Home | Sitemap | RSS Feeds | About | Contact | Privacy
(c) 2007-2008 AlphaMountWorld.com, t.e.morrison and c.garrard - all rights reserved
Reproduction in whole or in part, in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
- This Site is Optimized for Firefox "Safer, Faster, Better"
Viewfinder size
I, too, have a concern about this. I was all set to get the 300/350 (whichever suited my budget best) until I tried it. I'm coming from a Minolta A200 which I've loved, but really want the snappiness of a DSLR. I didn't want to lose the Live View that I had, if possible. The a300/a350 seemed perfect.
I tried the a200 in a local store and loved the feel of it, the controls and everything else felt very natural and easy to use. As I already have a decent Minolta flash (which will work on the Sony), my choice seemed made. I found a very inexpensive Sigma 18-125 and snapped it up. Yesterday, I found myself in a mall and outside a camera shop. I figured I'd head in to see if they have the a350 (the a300 won't be out for a few more weeks). Sure enough, they did, and let me try it.
Bad news. As a glasses-wearer, I likely will not be buying an a300/a350. The viewfinder IS noticeably smaller than on the a200. If you're buying this camera to use it primarily for Live View OR you don't wear glasses, this may be fine. However, when using it, I had to move my head up/down, left/right (depending on if I was holding the camera normally/vertically) in order to actually see the full frame and the shot information. The depth of the VF is nice, but since it is so small, you simply can't see the info well at all if you're wearing glasses. This is pretty much a deal-breaker for me, so I will likely be saving some money and getting the a200 instead.
I'm okay with not having Live View as long as the camera works really well, though it would have been awfully nice to have both. Too funny, I'm going to be upgrading my A200 for ... an a200. :D
Hope that info helps.
Oliver