Thanks for the question.

Sorry if the review seemed a little gruff in this department.

I don't think I used quite that language "severe problems" rather, in comparison to the A200/700 the images at higher ISO's on the A350 aren't as compelling and useful as the A200/700 and don't perform as good side by side.

The reason the A350 doesn't perform as good above ISO 800 as these cameras in most circumstances is because of the pixel density, really no other reason for it. If this were a full frame sensor, my findings (and others) would have been completely different im sure :). Also I stated that this sensor blows away any p/s camera with simliar resolution, so that says something too.

To each his own to decide, I like diversity of opinions. Full sized samples are up for observation and downloading.

There is good news in there too! :)

Carl

Carl,

Thank you for a superb in-depth review of the A350. It answered all of my questions about the A350--but also got me wondering whether I should consider buying an A300 instead! (I should point out that while I'm not new to photography, this is my first move toward using a DSLR vs. 35mm film or less sophisticated digital cameras. My main use for this camera will be travel photography, along with snapping family events.)

Near as I can tell, the only real differences between the A300 and the A350 are price, a slightly different finger grip, a small difference in weight and fps, and--mainly--a 10.2mp sensor vs. a 14.2mp sensor. Presumably the A200 and the A300 have identical 10.2mp sensors. Given your comments that Sony is pushing the envelope by using a 14.2mp sensor in an APC-cropped camera, along with your observations that the A200 tends to produce better color and image quality along with less noise at higher ISOs than the "Jekyll and Hyde" A350, it seems only logical to conclude that the A300 might more easily and consistently produce better images for most entry-level or novice users than the A350 (although more experienced pros or enthusiasts might be able to coax more detail and better IQ out of the latter). Therefore, the only real downside I can see to buying the A300 would be the lower resolution of any 1.4X or 2X cropped shots taken using the Smart Teleconverter.

Does this make sense, Carl, or am I overlooking or oversimplifying something important? I realize that you haven't field tested the A300, but I would nonetheless appreciate hearing your thoughts (or hypotheses) about the A300 given your hands-on experience with both the A200 and A350.

Andy

That is my question as well. I have also seen other places that the lenses available for the Sonys may not be quite up to par with the 14.2 MP sensor. I own an OLD 3.5-4.5mm 70-210 zoom from my Minolta 7000i, and I'm now leaning towards the extra for the live view and the tilting screen of the a300, to avoid the noise problems with the a350. In 99.9% of the time I use the camera, the extra 4 megapixels will likely be unnecessary anyway...

Your a review hit the viewfinder pretty hard. Is it bad enough that (in your opinion) the a200 makes more sense unless you are going to use Live View 50% of the time or more? I'm concerned about the battery cost for the Sony, and if you use LiveView too much, I'm worried that the savings I'm looking to get by using my old zoom (rather than buying a new one) will be burned up by buying 3 $70 batteries.... I was leaning towards the a300 because I like the LiveView option, but I won't use it a majority of the time.

Thoughts (Carl or anyone?)

Thanks!

I had to look at the viewfinder from multiple eyes as a reviewer. Not just my own, and I was careful not to tear into it too much from others perspectives. Heck even the top of the line Canon Eos I MKIII has a 75% magnification rating!:)

I suggested to use it, and be your own judge. While for some it wont be a big deal, others it might.

You want to know personally what I think? For me, it was fine! :) But as a reviewer I try hard to state objective ideas, and concerns. While I'd be fine with it as a sole camera, some may not.

If you manage live view, you will be just fine on 2 batteries. That gives you more than the equivalent of the A100/200's 750 shots which is easily enough for all day use. I wouldn't be too concerned there.

Carl

I am now looking more forward to the a300 review than before. I'm just not sure that the extra 4mp are worth it.

Can you publish it earlier? :)

We'll get it together as soon as it is possible ;).

What is great, is all 3 cameras really cover the new DSLR user angle really well. Gives them plenty of choice, vs. just one camera.

At first I wondered why Sony did this, but after reviewing them, and using them I now see the value of it. And it also boils down that Sony did it, because they CAN do it.

They have the funds to develop 3 cameras, instead of one.

Carl

Hello,

I'm trying to decide between a300 and a350. This will be my first DSLR!
In a month I will become a father and I want to buy a camera to take some beautiful pictures of my future child.
I have already 2 lenses a minolta 50F1.4 and a minolta 28f2.0. My question is will I need in the near future als other lenses?
Later I'm planning to buy a zoomlens for going on holidays.
I'm also waiting for the review of the a300 or could anyone help me decide on the camera?

Thanks!

Camo