Sony A350 Review @ DPreview.com

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67
If it takes a couple of paragraphs to rationalize Ken Rockwell's statements...

...then according to the rules of pure logic their validity is in no way negated.

It takes a lot more than a couple paragraphs to rationalize quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it BS.

ZV

You know what I am talking about. Ken Rockwell is a moron, we don't have to worry about him talking about quantum mechanics. You spent a couple of paragraphs that just spun wheels and does nothing re-inforce his intent. Ken and you are missing some key elements.
--edit--I am not trying to insult you. I think of you as normal or smart. Ken is a moron.
This is why I can't understand why you would defend him.

Maybe I'm reading things into his site that I shouldn't, but my impression is that Ken's being intentionally hyperbolic.

EDIT: Read what he says about cars... I was giving him too much credit before.

ZV

 

[Koing]

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

Indeed.

Not every single DSLR entry user wants to use the view finder all the time. They may upgrade to a better DSLR later on when they feel or comfortable.

I definately wouldn't get this, but others may.

Koing

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Koing
Indeed.

Not every single DSLR entry user wants to use the view finder all the time. They may upgrade to a better DSLR later on when they feel or comfortable.

I definately wouldn't get this, but others may.

Koing

my problem with sony's live view implementation is that it doesn't offer 100% coverage. canon's does. nikon's does. olympus's does. iirc pentax's does. all compacts do.

'hey, what's that doing in my shot, i don't remember that there!'

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Koing
Indeed.

Not every single DSLR entry user wants to use the view finder all the time. They may upgrade to a better DSLR later on when they feel or comfortable.

I definately wouldn't get this, but others may.

Koing

my problem with sony's live view implementation is that it doesn't offer 100% coverage. canon's does. nikon's does. olympus's does. iirc pentax's does. all compacts do.

'hey, what's that doing in my shot, i don't remember that there!'

Valid. Though how many viewfinders are 100% coverage?

IMO the ability to have live view with the mirror down outweighs the <100% coverage since it enables much faster AF without needing any mirror-flip gymnastics on the part of the camera's internals. It also reduces battery consumption in LV mode because it doesn't use the main imaging chip.

Of course, as I've said before, those tradeoffs have to be evaluated on an individual basis, what's acceptable for me may not be for you.

ZV

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Koing
Indeed.

Not every single DSLR entry user wants to use the view finder all the time. They may upgrade to a better DSLR later on when they feel or comfortable.

I definately wouldn't get this, but others may.

Koing

my problem with sony's live view implementation is that it doesn't offer 100% coverage. canon's does. nikon's does. olympus's does. iirc pentax's does. all compacts do.

'hey, what's that doing in my shot, i don't remember that there!'

Valid. Though how many viewfinders are 100% coverage?

IMO the ability to have live view with the mirror down outweighs the <100% coverage since it enables much faster AF without needing any mirror-flip gymnastics on the part of the camera's internals. It also reduces battery consumption in LV mode because it doesn't use the main imaging chip.

Of course, as I've said before, those tradeoffs have to be evaluated on an individual basis, what's acceptable for me may not be for you.

ZV

I definitely agree here on Live View. Sure, cropping might annoy folks, but I support the implementation idea. Hopefully they can fix it so they can get 100% coverage. I see the point where it is a disadvantage, but again, it's a personal opinion. The camera itself is weirdly positioned.. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone most likely, heh