I do not see a final rating or maybe I am missing something. You gave the A300 9 out of 10. Given the improvement in image quality yet having a few features removed, would you rate the A330 the same?

Come on Carl, admit you thought the camera was bogus.

I don't always rate cameras, in this case I didn't feel the need to put a numerical value on it. I find myself less and less motivated to do that on reviews nowadays.

Carl

"On July 13th, 2009 aman (not verified) says:

Come on Carl, admit you thought the camera was bogus."

What makes you think I think the camera is bogus and that I'm not willing to say so? What good would that do, not being honest?

Carl

Another excellent review Carl; very nice to see that you did the review from two points of view rather than just one. It's quite a shame that the Kelvin white balance mode is now gone. But then again, when you really think about it, most users at this level would not bother looking up the Kelvin scale and would be just fine with the presets (however it does prevent those of us who like to use the Kelvin white balance to use it as a portable camera, also one less thing to brag about =P). It will be interesting to see how the A230, 330, an 380 will play out in the coming months.

Rabi

It really puts things into perspective when you consider the carefully targeted marketing that Sony are doing with these three new cameras. They certainly seem to be able to perform as wel, if not better than their predecessors, from your review. It seems that these are the first "real" Sony cameras, which have not been pulled out of the KM closet. They are most certainly targeting the growing Sony market!

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the 'real' Sony stable looks and performs when they come out.......

I'm heading out real early, so please accept a short reply. Picking up the camera, it would not fit my small hands comfortably; I can't imagine putting on a lens larger than the kit. It may be designed for the little soccer mom but doesn't allow for any growth of the photographer. I sure hope sony doesn't dumb down the new 7 series, the a700 is a very good camera. Mike

I think it would be safe to say that the first stage of a cohesive future strategy has been launched. The easy to use stuff is out now, and we can look forward to future announcements.

I have the A230 in my possession now too, so hopefully Ill be able to get the review out soon, along with a review on the 18-55mm SAM Kit lens.

Carl

Part number for the magnifier is FDA-ME1AM but not available yet... FYI Looks like MSRP is $34.99 US.

States that the ME1AM isn't compatible with the A900. Thats a bummer. I was told it was by a different contact I had made at Sony. Best not to stray from those you know, is the lesson I just learned.

Darn.

I laugh when I read comments like the A330 doesn't allow for the growth of the photographer. Believe it or not, many potential users of the new A series do not have a clue what aperture, shutter priority, bracketing, DRO, exposure compensation, ISO, etc. means. They start off in auto mode and actually never take it off and are actually perfectly happy doing this.

For the ones that do dive into the manual settings, figuring out the basics is not necessarily an easy task. There is actually quite a bit to learn. The A330 provides them this opportunity without overwhelming them with options (such as Kelvin White Balance and AEL) that will more than likely not be needed. Even if they do desire these options at some point, more than likely an entry level model (eg. Rebel XS, D60, K2000, etc) by any manufacturer will not suffice.

You have a good point, :).

One thing I really like that I will include something about in another review, is that Sony managed to keep wireless flash and legacy lens support in the new series. Anyone with some old minolta glass lying around, can get into a new DSLR for hardly any real monetary setback at all.

Carl

I agree with Mr. Guest. Many entry-level users expect to pick up what they consider to be a "fancy camera" and instantly get photos matching those of Ansel Adams. When they don't, they quickly become very frustrated. Back in the late 70s I took a couple of introductory photo classes where most of my classmates showed up with brand new SLRs. The drop-out rate was over 50%, as people quickly discovered that it wasn't all that easy to get great images. "What's all this nonsense about apertures, shutter speeds, ISO, daylight, depth of field, etc.? I just want to take pictures!"

Today, DSLRs have added even more technical terms to the photography lexicon, not to mention resizing images and the challenges of working with post-processing software. And in place of the poor-quality film processing that many people experienced in the old days, we now have all these complaints about poor-quality JPEGS, high ISO noise, white-balance issues, awful direct flash, having to buy 2-3 copies of a lens before you get a good one, FF/BF issues, and so on and so forth. A lot of the entry-level buyers are not likely to study their user manuals backwards and forwards. How many users of point & shoot cameras have you ever seen use their camera's manual settings? How many times have you watched someone with a P&S camera using their built-in flash to photograph someone standing 50 feet away?

Cameras aimed at entry-level DSLR buyers need to be simple and nearly foolproof to operate. Sony is trying to address this. But what happens if people buy Sony 230s, 330s, and 380s and are subsequently disappointed with the images they capture? Will they trade up to 800s and 900s? I read once that there are an estimated 18,000,000 unused pianos in American homes. Who knows how many unused cameras?

Andy

Well interesting review!
Couple of things spring to mind, after reading some comments. If novice users do fire a flash 50 feet away, do these cameras stop them or tell them their subject is beyond range? ;-)

I agree that new users need to have something easy to operate. But just about every camera made is that. I have handed the A200 to a few non photographers, just whack it on auto, and away they go. It's really not possible to make a camera, any camera 100% foolproof. I did read the manual for the A230, but I sadly came away feeling it was not only not very good, but even worse than the poor A200 one. I think Sony need to hire someone to re-write them. Still, if most users don't read them..but it never hurts to have a good manual with a camera ;-)

Ok I did find a few things that were not clearly explained in the manual, may or may not be of interest to readers. Ist off is the AF point selection. I read a section that says you can either dive into the menu to select the AF point, "or" press and hold the AF button in the middle controller. Question..do you press the AF button in combination with the control dial, or does it "rotate" through the AF points? The manual did not make this one very clear.

