Hi Carl

Great review as usual. I found it to be well balanced and constructive. Agree about the VF, I think the impression of 'dimness' (if that's even a word) is created by the large amount of black space. As you say, it's certainly bright enough.

Cheers
Andrew

A700 was my choice.

Then I read this. As you know, I've reluctantly handed back the A200 to Amber, but loved every minute of it. Used the 5D on Thursday, and the hunting in af compared to the A200 drove me mad.

So my main field of choice is macro photography, and the LV is the bees-knees (sorry!). The A350 really needs the best glass out there to take advantage of the 14mp on offer, the A300 more forgiving of cheaper glass.

So what do I buy? The A700 for it's buld quality, ergonomics, or the A300 for that killer LV, and the same AF speed?

Decisions, decisions.....

Alt+Carl

Hi Carl!

I have read already your previous review about the A350, and was extremely interested in and waiting for this A300 review. Now it has appeared at last. I have been considering quite for a while to buy me a Sony entry level DSLR and after having studied several homepages on this subject my last dilemma left was whether to go for A300 or A350 live view and tilting screen being the decisive factors. The only homepage where I could find both of them having been reviewed thoroughly in detail (and by the same person under similar circumstances for good comparison) supported by appropriate sample images has been up to now just cameralabs.com. As far as I can judge upon scrutinizing 100% crops on my computer monitor their IQ is roughly equivalent finest detail being limited by pixel count of the A300 vs. somewhat stronger smearing of the necessarily stronger noise reduction required for the A350. I personally tended to decide for the A300 for the slightly better native signal/noise ratio (the main question to be answered was how significant this theoretical difference was?). My decision has been further supported by the slightly higher speed of continuous shooting, lower price and by 10 MP being sufficient for my photographic needs.
So thank you very much for having confirmed my thoughts in your review. my final choice is A300.
My only problem remaining is that the A300 is being marketed - as far as I know - just in a kit with 18-70. Since I have decided the optimum for me would be an A300 with SAL 18250 I will have to wait for a body only version, hopefully not too long.
Your slight bias for Sony cameras in your vedicts is well understood on an "Alphamount" website and nicely compensates for other reviewers (not admittedly) being biased for the "big brands" Nikon and Canon.
I'll keep on revisiting Alphamountregularly.

Greetins: George (Hungary)

Carl:

1. Excellent review of the A300 and A350.

2. Although I've been shooting for many years now (former Contax user and now Sony R1 user), I have yet to get a DSLR. Perhaps in 1-3 years, I'll get the A900 (?), but in the meantime, I am going to get a DSLR just because I need something more versatile than the R1 etc...

3. I'm leaning towards the A350, but IQ is going to be the main determining factor whether or not I get the A300 vs 350. When you (and others) note that good quality lens are required to take advantage of the higher MP sensor of the A350, my logical question is: what current alpha mount lens are considered "grade A"?

4. Specifically, I'm interested in getting "grade A" lens in the following focal lengths:
a. super wide: how is the current sony/ tamron 11-18mm?
b. normal zoom: I would like to get the CZ 18-80mm, but I've heard so much controversy about this lens, I don't have the faintest idea who to believe. Would this lens be considered "Grade A"?
c. telephoto: I'm thinking about getting the new sony 70-300mm. How is this lens?

Thanks for your thoughts. Harry

If you have a lot of money..
a. super wide : Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 (FF compatible since you are going to get "a900")
b. CarlZeiss 24-70 f2.8 (FF compatible)
c. 70-300G SSM f4-5.6 (fast focus but slow aperture - more of outdoor use) or Sony/Sigma 70-200G SSM/HSM f2.8(also very very fast focusing but bigger aperture)
d. in case you want a macro - Tamron 90 f2.8 / Sigma 105/70 f2.8 / Sony 100/50 f2.8
e. for low-light (really low-light) get a 50mm f1.4 or 35 f1.4 (on aps-c 35mm more useful, on FF still very useful)

If you have a limited budget and want brand new..
a. Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
b. Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or Sony/Minolta 24-105 f3.5-4.5
c. 70-300G SSM f4-5.6 or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (no HSM or SSM - screw drive but cheaper)
d. in case you want a macro - Tamron 90 f2.8 / Sigma 105/70 f2.8 / Sony 100/50 f2.8
e. low light get 50mm f1.4

If you are on a strict budget and don't mind second hand..
a. Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
b. Sony/Minolta 24-205
c. Second hand Beercan 70-210 f4 (ebay or something)
d. Macro get Sigma 50 f2.8
e. Second hand minolta 50 f1.7

