My biggest concern in choosing between the A200 and the A350 is the lower magnification and reported darkness of the A350's viewfinder. Did you find this to be a problem in your preliminary review? (Neither camera is available yet in my local area, so I haven't been able to check this out first-hand.)

Darkness isn't really an issue, it is as bright as the A100/200.

Lower magnification is noticeable for sure, but is is a big deal? Thats a good question. For me it doesn't seem to be, I have good eyes though, no contacts or glasses. I think user results will vary with most people being pretty happy with it, and some that won't.

Could it be better? Sure, of course. Will it be improved in future designs? Most likely.

Will it work for most applications? I think so! :)

Carl

Hi Carl

Really appreciate the work you are doing here on the A350 review. I am thinking of changing my KM5D for either an A200, a A300 or A350. I would like to be able to evaluate the RAW images, but don't seem to be able to download them from the link you provided.

Anything I should be doing? I am on a mac if that makes any difference.

Cheers

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your interest! I'm not sure exactly what link you're trying but if you go to for example the freehand gallery

http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-a350-review?page=0%2C3

click on any image you want and then click the raw link that should work. If it doesn't you might try using another browser like firefox.

thanks
Eric

Hi Eric,

Tried what you suggested and am using Firefox and all is ok. Many thanks for your help.

Andrew

That we have both jpegs and raw available for download on the A200 review as well :)

Since the A300 is the same sensor etc. I anticipate the exact same IQ on the A300.

Both of these should give you a decent idea of IQ.

Carl

a very big "THANK YOU' for all the work you've been doing and still doing.

Forgive me for asking, and i think i already know the answer. I try to choose between the a700 and a350. Coming from an a100, wich is to slow(AF) to noisy (never shoot above iso 200). I like shooting macro, birds, family, sometimes sports and i'm doing more and and more in the M-mode so i guess..........A700 for me. Or am i wrong?
If the A350 is my choice i can spend some money on lenses..
Please help......Please advise....

Hubert

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

Carl,

I'd like to congratulate you on a fine review. It appears you really put the camera through it's paces.

I downloaded 3 of the raws from your samples pages. In the garden scene (DSC00294), shot at ISO 400, I was bowled over by the noise. Your exposure was spot on, so underexposure can't be blamed.

There's really a night and day difference between the A350 and A700 IQ. I keep my ISO below 1200 normally, and I've yet to use noise reduction software. I think Noise Nija would become part of my work flow for anything over ISO 100 with the A350.

Regards,
Graham

Hi Graham, thank you for the comments :).

Really you think that shot had a lot of noise? I actually thought that one wasn't that bad in comparison to some of the test shots! But yeah in comparison to the A200 or A700 there is a noticeable difference.

Big difference from the raw files and jpegs though, aren't there? In detail and color etc.

Carl

I was hasty in posting. I processed the Raws in ACR 4.4, with my reported results. While I'm very happy with my A700's files with ACR, Adobe is no friend to the A350.

When processed in Sony Image Converter, it's as if I'm looking at files from a different camera. The noise was much better and the IQ had more "life" to it for lack of a better description. I initially discounted the A350 but may consider it to replace my 7D as a second body. Of course, I'm hoping the flagship will be in my budget ballpark and the A700 will become my second.

Not to start a rant, but it looks like Sony would have insured the A350's output would work better with ACR. Given their intention to capture market share, their files less than stellar performance with the de facto standard Raw converter is inexcusable.

Regards,
Graham

DSLR User today loved the A350. Compared noise levels with the 400D and stated there was very little difference - so much for Canon's much praised low noise levels - Sony add 4mp and compete!

Liveview was praised for implementation - I hope they mark down the 450D for fixed screen, awkward menu controlled liveview against the simplicity of Sony's!

Then that really says something for the A700 and A200 then doesn't it? :) Assuming their comparison was accurate. Who knows maybe one day if we get enough momentum we will be able to do some side by side comparisons with the competition as well.

C

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the review. I'm also extremely pleased that you did a full evaluation and judging. I think I'll wait for the flagship now. My A100 is serving me well and I've made money with it this past month.

The live view is not that big of a deal for me, while performance and overall image quality is. Seems that Sony has introduced a fully equipped camera but compromises were needed to bring forth all the bells and whistles??? I guess if you like Live view then this is a viable choice. I was hoping for exemplary image quality for the boost in resolution with speed and ease in performance.

Thank you Paul :).

Basically if you want the most resolution and don't shoot high ISO the A350 is great from 100-400, and cannot be beat from 100-200 by any Sony to date. I am pretty solid on that conclusion at this time.

I haven't had enough time to compare the A350 to the A700 to see where the threshold lies with resolution vs. ISO, at what point the two meet up in resolution figures at any given ISO. Imatest results are needed for that or a lot of pixel peeping images.

Nothing wrong with waiting for the flagship if you have the bread if FF is that important to you, it should be a resolution beast. Currently the 21mp Canon EOS writes about 2800 lines per pic. width, thats nearing 35mm film resolution of 3K. I think the 24mp sensor just might reach that number with a good lens, or just fall short (im guessing about 2925 lines).

Carl

will the live view transfer to computer. What i want to beable to do is see the image on a computer screen right after I take the picture

I have upgraded from a Sony F828 to a Alpha 350. I usually do studio work.

My main problem with the 350 is that the live view that doesn't work with studio flashes. In manual mode live view shows a picture according to your settings, which is logical. So when using studio flashes (soft boxes etc) you would want settings like for example 1/125th, F/8. And that's where the problem starts. Try distinguishing anything on the screen indoors like that! The F828 knows to auto compensate the live view when flashes are switched on. The A350 does not. This is a major "bug" IMO. Studio shoots is 95% of what I do, so the live view (THE main reason I bought the Alpha for) is now completely useless for me. And what's more: the A350 *can* auto-compensate for low light situations, because it does so in B(ulb) mode. Why can't it do this in M mode?

If anyone knows a solution to this, please let me know, because I'm a little desperate. I can't be the only one with this problem? (And please, don't tell me to use the optical view finder!) ;)

Patrick.

I still cant get the info I seek. At least one of the canons gives live view with up to x10 magnification for critical focus on the LCD. Somehwere I read (I thought) the live view had x24 mag option. All I can find for the a350 is either 1.4 or 2x. I suppose I'll have to go into city and handle one. If it did what I wanted it woud be superb for astrophotography.

Film resolution is uncertain in my view. Grain size in the unexposed film is about 9 microns (I think) but during development it becomes a variously extended squiggle (I know - Ive seen it). The colour development is a dye chemical process which must involve a lot of diffusion (I suspect) and so I would expect a 7 micron sensor would match film using standard lenses (according to film/sensor common ratios). Not an expert but my 6Mp pictures go up to 1m by 1.5m

Ron

Oliver,

Some people use a Pentax standard magnifying eye cap for Alpha 300/350.
Hope this helps.

Alex from Japan

Almost a year on, but did u find a solution??

I am interested in this camera for the same reason.

I do think the LV would still be valuable as I would setup using the optical, then use the LV for positioning.