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
GoSharks - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
However, in a typical situation, I doubt anybody is using ISO100 in combination with a 2 second exposure. I do not believe this is a real-world condition.Wesley Fink - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
Agreed. That is another obvious concern. I am very happy to hear suggestiosn on what any of you feel are the best "real-world" test conditions. Nothing is set in stone at this point.Justin Case - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
It's beyond me why AT bothers with this. AT's photography articles are little more than rephrased sales brochures and spec sheets from the manufacturers. Most don't even have photos taken with the cameras (why do I need 7 or 8 photos of the camera itself? I can get that at the manufacturer's site, which is where you downloaded them from anyway), and the testing procedures are inconsistent and amateurish to say the least.There are dozens of photography sites out there that have tested these and a lot of other models, using relevant methods, and with reviews written by people with years of experience with all sorts of different cameras and all sorts of situations (film, digital, studio, wildlife, holiday snapshots, etc). Heck, there are forum posts at DPReview with more information and better test shots than all AT "photography" (meaning camera spec sheet) articles put together.
If you're not going to at least attempt to offer something that all those sites aren't offering, why bother? If you can't offer expert opinion, at least include a lot of samples, so people can get an idea of what each camera can deliver in different situations. As it is, these reviews seem like something out of a teenager's blog, put together in one afternoon, and reflect negatively on Anandtech's image of professionalism.
I guess it's all about filling the space between the ads...
Deadtrees - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
I'm amazed how the comparsions are poorly done.The more look at it, the more I find problems.
1.K20D - Saturation:Normal, Sharpness:High, Contrast:Hard
A100 - Saturation:Normal, Sharpness:Normal, Contrast:Normal
I hope you know those changing those parameters can impact image qualities. Let's see what's possible: I can turn down sharpness/contrast/saturation of camera A and turn up those values on camera B and come out with a conclusion that camera A produces blurry, faded colored, and low noise images with better dynamic range/tonal reponse, and than camera B.
2. K10D: 1.5 sec, 5D: 1 sec. (of exposure time)
Even after numbrous posts about setting the same exposure, you re-shot images with different expososure settings. As I mentined earlier, 5D and some other cameras has different ISO standards (ISO 100 being 125, 3200 being 4000) and along with different exposure mechanism, this could've resulted the difference as you used AV mode. However, you should've mentioned it if it's the case or just set the same manual exposure settings.
Also, what kind of long shutter noise reduction setup did you have? Without mentioning it and understanding it, the reivew of the samles are pointless.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
Actually I reviewed the A350 and not the Sony A100, but I understand it was an honest mistake. I wish you could provide me the same courtesy.Frankly you would be amazed at the level of integrity at AnandTech in terms of presenting accurate data in as unbiased a manner as possible. Our ad agency is completely separate from AT and we don't even see data on who the biggest advertisers are. That is by design.
We have stated many times that we have no desire to mirror the large established photo sites. I have read and enjoyed them for years, but they are not everyone's cup of tea. Most of our readers are intimidated with the depth of info at the dedicated photo sites and they have asked us to provide reliable information at a lower level that is more accessible and requires less specialized knowledge. That is our intention.
I do understand the impact of noise reduction algorithms on image detail. I also understand the potential impact of adjustments in sharpness and saturation. I will use that knowledge to try to test DSLRs as fairly as possible, but delving deeply into those variables will not be a standard part of our reviews in the near future. Perhaps we will do more standard testing of those variables down the road.
Deadtrees - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
There're many things you need to know before you can be, at least, a fair reviewer. Reading your reviews and replies, I doubt if you even have a somwhat basic knowldges. When I said that certain cameras have different ISO standards, you had no idea what I was talking about. How can you make conclusions about any cameras noise level without knowing this?Not only that, what kind of reviewer tests image resolution/noise level using different aperture values?
On the other hand, do you know that noise reduction algorithm differs from brands to other brands? What's even more confusing is that even cameras from a same brand have different noise reduction system. For instance, noise reduction on Nikon D200 will kick in After ISO 400 even if you turn it off in the menu and it's not the same way in other Nikon cameras.
Without knowing this, you might just think that you tested cameras equally as you've had the same setup but it's not.
Before doing the test and writing up the review, did you care to know the noise processing mechnisms of those cameras? I doubt so.
Look at images from A350, in order to maintain low noise, it utilizes way too much noise reduction(more like smearing) that results great loss of deatils. Hell, it even looks like water painting. Sure, the noise is low but with the cost of loss details.
