Sony A350 Review @ DPreview.com

[GTaudiophile]

Starts Here!

 

[astrosfan315]

I bought an a300 just yesterday. I haven't opened it up yet as it's a gift to my wife, but we are leaving tonight to go to Florida beaches for a week so I'll have a better idea of whether or not I spent my $900 wisely

 

[jpeyton]

If they were going to make the viewfinder that small, why not remove it completely to make room for a 4.0" VGA LCD on the back?

 

[punchkin]

Looks pretty poor.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Looks pretty poor.

For a heavy-duty DSLR, sure. For a camera designed to be used by people who want a DSLR but want to use it as a point-and-shoot, it's about perfect.

We can piss and moan all we want about how live view isn't the best except for certain specific uses (macro, studio, etc), but the fact is that if the live view works well, there will be legions of parents and grandparents who will flock to the camera because, frankly, they don't want to ever use the viewfinder.

Not every DSLR is targeted at people who lust after a 1DMkIV.

ZV

 

[punchkin]

... about perfect except for the image quality, responsiveness, etc.. There are plenty of better choices for someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: punchkin
... about perfect except for the image quality, responsiveness, etc.. There are plenty of better choices for someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot.

I wholeheartedly agree, but of course there are people who don't care about these things, sadly enough. They go "OoooOOooo a camera where I can change lenses and aim through the LCD!" I seriously doubt any of these people the camera is targeted at actually look at image quality and responsiveness, etc otherwise we wouldn't (still) be in this stupid megapixel race with crappier and crappier P&S and dumbed down DSLRs.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: punchkin
... about perfect except for the image quality, responsiveness, etc.. There are plenty of better choices for someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot.

I wholeheartedly agree, but of course there are people who don't care about these things, sadly enough. They go "OoooOOooo a camera where I can change lenses and aim through the LCD!" I seriously doubt any of these people the camera is targeted at actually look at image quality and responsiveness, etc otherwise we wouldn't (still) be in this stupid megapixel race with crappier and crappier P&S and dumbed down DSLRs.

Yep, good points. And Sony is mounting a pretty canny marketing and product development strategy aimed at P&S users, right down to increasing megapixels at all costs. I just think it's a shame that a lot of people will upgrade for improved image quality, which they will certainly get over a P&S but basically be shorted on by the Sony design ethic.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: punchkin
... about perfect except for the image quality, responsiveness, etc.. There are plenty of better choices for someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot.

I wholeheartedly agree, but of course there are people who don't care about these things, sadly enough. They go "OoooOOooo a camera where I can change lenses and aim through the LCD!" I seriously doubt any of these people the camera is targeted at actually look at image quality and responsiveness, etc otherwise we wouldn't (still) be in this stupid megapixel race with crappier and crappier P&S and dumbed down DSLRs.

Yep, good points. And Sony is mounting a pretty canny marketing and product development strategy aimed at P&S users, right down to increasing megapixels at all costs. I just think it's a shame that a lot of people will upgrade for improved image quality, which they will certainly get over a P&S but basically be shorted on by the Sony design ethic.

Yeah, but what can you do, you know? The issue is on both sides. The manufacturers for continually feeding consumers strategic mis-information and the consumers for not "breaking out" and educating themselves on what they're putting their money into. If the average person just put a little bit more time and enthusiasm into figuring out the nature of a product we wouldn't have crappy products. All the unbiased information is out there on the web to help people make a good decision, but it is the consumer's choice to ignore it.

 

[Deadtrees]

Sony's noise reduction algorithm is nothing but terribie. Sure, they killed the noise but after all, what's up with that horrible smeared and muddy images?
What's the point of 14 mp when it produces P&S like images in ISO 800 and above? Is it supposed to be a day light camera?

But then again, seeing how Anandtech's own camera reviewer even thinks that it must be all good because it shows very low noise, I believe most of the people will just fall for it.

