Sony A350: Full-Time Live View at 14.2MP

113 Comments

View All Comments

• Barbu - Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - link

  OK, it is a well-written article, but that's the anandtech's seal of valor. But i'm not here to be entertained by reading, for that I'll head to a bookstore; people need good tests...
  From a prosumer/amateur point of view, this article was just an opinion; it might pass as a good post on a forum, but clearly this is not anandtech article material; even a common car is tested by pro drivers when they do a review for a magazine. Mr. Fink (while being a very good computer reviewer) clearly isn't anymore than just an amateur dSLR user sharing an *uninformed* opinion. Not knowing how to test a camera at least using a tripod and setting the correct aperture, merely shown us at most a valid opinion only on noise test, and incidentally did a test about how lenses act when used at full aperture or stopped down a little.
  ______________________________
  
  Bottom line: what will the next action be?
  My suggestion would be that the article should be pulled; if this is not an option, they need at least to make a warning on the first page and later come with a full rebuttal and a real test done by someone more... knowledgeable.
  Until then, any amateur/prosumer would make a decision based on this article would only make an *uninformed* decision.

• nicknas - Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - link

  F-stop problems aside, I found this review fairly good and most important, NOT BIASED. The author showed his real opinion from prosumer point of view (I am one too).
  
  Responding to Johnmcl7, I am Olympus user and was glad to find various references to Olympus in the article so I don't think the author was unfair to Olympus. I am sorry too Oly killed the E-3XX series when lots of Oly fans were awaiting the E-350 (or whatever model number it might be).
  
  Congratulations to Sony for understanding the wish of many advanced non-pro photographers for easy to use and live-view capable DSLR.
  

• KorruptioN - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

  Sony's battery system with their Alpha DSLRs is a bit different. A generic battery probably won't be able to relay information pertaining to the percentage battery life remaining. Instead of looking at a battery diagram split into five, you get more accurate readings with the InfoLithium system. I'm not totally sure if a generic battery for the D300 (for example) would provide the same information to the camera.
  
  Aside from the dodgy test set-up identified by previous commenters (the K20D samples are clearly affected by camera shake)... the article is pretty well written.
  
  As for the optical viewfinders:
  
  Olympus E510, E410, E420 are smaller: 0.92 / 2 = 0.460
  Sony A350: 0.74 / 1.5 = 0.493
  Canon 400D: 0.80 / 1.6 = 0.500
  Nikon D60: 0.80 / 1.5 = 0.533
  Canon 450D: 0.87 / 1.6 = 0.544
  Sony A200: 0.83 / 1.5 = 0.553
  Pentax K200D: 0.85 / 1.5 = 0.567
  Olympus E3: 1.15/2 = 0.575
  Canon 40D: 0.95 / 1.6 = 0.594
  Pentax K20D: 0.95 / 1.5 = 0.633
  Canon 5D: 0.71 / 1 = 0.710
  
  The Olympus E-410/E-510 brothers are still smaller.

• Johnmcl7 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

  I've perhaps missed this, but amongst all the praise for the amazing liveview in the Sony there seems to be no mention of the E-330 just a brief mention of Olympus on the front page.
  
  For those unaware the E-330 actually had this liveview implementation long before Sony ever thought of it despite the way the article implies otherwise. Additionally the Olympus' solution was actually better than the current Sony one, unfortunately the E-330 fell victim to a market not ready for liveview SLRs.
  
  The E-330 used a second sensor in the viewfinder chamber coupled with a porro-prism which bounced the light round the side of the camera instead of through the familiar 'hump' at the top of the camera. The final mirror which bounced the light to the viewfinder was only partially reflective meaning 80% of the light reached the viewfinder and the other 20% went to a secondary sensor taken from an Olympus point and shoot camera. Using this second sensor the camera could function as normal with standard AF, AE and no additional mirror slapping. This was known as liveview mode A.
  
  Where the E-330 solution was superior was the additional use of the main sensor for liveview mode B this time using the main sensor - the benefits for this mode were a more accurate representation of the final image with regards to depth of field, 100% image and 10x magnification boost. By offering both modes Olympus offered the advantages of both modes whereas the Sony lacks a liveview mode being driven off the main sensor.
  
  The disadvantage was much the same as the Sony, the Olympus system compromised the viewfinder although instead of reducing magnification it instead reduced the brightness.
  
  The reason most people haven't even heard of the E-330 (seemingly even those writing camera articles here) is that Olympus is nowhere near the marketting level of Sony and additionally the E-330's liveview was misunderstood with dpreview calling it a solution looking for a problem. It's somewhat amusing that several years down the line, everyone seems to be full of praise for Sony's innovative new feature.
  
  edit: Actually the E-330 was mentioned in a preview article after being corrected, even by the same author which makes the omission here the more surprising.
  