Grade "A" lenses from Sony don't come cheap. Here are a few
- Carl Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 ( sharpest zoom i have ever used, wide open aperture is useful too. only setback is the somtimes harsh bokeh. nothing to worry about)
- Sony 70-200 f2.8 G SSM (fast focus and great sharpness from wide open. very good bokeh)
- Sony 35 f1.4 G (very very good lens - Sharp from f2, at f1.4 a little softer only)
- Sony 50 f1.4 (not so high grade but good enough to out resolve the 14MP sensor)
- Carl Zeiss 85 f1.4 (sharp from 1.4)
- Carl Zeiss 135 f1.8 (sharper than CZ 85 f1.4 )
- Sony 300 f2.8 G SSM ( VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY SHARP and FAST FAST focus even with the Sony teleconverters - 1.4x and 2x)
- Sony 70-300 f4-5.6 G SSM ( fast focus but slow aperture. sharp too)
- Sony 135 F2.8{T4.5} STF (manual focus lens - sharp when accurately focused and best bokeh lens around - built for bokeh)

Sony has given almost too much of a choice haven't they! :) I guess that is a good thing for a new DSLR user.

On bias, yeah I guess I admit there is some there. I do try to keep focus on being objective however as much as possible, and keep the comparisons in the reviews to other cameras in the Sony lineup vs. against the competition.

I remember when I was out searching for a DSLR system for the first time, I just could not ignore the advantages of the A-Mount. I took my time deciding having used the heck out of my F828 and R-1, and didn't know for sure what the best direction was.

When Sony came out with the A100, I had hoped they were going to go in the right direction and continue forward with Minolta genius, and in a way they really did with that camera. I really believe that Minolta knocked the sox off of Canon and Nikon from about 1985 to about 2000 in terms of innovation and a better photography product. Never mind the marketing power or sheer financial strength of the two, just look at the product. Grip sensors, eye start, in body image stabilization, functionality, you name it...

So really it is about what the cameras offer for the price that does it for me. Sony seems to be continuing that tradition all the while adding new ideas. Its not that I think that Canon or Nikon don't make a good product, they certainly do. I just feel that Minolta/Sony adds more the to cameras for less, and the experience using them is much more fluid and natural for a photographer.

While no camera is going to be perfect, nor any system, I just think that for my dollar, the A-Mount is the way to go. :)

Carl,

How would you rate the SAL 18-250 or the Tamron version for being able to keep up with the A350's 14MP resolution? Is this lens a better fit with the A300?

Thanks,

William

Good question. I think the A350 will get as much resolution as possible out of either 18-250, but it is probably out resolving this lens.

As far as a better fit in that regard, I say if raw resolution is that important to you, might as well get the A350. For certain it will match the A300's resolution and the A700's. Then later on if you want to buy glass that the sensor can truly stretch its legs out on, you've got the right body.

Carl

1. Thanks for the prior reply in re: my question about "grade A" lens.

2. Like most folks, I should have qualified that I would like to get the best quality lens for the least amount of money (I know that life doesn't work out that way). With that being said, what is still unanswered is whether the CZ 16-80mm and Sony / Tamron 11-18mm is good enough to exploit the 14mp sensor of the alpha 350? or if that is what I can afford, should I rather get the alpha 300?

Thanks for the info. Harry

More testing needs to be done on the lenses you mentioned, and since the A350 is relatively new, it will take some time to find that out.

What I do know is that the Zeiss 16-80 nearly beats every prime or high quality zoom that is available for the A-Mount in sharpness.

The sensor might benefit from it.

I really doubt it on the 11-18, I think 10mp is all it can handle.

Carl

Thanks for your hard work, Carl.

I own an A300K and an SAL/DT 55-200. I like the camera very much, and I understand and share your enthusiasm about the camera. Especially, I like using it with the 55-200 lens. The kit lens quality, however, is rather disappointing to me. I am getting mixed and unreliable results with it. In particular, the focus seems to be inaccurate and unreliable, especially at wider angles. Lens build seams to be not as precise as it should be for such delicate item. I wonder if I got a defective lens. I will try it for a week or so to learn it better and to eliminate user errors, and will get it back to the store if the results don't improve.
But, the 55-200 IQ is quite pleasing for its price ($150CAD after $100CAD instant rebate when purchased with the A300K kit).
I wish Sony offered a body-only version of the camera. I would have bought the 16-105 , 18-200 or 18-250 instead of the kit lens.