Given that, your saying "The good news about the sensor is that output is very clean and noise remains low up to ISO 1600" is quite thoughtless.
Again, you're the reviewer of Anandtech and that means something. It means you shouldn't write a review that is more like a blog posting of somebody on the internet.
I know it's a computer hardware site but the respect Anandtech has achived should reaim even in camera reviews. Readers shouldn't be the victim of amateurish reivews.
Heidfirst - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
"Look at images from A350, in order to maintain low noise, it utilizes way too much noise reduction(more like smearing) that results great loss of deatils. Hell, it even looks like water painting. Sure, the noise is low but with the cost of loss details."Experience with the A700 says that this can be due to the processing software used & afaik the A350 uses the same file format as the A700 - e.g. ACR does a poor job (in the same way that it did a poor job with the Oly E-3 until Adobe issued a patch for it) whereas e.g. Bibble handles it better.
So, at the end of the day we are not only comparing the individual sensor output but the camera's processing (& as mentioned there may there be also be differences between camera settings - e.g. what one calls a high setting may not be the same as that on another), the lens quality & how the processing software used handles the individual output.
That's quite a lot of variables to get a truly level playing field fora comparison.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
Of course I knew what you were talking about when you mentioned ISO variance among cameras at the same ISO setting. I am always willing to listen to constructive criticism, but I have little patience with comments that are self-serving grandiosity. I have made a living as a PRO photographer - have you?You should also mention that almost every NEW camera that has been tested for ISO speed variation is today largely correct in the reported ISO. I am aware of the issue but its importance today is low and not that signigficant to our intended audience. The biggest offender was Canon, and their newer cameras are now testing correct as well. I doubt, however, that your real goal was to share information. It sounds from your tone that your goal was to belittle rather than educate or provide constructive criticism..
I don't know everything, but you haven't mentioned one thing that I don't understand, so please get off your soap box. We have stated many times that we have no desire to mirror dpreview. They are a terrific site for photo information and in-depth reviews. I have read and enjoyed them for years, but they are not everyone's cup of tea. Most of our readers are intimidated with the info at the dedicated old school photo sites and they have asked us to provide reliable information at a lower level. That is our intention.
I also briefly discussed the impact of noise reduction in the review and I am keenly aware of the ongoing discussion about the impact of noise reduction schemes on image detail. I also am aware the K10D is best RAW and the noise reduction algorithm is poor, but that is from my experience with the camera. I might add that the K20D behaves differently - from experience - but you don't know that yet because while I have done a first hands-on look at the K20D, the major photo sites haven't posted any real reviews of the K20D yet.
Yes, we made errors in this first real DSLR review, but we have worked diligently to correct them. I have just posted the crops and full images for the reshoot with the Sony A350, so all images are now consistent in shooting conditions and they can be fairly compared. I think you will find what I concluded in my initial review can now be more clearly seen in the crops and full images.
We are obviously too basic for your tastes and I wouldn't want your head to hurt with the drivel you see here. By all means continue to get the information you need from the current established photo sites. We are aiming to provide reliable information to a wider cross-section of users and we will not likely satisfy the level of detail you seek.
cputeq - Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - link
I just wanted to give you guys props for trying to "make things right" ;)We're all guilty of missteps sometimes (hell, I'm King Screwup..just witness my home improvement attempts!), so it's good to see you guys take this in stride and do what it takes to correct any apparent errors while also trying to improve the review.
So, I hope you guys don't get too disgruntled with some of the forum posts -- people type stupid crap on the web every day ;)
I look forward to seeing the reshoot -- and yeah, btw, the proper crops are now showing up for me on page 6. All I have to say is "wow". The ISO 400+ crops are horrible for the Sony :( I'll be interested in knowing the culprit, as I couldn't imagine a camera of this caliber looking that noisy at 400.
While a smallish printout may not count, so people (like myself) are cursed and look for the smallest stupid details in pictures!
Thanks again for all you guys do!
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - link
Your comments are sincerely appreciated. I suspect the f4 reshoot with fixed f4 aperture will fix the apparent Sony issues. THe first crops, with the Sony at f2 and the Pentax and Canon at 1.4, made the Sony look like the better camera, which is not the case. In the reshoots the K20D and 5D look more as you would expect. We will post the new A350 crops and images late tomorrow assuming the camera is received as promised.