  John

• Wesley Fink - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

  John -
  
  I am keenly aware of the E-330 and gave it coverage in an earlier article. In PMA coverage I talked about the E-330 pioneering Live View and the second sensor. However, the E-330 is no longer an Olympus production model, so we did not believe we needed to repeat praise of the E-330 in every article we write about a Live View camera. We always mention that Olympus pioneered Live View and auto sensor cleaning.

• Johnmcl7 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

  I don't understand your approach - is it that difficult to mention that Olympus E-330 pioneered this technique not Sony? Your article reads (to me at least) that this is pretty revolutionary and no-one has done it before. It would barely take one sentence and when you have a review where liveview is a significant aspect, I think it is important to at least mention that Sony is not the first camera to do this.
  
  There is a clear differentiation between a standard liveview and the systems Olympus and Sony use, your article implies Olympus pioneered with a bog standard liveview system which other manufacturers have followed but Sony have finally improved on. In fact the E-330's use of both sensors makes it the most advanced of any of the liveview cameras which means at the very least it shows the flaws in Sony and other manufacturer's models which in itself is a reason to mention it.
  
  If a processor was released using a technology someone else had pioneered but was not currently using, I have a hard time believing the article would never reference the original processor once nor would it be written from the point of view that this implementation was completely new. That's why I've come to trust AT for the articles and reviews and why I've been disappointed with the consistent errors on 4/3 cameras in every article so far (auto lens cleaning system on an E-3(!), Digilux 3 being smaller than an E-410 etc.)
  
  John

• Wesley Fink - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

  While I realize that Olympus pioneered the separate sensor in their first Live View camera - the E-330 - they have dropped that approach and used the main sensor in all their future models. Presumably the cost of the second sensor and semi-transparent mirror in their approach made it expensive to add the second sensor to their entry cameras. However, they did not even use the second senosr in the latest flagship PRO-oriented E-3 - they used a Live View that used the main sensor only, so it was not just a cost issue.
  
  I have recently used a friend's E-330 to again check how it worked. I do not share your opinion that the E-330 is the superior Live View implementation. The Sony is much easier to use and it works exceptionally well. Sony also found a way to implement sensor Live View in two entry-level cameras - the A350 and A300 - something that Olympus did not do as the E-330 was the Olympus top-of-the-line when it was introduced.
  
  Olympus is a great innovator in DSLR space as I have pointed out many times. Yet I always get flak for my enthusiasm about Olympus and the E-3, which is one of my favorite cameras. Now I'm getting flak for not giving Olympus enough credit in this review. Clearly there is no winning this with fans of any brand, so I can only try to remain balanced and objective.
  
  I respect your opinions, but I do not completely agree with them regarding the E-330 Live View. Have you shot with the Sony A350 yet to compare? Specifications alone cannot communicate how truly easy the Sony Live View is to use or how fast and convenient Live View shooting can be on the A350.

• Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - link

  "While I realize that Olympus pioneered the separate sensor in their first Live View camera - the E-330 - they have dropped that approach and used the main sensor in all their future models. Presumably the cost of the second sensor and semi-transparent mirror in their approach made it expensive to add the second sensor to their entry cameras. However, they did not even use the second senosr in the latest flagship PRO-oriented E-3 - they used a Live View that used the main sensor only, so it was not just a cost issue. "
  
  The problem was simply a market not ready for liveview, the camera was slammed by many reviewers as having this pointless feature due to the fact it reduced the viewfinder brightness. Additionally the unconventional porro-prism layout of the E-300/E-330 seemed to put people off for some reason.
  
  The reason for the E-3 not having this liveview implementation and in fact ny of the other current cameras is fairly obvious, Olympus were heavily criticised for the approach and the camera did not sell well. This was a time when liveview was not an expected feature on an SLR so you can see exactly why Olympus abandoned it and went for a simple sensor only mode, the E-3 goes the opposite direction entirely from the E-330 instead focussing on providing the best viewfinder possible. Hence a bright, pentaprism viewfinder with 1.15x viewfinder rather than the dimmer viewfinder in the E-330 using the porro-prism. The only reason the Sony has been received differently is because liveview is now an expected feature due to most manufacturers supporting it. Additionally Sony have been unable to workaround the disadvantages Olympus had to deal with, it signficantly compromises the viewfinder although in a different way.
  