Carl, I agree with your comments on what Sony can improve upon, and have a few comments myself:

• It is next to impossible to turn the camera on and off for one-handed shooting due to the location of the on-off switch.
• Delete button is not used in recording mode.
• Second wheel control instead of the zoom button would be more helpful. It can be used for: 1) Custom function during recording, e.g. AF mode, white balance, metering. 2) Zoom level during review I find using of buttons slow. 3) Combined with the front wheel for quick selection and adjustment in Fn/QuickNavi and menu options
• Fn/QuickNavi screen should display current settings for each option. There is enough screen real estate for it. Vertical arrow buttons can be used to select an option and horizontal arrows can be used to change the value.
• I usually use spot AF. However, AF, WB, metering and other Fn/QuickNavi features get reset in Auto, Portrait, Landscape, Macro, Sports, Sunset and Night Shot modes. It is simply annoying. There are no custom modes to save the presets either. An option to save/reset the presets would be VERY useful (e.g. delete button to reset the selected preset). Therefore, I usually use the P mode, adjust other settings before/during shooting and very seldom use presets.
• (Vertically oriented) pictures should rotate when camera orientation changes in the review mode, and the menu should have an option to turn the rotation on and off.
• AF assist beam would be much more useful, and potentially more accurate and faster than the flash focus assist.
• Higher screen resolution would allow for more accurate manual focusing in live view mode, and for better experience reviewing pictures (e.g. checking focus).
• Eye start AF would be useful if the camera had a hand sensor in the grip. Otherwise, the camera keeps on focusing when not in use.

Bottom line, the camera is great and fun to use the way it is now. It offers great value for the price. And, I would not hesitate to recommend it to others.
Happy shooting!

--
McBit

Can you explain this one for me?

"Delete button is not used in recording mode."

Carl

Carl,

I'd imagine McBit is refering to the fact that the delete button doesn't have a dual purpose when taking photos. In my opinion it would have been relatively easy for Sony to have made it customisable when shooting. Giving us the option to change settings. A good use would be making it a MLU button- well at least it would have been if they hadn't left it out of the camera!!

Cheers
Andrew

I think these cameras could have a few more small extras that wouldn't really raise the cost much. I doubt they won't be addressed on next years models.

One thing I keep saying to myself is "remember the price Carl". :) The A200 kicks the hiney out of the Nikon D60 for the price, imho.

C

The CZ 16-80 is definitely good enough for the A350 sensor. Just remember that the CZ 16-80 is only APS-C and not FF. The imaging circle is also very small. The 11-18 is not enough for the A350. (as far as I've tried). For a ultra wide i think the Sigma 12-24 would be better since it is FF compatible. For price.....You should try this combo... Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (cheaper than CZ 16-80) - Sigma 10-20 (Cheaper than sony 11-18) - Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (It will be worth the wait. The canon version is great) or the 70-300G SSM lens - If you don't do much tele shooting then get a tamron 70-300 which would be good enough. If you are in to second hand lenses than find a beercan - 70-210 f4 (get one in good condition). Anyhow i will still recomend the A300 due to the relatively low difference in image resolution. also handles noise slightly better. 10 MP is enough. better yet... if you don't want live view get the A200/A700 which both have a better Viewfinder. Get the A700 if you can. You won't miss the live view.... seriously. i really wanted liveview when i bought the A100 at first. now i couldn't care for live view as it only adds cost and compromises. if it doesn't add any cost or compromise to the final price then why not... LV not so important. VF more important.

Excellent job Carl, as usual. I finally set aside some time to read the whole review and found it to be quite good.

Right on Andrew. That is exactly what I meant Carl.
I tried to figure out if the delete button has any purpose in the recording (shooting) mode, but it does look like it has none. What a waste! There are so many things that it can be used for!
The same thing can is applied to the zoom button. It serves no purpose in the review (play) mode. In my opinion, these two can be combined into one, and the zoom button can be replaced with another control dial (wheel), just like in the Nikon D300. That would greatly improve usability, of the camera and it is another feature that sells well.

Happy shooting!
--
McBit

Those features could easily be done, but to do so means it gets ever closer to competing with the A700. I don't think Sony wanted to take sales away from any segment by competing against its own lineup. That is understandable if it is indeed true. Why?

Right now Sony needs to lure photographers from all different segments to get a base of users beyond the Minolta fans, and they have targeted very precisely the amateur, semi-pro, and pro segment to the letter.

I expect when Sony has a more loyal base to keep the DSLR ship fueled, we will see more variety of cameras and even more competitive models within it's own lineup.

But thats all my speculation.