 

[randomlinh]

The biggest seller will live view. And to be honest, Sony did a good job with how it's being implemented I think. It'll work for the market they are after. Hopefully it will fund some better development on the other end to stir up some more competition there.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Looks pretty poor.

And from a review of a non-Canon camera on DPReview -- what a shocker. The bias of their reviews is pretty ridiculous already. One example: Sony gets knocked for having 410 shots from a single battery charge when using LiveView 100%, yet their CIPA rating without LV is higher than Canon's latest (710 vs 600) -- except Canon doesn't even give a CIPA rating for 100% LV usage. I didn't notice a similar comment about Canon's "very poor battery life" with LV.

And, despite having the best LV implementation currently available, DPReview sees fit to denigrate it because studio and macro shooters won't like it. That's just absurd. :roll:

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: punchkin
Looks pretty poor.

And from a review of a non-Canon camera on DPReview -- what a shocker. The bias of their reviews is pretty ridiculous already. One example: Sony gets knocked for having 410 shots from a single battery charge when using LiveView 100%, yet their CIPA rating without LV is higher than Canon's latest (710 vs 600) -- except Canon doesn't even give a CIPA rating for 100% LV usage. I didn't notice a similar comment about Canon's "very poor battery life" with LV.

And, despite having the best LV implementation currently available, DPReview sees fit to denigrate it because studio and macro shooters won't like it. That's just absurd. :roll:

I correct myself-- "piss poor".

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: punchkin
Looks pretty poor.

And from a review of a non-Canon camera on DPReview -- what a shocker. The bias of their reviews is pretty ridiculous already. One example: Sony gets knocked for having 410 shots from a single battery charge when using LiveView 100%, yet their CIPA rating without LV is higher than Canon's latest (710 vs 600) -- except Canon doesn't even give a CIPA rating for 100% LV usage. I didn't notice a similar comment about Canon's "very poor battery life" with LV.

And, despite having the best LV implementation currently available, DPReview sees fit to denigrate it because studio and macro shooters won't like it. That's just absurd. :roll:

Would you recommend this over a Nikon? How would you?

 

[Aharami]

Sony's advertising the heck out it. That's for sure. I've had MOJO HD on for a while now and I've been seeing a A350 commercial in almost every break

 

[soydios]

It will have its place in the market. I don't think many serious photographers will buy one, but that's not the target market anyway. I just hope the other companies don't lose sight of the budget amateur DSLRs. I still am somewhat peeved that Nikon dropped the autofocus motor from the D50 to make the D40 et. al.
And DPReview doesn't necessarily prefer Canon only, more like Canikon. Their reviews of Nikon cameras are pretty fair, IMHO.

 

[GrJohnso]

It's always interesting to see how different people react to the pros/cons of different cameras depending on what they want, or expect... Still, the review is pretty accurate, I just don't know that they are emphasizing value of these pro's and con's correctly based on the target audience for this camera... It definitely misses the mark in some areas, but it's still providing a solution that a lot of people are looking for.

Some things to think about:

- Smaller optical view finder to allowing more room for a better (and some say best, even in this review) live view screen and system. Seems like a it's on target with their audience...
- High ISO issues... Yes, the noise reduction, even when turned off, is a little heavy handed. However, when printed at 4x6 and 5x7, 800 and 1600 ISO does not appear different than other cameras in it's class. 8x10, you MAY start to see a difference. Pixel peeping and higher "poster" print sizes, you'll see a loss in detail, but colors still appear to be more accurate than others in class. As discussed in many HDTV threads and other "image" areas, your eyes perceive changes color accuracy and quality before resolution/detail for general viewing...
- Softer Jpegs.... At default settings, yes... But with a quick change to the defaults, it matches up just fine with others. Heck, the Pentax was too sharp at default, with sharpening artifacts visible. Still, Canon on Nikon seem to always lead in default out of the camera jpeg quality...