  "I have recently used a friend's E-330 to again check how it worked. I do not share your opinion that the E-330 is the superior Live View implementation. The Sony is much easier to use and it works exceptionally well. Sony also found a way to implement sensor Live View in two entry-level cameras - the A350 and A300 - something that Olympus did not do as the E-330 was the Olympus top-of-the-line when it was introduced. "
  
  The Sony cannot use the main sensor which means no accurate focus and no accurate depth of field representation which puts it at a signficant weakness. One of the most common uses of liveview on SLRs is to check focus on manual lenses or for manual focus on macro lenses with accurate DoF represesntation. The Sony can do neither.
  
  The E-330 was *not* top of the line(!) when it was released, while it was expensive it was an entry level camera. The naming scheme alone gives this away with the three digits, the E-1 was the flagship model which was then replaced by the E-3. The E-xx as a midrange camera between the two is rumoured to be announced this year. While the E-1 was somewhat long in the tooth, the E-330 was still the entry level camera - unlike the E-300 or E-1 it had no grip, there was no weather sealing, poorer viewfinder etc. The specs are far closer to the entry level E-500. Before debating these definitions bear in mind the A350 isn't quite as entry level as you make out with two camera below it in the range (A200, A300).
  
  "Olympus is a great innovator in DSLR space as I have pointed out many times. Yet I always get flak for my enthusiasm about Olympus and the E-3, which is one of my favorite cameras. Now I'm getting flak for not giving Olympus enough credit in this review. Clearly there is no winning this with fans of any brand, so I can only try to remain balanced and objective. "
  
  As you have probably guessed I am a big fan of Olympus but I'm not blinded by it - when there were errors which claimed Olympus cameras to be better than they were I posted that they needed to be corrected. In this case it's not a case of giving Olympus enough credit, it's giving them the right credit - Olympus came up with the idea and the Sony implementation is a variation on it, it's a simple as that. Your article is written from the point of view this the first camera to do it this way which makes it inaccurate. I think it actually quite significant in other ways as well - it shows how much the market has changed since the E-330 was launched.
  
  I do appreciate the fact that Anandtech have taken some time to look at what's on the market rather than let the site be dominated by Canon and Nikon as others have, as a fan of the E-3 I was pleased to the general impression on the article here was not solely based on the iso performance and AA filter.
  
  "I respect your opinions, but I do not completely agree with them regarding the E-330 Live View. Have you shot with the Sony A350 yet to compare? Specifications alone cannot communicate how truly easy the Sony Live View is to use or how fast and convenient Live View shooting can be on the A350. "
  
  Unless the Sony can do liveview with its main sensor then sadly the specs can communicate accurately - Olympus realised this hence the admittedly 'clunky' dual mode liveview trying to combine the benefits of both sensors. As the Sony system is pretty much identical they have not been able to incorporate the advantages of the main sensor-based liveview into their viewfinder system. I don't believe it's possible to do this either due to the issues caused using light for/from the viewfinder.
  
  There's more reason for the Sony to have the main sensor based mode as well, the compromised viewfinder will make manual focus more difficult but without being able to use the main sensor for the 10x magnification.
  
  I personally find that when shooting at any sort of speed that I don't use liveview anyway, I need the camera well stabilised and need the speed of the optical viewfinder. I find the benefits of liveview are more for slower shooting, primarily macros where focus with the tiny depth of field can be difficult to check with even a good viewfinder, the articulated screen makes it easier when shooting in awkward screens. I do appreciate that many people especially on an entry level camera are more interested in a implementation for standard camera use. Sony definitely deserve credit for picking up the torch Olympus dropped and actual attempting something better than the current (non E-330) liveview implementations.
  
  I am hoping Olympus will spend more time on liveview again now that there's an interest in it, I don't think anyone can blame them for basically giving up on it given the way the E-330 was treated. They've done well in getting the size down with the E-420 and 25mm but a good liveview system gives even more incentive for those upgrading from non-SLR cameras.
  
  John

• cerpelai - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link

  Testing using f/1.4 to f/4.0 is like trying to test the lens not the camera.
  Using 50mm f/1.4 is a nice choice.. but to compare different cameras at that open wide aperture is not that wise.
  Using f/8 - f/11 is at best to test the camera's ability to produce good pictures, since usually all 50mm f/1.4 will perform almost the same at those aperture (usually showing the lens' max quality).
  Usually, using newspaper as target will get the best and quick result for sharpness.
  
  I know that this is somehow new to anandtech.. but, I think the review could use a lil more depth.. The conclusion is already out.. yet there's not enough fact presented about this DSLR in the review.
  

• Justin Case - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link

  Absolutely. Using an extreme aperture and not even matching it between the cameras, very long exposure times, wrong choice of subject... this article reads like "everything that you can do wrong when comparing cameras". Or "how to give authoritative opinions when you don't even understand the subject". It's beyond me why AT insists on publishing these "articles"...