Greg:

Here's a quote from Imaging-Resource.com review of the A350 that you might find helpful.

"The only real dilemma presented to those interested in a Sony digital SLR is which one to pick. Though the Sony A200 has an advantage in its low price and larger optical viewfinder, the A350 has the very fast AF in Live View mode with that nice tilting LCD screen. So the true bargain may be the 10-megapixel Sony A300, available for $200 less than the A350 and only $100 more than the A200 when each is purchased with the 18-70mm lens. As for resolution, though the A350 does give you a higher number over the A200's 10.2 megapixels, the printed results are actually pretty similar across the ISO range. Whatever you choose, though, the Sony A350 is a well-rounded package, offering the best of all worlds in terms of usability, resolution, and intelligent design, all of which earns it a Dave's Pick."

I just bought the A300, which I think (hope) will be fine for my present needs. (Haven't had a chance to use it yet.) I expect to trade up if and when Sony launches a new model that combines the advanced features of the A700 with live view--provided the new model is not too large and heavy. Along with the kit lens, I picked up the Sony 18-250, the Tamron 11-18, and a used Minolta 50 F1.7. I expect to add either a 400 fixed or a 100/200-400 zoom telephoto lens if something attractive shows up on ebay or KEH.com.

Andy

Thanks! Welcome to the site Greg!

Just wanted to say hi and thanks for your interest in the site. Quick note on the ETA, suffice it to say you'd have a reply from Carl already except that he's working away on the aforementioned as we speak. He's off at an undisclosed location ;) with A300, gear and notepad all day again.

You can expect it before long, if you'd like to see it the minute it's up you could subscribe to our rss feed. Or just keep checking back

have a good one

Thank you Andy and Eric
I'll wait then and check very often ;-)

I am also currently undecided which to buy, A300 or A350. I previously owned both Canon and Nikon Dslrs before selling them all and buying a prosumer digicam! I now want to buy a new dslr again, looked at both Canon/Nikon/Olympus dslrs, but Sony with the Alpha range seems to be best choice for me to start a new system!

Generally I don't need to have 14mp (A350) and prefer A300 if I can get clean low noise images from it using upto iso 800, I will be happy, BUT if iso performace the same for both cameras, then obviously I would go for the A350! Hopefully, the review for the A300 ill be up soon! Cheers.

Thank you Carl for posting the review of the A300 today !
For me, it's now very clear : I'll get the A300 ;-)

I'll definitely not get the kit with the 18-70, but now I hesitate a lot between two lenses : Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sony 18-250...
I'll use only one lens for at least a few month for everything : indoor family shots, kids shots (age 1 and 3), holidays, outdoors...
Which one would you recommend ?

Thank you so much for your help !

I'm not Carl but, If you really are planning for a lot of indoor shots. Some outdoor try the Tamron 17-50.
My little girl is almost 2 years and i have the Sigma 28-70 2.8. It's on my camera most of the time.
For outdoor in bright light i sometimes use the 70-300 because you don't have to follow the kid around. But the 28-70 is pretty good for normal family shots.

Posted this one before, but here it is again (Sigma 28-70)

Just wanted to jump in and say thanks, and throw in a vote for the Sony 18-250mm. I suggest it given the all around nature of what you'll be shooting, and the fact that you say it will be your only go to lens for a few months.

have fun

p.s. for others
Sony A300 Review

Glad to see the A300 is for you, its a pretty close call between them both :).

On the lens choice, for what you described I think the Tamron would be best suited as long as you don't need the extra reach. Either lens would not be a bad choice to be honest, the only real "penalty" with the Sony is that you don't get the better low light gathering with the wide constant 2.8 aperture, but the A300 does a great job taking shots up to ISO 1600, so it's really a push.

I think everyone should have the Sony in their kit whether they think they need it or not, so you should be safe choosing either. The Tamron is a great landscape lens, a bit sharper and wider than the Sony in the range.

Carl

Thank you very much for your advice, they are very valuable to me ;-)

I need some more help to be able to choose : what is the real difference in terms of speed between the Tamron 17-50 and the Sony 18-250 in the 18-50 range for an acceptably sharp result ? 1 stop ? 2 stops ? more ?
If someone could me this kind of information, that would definitely help me. For example, at 18 mm, is it 2.8 vs 3.5 or is it a bit slower for both lens to get a sharp image ?

Thank you very much

Greg,

The 17-50 has no loss of detail from 5.6 on up...the 18-250 is best 8.0 on up. These are really different types of lenses with different goals in mind... In my opinion, the 18-250 would not be my first choice for indoors with no flash...whereas the 17-50 would be on my short list. Both are fine outdoors in light (or indoors with flash) with the edge in sharpness to the 17-50. If low light, fast focusing, and IQ is your biggest concern, the 17-50 would be the way to go...I personally would find the focal length too confining...I do own the 18-250(Tamron) and the CZ16-80 and that range. If you are looking for one lens to "do it all" the 18-250 is a better choice and will pleased with the extended focal length until you can get more lenses...the 17-50 can be an add-on when extreme IQ and low light are your highest factors.

Look Carl said, the 18-250 should be in everyone's kit...it is so versatile...the 17-50 is too confining in focal length as an "only" lens. I would think you would always be looking for more reach...

Thank you.
I still have quite a lot of difficulty trying to imagine what is the exact difference between both lenses indoor without flash. Is the difference only being forced to raise ISO one stop ? or more ? or is it really night and day and the 18-250 is simply unusable indoor without flash ?
Another interesting point of comparison : is one of this lens faster than the other at focusing (in normal light and in low light) ?

Thank you