Anyway, there is definitely an audience for this camera, and Sony is making sure they know about it through their advertising... Can't blame them for that...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soydios
It will have its place in the market. I don't think many serious photographers will buy one, but that's not the target market anyway. I just hope the other companies don't lose sight of the budget amateur DSLRs. I still am somewhat peeved that Nikon dropped the autofocus motor from the D50 to make the D40 et. al.
And DPReview doesn't necessarily prefer Canon only, more like Canikon. Their reviews of Nikon cameras are pretty fair, IMHO.

the A200 is a pretty competitive budget camera. with 18-70 lens it's only $500. the similar k200d with lens is about $750. e-520 with lens is $700. xti is $630 with lens and it's not stabilized. D60 with stabilized lens is $650. everything you need, nothing you don't, and for much less coin than similar competing cameras.

 

[cputeq]

the A200 is a pretty competitive budget camera. with 18-70 lens it's only $500. the similar k200d with lens is about $750. e-520 with lens is $700. xti is $630 with lens and it's not stabilized. D60 with stabilized lens is $650. everything you need, nothing you don't, and for much less coin than similar competing cameras.

K200D is $674, and that's before the $100 MIR.

Just thought I'd speak up


----------------------

On another point:

DPReview showing Canikon bias -- News at 11.
I can't exactly comment on the A350 review, though, as I only skimmed it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cputeq

K200D is $674, and that's before the $100 MIR.

Just thought I'd speak up

buy.com didn't show a rebate and amazon wasn't working for me. so indeed, the k200d is less expensive than i thought.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin
... about perfect except for the image quality, responsiveness, etc.. There are plenty of better choices for someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot.

Plenty of better options provided that the person accept your procrustean definition of "better". A camera that sits, unused, in a camera bag because the person doesn't like to use it is an inferior camera, regardless of technological superiority.

I'm not saying that the A350 is a perfect camera. It's not. However, it is supremely well-suited to its target market and its live view implementation is lightyears ahead of Canikon's. No, it's not what I would choose. But not everyone is me.

ZV

 

[Aharami]

are there any cameras that didnt get a "recommended" or "highly recommended" from dpreview? I dont think Ive ever seen any

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin
I just think it's a shame that a lot of people will upgrade for improved image quality, which they will certainly get over a P&S but basically be shorted on by the Sony design ethic.

God forbid someone make his own decision based on reasons that are different from yours. I guess it's not possible for someone to want an effective LiveView implementation and performance that is indeed better than their P&S cameras (worlds better) over a camera that is less convenient (for them) but offers a slight edge in image quality.

How dare Sony "shortchange" them by supplying what they want.

ZV

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
... about perfect except for the image quality, responsiveness, etc.. There are plenty of better choices for someone upgrading from a point-and-shoot.

Plenty of better options provided that the person accept your procrustean definition of "better". A camera that sits, unused, in a camera bag because the person doesn't like to use it is an inferior camera, regardless of technological superiority.

I'm not saying that the A350 is a perfect camera. It's not. However, it is supremely well-suited to its target market and its live view implementation is lightyears ahead of Canikon's. No, it's not what I would choose. But not everyone is me.

ZV

It's not supremely well-suited to its target market, because the image quality sucks. It is closer to the old bridge cameras in this way, but with interchangeable lenses. The best Live View implementation in the world won't save a camera that sucks at imaging. This is not procrustean. It's just a fact.

You didn't say the A350 is a perfect camera, but rather that it was "about perfect". If by that you mean "offers slightly better than P&S image quality in a bulky form factor", I understand.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
I just think it's a shame that a lot of people will upgrade for improved image quality, which they will certainly get over a P&S but basically be shorted on by the Sony design ethic.

God forbid someone make his own decision based on reasons that are different from yours. I guess it's not possible for someone to want an effective LiveView implementation and performance that is indeed better than their P&S cameras (worlds better) over a camera that is less convenient (for them) but offers a slight edge in image quality.

How dare Sony "shortchange" them by supplying what they want.

ZV

Not a slight edge, a massive advantage. I understand you're out to tout the A350 and have probably had your ego pricked, but let's get real here.