Carl

Thanks for the excellent review of the new A300 experience - which I guess suggests that this model would be the best fit for those of us making the transition from P&S.
In that vein I note your comment: "...... the Image Quality surpasses even the venerable and highly popular Sony R-1......". I remember when the R-1 came out I was very interested - but for my purposes I felt I needed Image Stabilization and decided to wait. The A300 has IS, the larger detector, a bigger & more resolute live view LCD and the ability to vary lenses - so really it ought to be a step up............. however, the R-1 has that highly rated lens.
Which lens would you say most closely matches the R-1 lens and do you think any lens in the sony-minolta-zeiss.... lineup makes a superior all round combination?

regards, Robert

as i wrote on dyxum:

would it be possible to advice Sony in new firmware possibilities?
we could do a list - model dependent - of changes that could be done in new firmware. Have a voting on the best changes and send them officially as Dyxum / alphamount world to Sony.
e.g.
A300 -
1. the DRO function in the FN menu could be changed with the flash compensation (or something that is more used as DRO)
2. the smart teleconverter in OVF mode could be for e.g. calling the creative style
3. information in the OVF could be changed - they could change the picture remaining info to ISO info ( e.g. 1 - 100, 2 - 200 , 4 - 400 , 8 - 800, Hi -1600 and more)- this could be selectable in menu which information you want to see.
4. the delete button in recording could be change to: when shooting in JPG and just one time want to shoot in Raw - just press and next picture will be shooted RAW or RAW+JPG :)

just my imagination :)

For a lens, pure resolution I'd say the Zeiss 16-80. CA's will be more evident, but sharpness should be on par if maybe a tad better.

Even the Tamron 17-50 (although not the same range) should give it some trouble as well.

If you want to get crazy with it, the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 :)

Yes all these combinations cost more than the R-1, but thats to be expected of a DSLR system. For the price, the R-1 is still very difficult to beat out.

Carl

Carl, indeed anyone, could you see Sony pushing more p&s friendly features with a firmware upgrade. Along the lines of face detection in lv, and possibly even the smile shutter?

Hi CarlJ,

In my honest opinion I'd hope not- I can focus well enough thanks! However and perhaps somewhat unfortunately I can see it happening. Maybe not through a firmware tweak, but certainly in the next entry cameras. Especially now that Olympus had face detection in the 420!

Andrew

When you compare the test images of the Sony 18-70 with those of the Sony 18-250, there is a significant difference in sharpness. It is very apparent when you look at the bushes in the foreground at the left side, or at the tiles on the roof of the house. The 18-250 is much more blurry, although this lens is supposed to be of better quality than the 18-70 kit lens. Do you have an explanation for this?

Dick

These are meant more for ISO tests than sharpness tests.

Look like in the 18-250 shots the A300 may have locked more on the mountains behind than the foreground. Just a very slight difference in focus point would do that.

Carl

I have read the review, but still I do not understand what you find to be the real IQ difference between these cameras?

I only shoot raw and allways will. If I make a larger print, at what point do you think the A300 surpases the A350 by a greater margin?

Surley the A350 is best at 100ISO, but if I understand you correctly, the A300 will give me the best prints at 1600ISO? I will be shooting a lot at 800ISO. Is the difference really that great at that sensitivity using raw only?

Frode

In regards to IQ on A300 vs. A350.

Basic way to compare:

A300 is cleaner at all ISO's over the A350, has less noise even at ISO 100 where the A350 will show some blue sky noise.

The difference is clear to me, cleaner shots (A300) or more resolution (A350).

If you want pure resolution and don't mind spending a little more money on a lens that is better than the kit lens, the A350 is for you :).

I like them both for what they are.

Carl

I guess I will prefer the camera with the lesser noise rather than the one with the higher resolution.

The LiveView thing will give shoots I cannot get from any other camera.

Frode

Hi Carl, everyone,

I hope this isn't off topic. I recently got an a300 with the extra zoom lens package. It's very nice, as you know, but reading around I have been getting a complex Many would seek to have you believe that gettng the Sony is a mistake. In the face of that, give me some reason to believe that I did the right thing, so I can stop considering a return.

Secondly, I am considering, if I keep it, the addition of the Minolta f/ 1.7. How will this help my photography with the a300?

Thank you for all your insight.

Skippy

Hi Skippy,

Not sure what you've been reading but a lot of stuff written on the A300 is either inaccurate or blown way out of proportion. I have recently purchased an A300 as a replacement to my ageing-but still nice KM5D. I think that for the price there is nothing to touch it.

Handling is a subjective matter, but although the grip is smaller than on the 5D it is still the equal to most if not all entry level DSLRs (the only notable exception being the Pentax K200d). My initial impressions are that the flash performance is one of the most improved features compared with the 5D- and now seems to be one of the most reliable systems out there. The focusing is also much improved and compares well with almost anything out there. Much more flexibility than with a D40 say.

Image quality is very, very good (especially if you shoot in RAW) and the files print very well. There is way too much pixel peeping on the web, I prefer to judge a camera's image quality based on a printed output. In this regard the A300 does very well and is easily as good as the rivals from Canon/Nikon.

Lastly, the 50mm f/1.7 is a very good lens, and when combined with SSS can make for a very effective low light bit of kit. If you want to see some examples the take a look at http://www.alphamountworld.com/forums/photo-critique-forum/rediscovering... .

Hope this helps and feel free to ask any more questions or PM me.

Andrew