainly a good sign.
Sony is a huge player in the worldwide electronics market, and they bring considerable resources to a market they have said they intend to dominate. That huge size brings tremendous resources, but it can also be a handicap if Sony tries too soon or too hard to bully buyers in the DSLR market. Sony is not the biggest player yet, and the expensive proprietary battery is an example of such bullying. Sony, as one of the world's largest battery makers, is clearly self-serving in forcing Sony DSLR buyers to pay $50 to $70 for proprietary Sony InfoLithium rechargeable batteries that are available for every other DSLR brand as $10 generics.
The inability to even use AA batteries in the grips for the new Sony cameras is another example of Sony dictating to a market it does not yet lead. A smarter move would be a lower battery price along with serious marketing on the advantages of InfoLithium batteries. Then no one would care that you could only use the Sony proprietary battery. The current expensive battery only available from Sony smacks far too much of coercion to make sure Sony gets their extra pound of battery flesh from buyers who bought their cameras for the nifty features and didn't know to ask about batteries.
We wonder if accessory moves like the NP-FM500H battery and the "no AA" grips mean that Sony's thinking may be too far down the growth curve right now. Sony needs to tweak their thinking a bit and try to win new DSLR buyers instead of bullying them. Everyone knows Sony but not everyone loves Sony. Many in the photo market genuinely love Canon and Nikon and it will take a complete and solid effort from Sony to win them over.
The current lineup is a good starting point for Sony to win the market share they want to capture. If Sony can keep the announcements, innovations, and service coming - and tweak their marketing a bit to better mesh with DSLR market realities - they may actually reach their ambitious goals in the DSLR market.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
113 Comments
View All Comments
haplo602 - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Well done on the reshot. The only one lacking is the Canon 5D (should be the same image area) but other than that, quite fine.I read through almost all the comment pages and I have a few things to add.
AT is a page for geeks and enthusiasts that want the best tool for the job. In this case mostly a gaming rig (AT still has gaps in OS, server, workstation reviews). I noticed that you do not want to mimic the other established sites. The problem is, there is not much choice.
The camera models differ in details that are largely unimportant to the usual AT visitor. And you cannot expect people to ditch an SRL system when they got more than just body+kit lense.
So I suggest you pick a place that covers what the average AT visitor wants to know - make a POLL/survey about that.
Pixel peeping is not for normal people. They shoot at max ISO 800 (or whatever the auto iso setting will max at). Mostly leave the photos in digital form to present on web galleries. Hardly anybody does larger prints (beyond 10x15 cm photo). BUT I think they are concerned about ease of use, good camera manual, availability of accessories (lenses, flashes etc.), performance in mostly auto or program mode, JPEG quality and such.
These are the areas AT should work on. Hardly any serious photo site does review the automated or (idiot) scene modes.
Truth is, whoever does use scene modes on an SLR shoudl be still using a point and shoot, but there is a group of people that are not satisfied with the limits of P&S cameras, yet they have not mastered the science behind photography. These will be interested in the areas I just mentioned.
I'd say give it a thought, do a review based on that and see the reactions ...
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Since I have had several requests for same "field of view" images and crops for the Canon 5D I have added a page 7 with two sets of Canon 5D crops and full images.One set is taken from the same location with the 50mm lens. That is the set that was already in the updated review an it provides a greater field of view on the 5D than on the 1.5X multiplier cameras.
The second set of 5D images were shot with the same camera and 50mm lens moved closer to the image to try to maintain the same field of view. Despite the different fields of view, all Canon 5D cropped images are still maintained at 230x300 pixels.
With both sets of Canon 5D images you should be able to compare the A350 and Canon 5D images as you would like to see them compared.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Thank you for correcting this issue. These crops are better, but not the areas are still identical in size. Perhaps you can improve in your next set.Now, then - how about some comments on photosite size discrepancies between the a350 and 5D? Since the 5D has a larger sensor, with a smaller number of pixels, the photosites are correspondingly larger. Hence, for any given light level, these photosites will gather more photons than the a350. This will result in a higher signal to noise ratio, with less noise appearing in the crop.
Since you are fond of not getting too technical, let's say the photosites are twice as large in the 5D. If so, then should we not be comparing, say, the iso3200 on the 5D with the iso1600 on the a350?
