I have always liked him. It will be an interesting read here, being that I have already done all 3 reviews of these cameras myself here. I am looking forward to this read, thank you for posting it here Ruben. I will report back after the read to see how close my assessment of these cameras was to such a respected veteran.

Carl

Most welcomed Carl, I like his style of writing myself! I look forward to your assessment.

While I appreciate most of what he has said here (he has always been fair to Sony, ranted quite on about how good the R-1 was), I disagree on the image noise characteristics. But that's a subjective stance/opinion each will take on what they consider "more or less noise" and to what degree.

One thing I do know for sure-

The A200's images at ISO 100 are clean and free of blue sky noise, and just about any noise at all. Wheras, the A350 exhibits at least some visible noise here whether raw or jpeg at all ISO's.

For those who want perfectly clean images, the A200/300 deliver, the A350 does not. Also, the A350's noise grain differs slightly as well (see all of our test images if you prefer), and not as uniform or "desirable (again to taste)" as the 200/300 sensor.

That should have been mentioned, as well as more back up images perhaps to stake his claim in more controlled circumstances.

Overall I agree all 3 cameras have excellent DR, but I believe even the A200/300 slightly edge out the A350 here as well, even if it is slight, it is an edge.

To me, this 3 pager on all 3 cameras is more of a "preview" based on some experience with the cameras, and not as indepth as we (or IR, DPR) have gone into them.

It was a nice read, but not quite "reviews" to the extent I guess I probably expected (my bad).

Carl

p.s
If the following sounds conceited I apologize, it is in no way intended in such... but I must say this: I have spent probably the most amount of hours with these cameras in real world and basic test evaluations more than any of the reviewers out there (they have other cameras to review so they slot time accordingly).

Whereas we only (up to now) do Sony, they have to do many multiple brands :). While we lack the labs and $ and "computer testing" other sites may have, one thing is for certain... I/we test our cameras in the field to death! I have reviewed thousands of images between these three cameras and the A100/700 so I feel more certain in my evaluation as a result. Don't mean to go on a rant, or sound like a know it all or anything.... its just that I believe you should spend more time with cameras to get a full opinion of the IQ before you make a claim is all.

Look at our review images too if you have any doubts, the results conclude themselves.

I did read the review as well and conclude as you do Carl. As I have shot with the 200 / 350 and found that the 200 produced a tad sharper image one thing I felt the 350 did well was the images had a very vivid quality a better d-range but it was not as sharp as the 200/300 sensor. Imho. Not to say the 350 is a bad camera it has its qualities as does the 200/300. One thing for sure with better glass the 350 does noticeably better, again my opinion. I have surfed some sites prior to my purchase and really the bias towards the other two (c/n) is overwhelming in most reviews. One last thought I think if somehow more photos taken with a Sony DSLR can become published the true genius of these cameras will then make the impact that is needed..

See Ya!!
Kevin

Worth a read.

Not sure about the new A cameras how they stack up IQ wise compared to each other. I guess the A200 looks good enough to me.

As it happens, I think the R1 was pretty good, IQ wise, even high ISO..sure you got noise (but hey..you do on everything), but was most usable from my playabout with R1 raws. If the A100 had had the same IQ as the R1, I would have gone for it..

from my extensive use with it.... was the dynamic range and fiddly over saturated color. Even using Adobe RGB, it was always fiddly and difficult to get correct.

The A200 IQ is much more real and cleaner processed than the R-1 IMO Barry, so you should be happy if you end up getting one.

Comparing the test images we have in the reviews will show you the difference between the A350 and A200 ( I do remember you looking over the A200 raws we have).

If you live under ISO 800, the A350 is a great camera. Personally I think anything over ISO 800 is a waste.

Carl

A300 ISO 200-

A350 ISO 200-

Blue sky noise in the A350, none in the A300 (same as A200)

A350 ISO 100-
Blue sky noise even at lowest ISO (100)

Not horrible, but the A300 has none.

ISO 100 A300-

ISO 1600 A300- (just look at the sky here)

ISO 800 A350-

ISO 800 A300-

he images could have been sharper so don't look for that here in the A300 pics, I think my focus was just a tad off. But you can get an idea here of the difference in the noise of the two just looking at these.

Carl

Carl, I can tell from your reviews you have spent a lot of time with these Sony's. I can clearly see the noise in the sky is pretty bad in the A350 pics and non existent in the A300 pics but I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the A300 sky being more mist/cloud covered and appearing more white than blue? One things for certain, on the A300 pics the "anti reflective" particles on my Samsung 215TW monitor are terribly annoying and "look" like noise when in fact it is the particles on the monitor surface.

In viewing various picture sites on the net and trying to compare the A300 to the A350 I've been frustrated in trying to find A300 (or A200 I suppose would do) with the 18-250 or the 70-300G lens. I'm finding kits lens pics between the A300 and A 350 look pretty much the same to my eyes but I clearly prefer the A350 pics with the 70-300G lens over the A300's with a kit lens. My question is have you compared IQ between A300 and A350 both using the 70-300G and/or 18-250 Sony? If so, do you still feel the A300 is cleaner and do you feel the A300 benefits from the "better" lens like the A350 does apparently?

I shoot mostly moving dogs outdoors bright sunlight to shade under trees. Indoor is very minimal for me. Tilt screen live view absolute draw for me though I would like to see it image stabilized for live view which apparently it's not. I suppose the way Sony does IS it would have to have dual IS to do that for the live view sensor and main sensor but since the other OEM's with in lens IS won't build a tilt screen true live view not much other choice right now. I'm on the fence, buy now or wait for IS in LV previews and 100% coverage on the LCD as well as the hopefully inevitable more fps burst as time goes by. If the Alpha's have IS in the LV preview on the LCD then I am incorrectly informed.