If you do not like the above numbers, please give us unwashed readers your take on how to account for these differences in sensor sizes. Surely, you want to provide this analysis. Yes?
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Since we are still dealing with different sensor resolutions, the same field of view will yield slightly different crops since we are maintaining the same pixel crop size of 230x300. The Canon 5D is 12.2 megapixels and the Sony is 14.2 megapixels. So a same-size crop from an equivalent field of view image on the Canon 5D would still show more area than the same pixel-size crop from the higher resolution A350. To produce same pixel-size crops and take this into account would take endless manipulation with each camera tested that had a different sensor resolution or multiplier.The Pentax K20D at 14.6 and the Sony at 14.2 are closer in resolution so the differences are not as great, but there are still differences in the same pixel crops. As we would expect the Sony crop view is a bit wider since it is a bit lower in resolution than the Pentax.
We could just crop the same area from equivalent field of view photos, as I have seen done in some other photo reviews. However, it is my opinion that is not a fair representation of noise since the crop areas would represent different total pixels. This becomes an interesting problem when you compare a 10 megapixel sensor since the resolution is almost 50% less than the Pentax K20D.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
How about the issue of photosite size?From “Digital Photography Review”:
Canon 5D
Sensor Size = 35.8mm x 23.9 mm
Max Image = 4368 x 2912 pixels
Alpha 350
Sensor Size = 23.6mm x 15.8 mm
Max Image = 4592 x 3056 pixels
Assuming the above numbers are in the ballpark, we get a photosite maximum possible size of:
5D = 35.8/4368 = 8.196 or 8 microns
23.9/2912 = 8.207 or 8 microns
a350 = 23.6/4592 = 5.139 or 5 microns
15.8/3056 = 5.170 or 5 microns
Thus the 5D has a photosite area of 8x8 or 64 sq. microns
Likewise, the a350 has an area of 5x5 or 25 sq. microns
If we ignore the reductions in these areas due to photosite boundaries, which would be required for light shielding between sites and for electronics, then we can say that the 5D has approximately 2.5 times more photosite area than the a350.
Thus, everything else being equal and for the same iso setting, the 5D will gather 2.5 times more photons than the a350, with a correspondingly better signal to noise ratio, and less visible noise in the resulting image.
Therefore, why should one compare iso3200 on the a350 with iso3200 on the 5D, when the 5d would receive 2.5 times more photons in each photosite? Please explain.
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
First of all the photosite size for the K20D does not scale as you indicate. One of the Samsung/Pentax big deals is that they say they have reduced the space between photosites to increase the size. They claim the 14.6 megapixel sensor has about the same size photosites as the Sony A700/Canon A300 12.2 megapixel sensor.All else being equal the photosite size obviously matters, but all else is never equal. You can can compare the photos and crops for yourself in this review instead of calculating what should and should not be compared. As I have learned in reviewing computer components, assumptions and suppositions often get you in trouble.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Then how does it scale? How about some math instead of words?And who even mentioned the K20D? The comparison being discussed is between the a350 and the 5D. Can you read?
LOL ...
I have heard enough. And, it was far too little to be of any value. Thanks, anyway.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
This sentence:"These crops are better, but not the areas are still identical in size."
should read:
"These crops are better, but not the image areas are still not identical in size."
Sorry for the confusion. My bad.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
This sentence:"These crops are better, but not the areas are still identical in size."
should read:
"These crops are better, but the image areas are still not identical in size."
Sorry for the confusion. My bad - 2.
Maxington - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Just keep improving your reviews and listening to constructive comments Wesley. I appreciate a different take on reviews regardless, you always have to read multiple reviews from multiple people to get a proper take on a product. All of them cover a different aspect that the others didn't take into account.There is no perfect way to review cameras, have you seen the DPReview forums? They are pretty much the gold standard for reviews, and after every review, there are dozens of threads decrying the obvious flaws in the testing system! You can't win again people who are far more interested in measurebating the tech specs than taking photos, and there is no way to remove all variances between different cameras, let alone entire brands.
I tend to feel there is a lot less bias in your reviews than most "camera" sites. A lot of those smack of "If its not Canon/Nikon, its not a camera".
Hell, most of the issues that the measurebater crowd are niggling at won't even be visible in real life photos.