Another couple of points. If there is no flash raise button, do we have a menu option to disable flash? Does the flash raise all the time or when it thinks you need it?
AEL, or lack of. Is there any way to lock exposure with CW and spot metering modes?

Back to the camera, well having not handled one I cannot comment much, bar what we can see. I won't bore anyone with my repeated comments, my views are well known, apart from to say, I firmly believe..if we had these same cameras in the exact same bodies as the last generation, they would probably get some harsh comments, and Sony would be given a hard time for "moonwalking", pretending to go forwards, but in reality going backwards. I'll leave it at that!

I've got you beat. I handed my A100 with a 50mm f1.7 to my sisters boyfriend for a small event. I set it to aperture priority and gave him a 1-2 minute run down of the camera. His main camera is the one on his cell phone, so he has no photography/camera experience. Did he have tons of problems and constantly pester me for help? Nope. He was able to figure out what he needed to and had fun shooting. He even took some good shots! The A100 has more Minolta DNA than Sony, and I find the A100 to be more intimidating and less intuitive than any of the other Alpha cameras to date, but Minolta obviously got something right back then because even a beginner was able to have fun shooting without being frustrated by the camera. In a way I think Sony is trying to reinvent the wheel.

thats true, my wife hardly ever plays with my DSLRs. The A330 was the second DSLR she ever tried, and the first was well, you guessed it, the A100. She did just fine with it in P/A mode. I showed her how to zoom and manual focus and let her go. She had a great time with it and did take some good pictures.

Then again she had a good coach.

Think about joe buyer who doesn't have anyone there to help them, and is looking at DSLRs at the counter for the very first time. :)

Carl

Sony could offer to educate specific sales people about their products. Sony could also send the occasional rep. to the store to pitch and start holding workshops for new users. Epson sends a rep. to the local big box stores for sales promotions. I'm sure he moves more printers in a couple days than Best Buys teenage workforce does in a month, but then I am also pretty sure he gets a commission. :)

In a way this camera would seem like an attempt to work around the incompetent sales teams of the big box stores. Maybe it also suggests that Sony doesn't want to or doesn't know how to engage camera buyers on a more one on one level yet?

I have been looking to get an Alpha for a while now. It will be my first DSLR but I've been using my friends Nikon D40 to play around with and getting used to settings. I was about to buy an A300 when the new cameras were announced. I greatly preferred the A300 over the Canon XS or XSI and the Nikon D40/60 because it was larger and felt so much better and more secure in my hand. I also liked the menu system infinitely more than the Nikon especially. The Canon menus weren't as bad as I am pretty used to them from my G9, but still the Sony menu's blow them out of the water. I also want to go with the Alpha mount because I have my mom's old Minolta 5000 film SLR from the 80's with really high quality all metal lenses like the 50mm f1.7 prime.

So I decided to wait and see what the new ones would be about. I went to look at the A330 the other day and spent about 45 minutes playing with it. They feel really solid and well built, but as someone with big hands, I am disappointed they shrunk them down to Nikon D60 size. I suppose for some of the market that's the way the trend is going with smaller and lighter, but the A300 feels so good in my hand. I can't even get all my fingers on the grip of the A330, similar to the D60.

That said, I liked most everything else about the camera. However, I want a camera that I feel comfortable holding so I think I have convinced myself to just make the investment into the A700 instead.

Nice to see a review on an entry level camera that focuses on the features that are important to entry users. All too often reviewers get bogged down with features that simply won't get used. Now, personally I don't see the harm in including MLU on a 2 second timer and think they missed a trick removing it (most people would be unaware of it, but reap the benefits none the less), other features like DMF and AEL are less likely to be used by amateurs.

I think you nailed it when you mentioned about you wife's and sister in law's experiences with it and, based on that, I think Sony have succeeded in making the transition from P+S to SLR an easy one.

Shame they removed some of the features as it means it's less likely to be bought as a back up, but then it's not necessarily aimed as one!

Good review as always.

We can talk all day but sales count. Not that amazon is the world, but it's a big seller.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/electronics/14335831/ref=pd_ts_pg_1?ie=UTF8&pg=1

I see the A200 is back on top spot. A330 is restricted to sales in the uk jessops only I believe (I never grasped the concept of making a model, then trying to limit it's distribution!) A230 is the only one at the moment. Of course it will climb higher (it's nowhere at the moment, UK or USA amazon), but my overall feelings, based on evidently strong EU sales A200 wise. Is it's a lot more "price", that sells, esp at the low end.

If it ain't broke... ;-)

I picked one up online at Abes of Maine a month ago with the kit lens. I wanted something smaller than the A900. This camera really takes nice pics, especially with the kit lens. I got the CS 16-80 for it, and the pics are really great. Its a great size, and my wife really likes the way it feels as well. The menus are really simple.

I'm just curious why you rated this as possibly not good for "Sports Shooters". If it only because of the 2.5FPS maximum speed, or is there another reason?

Mainly because of the overall speed of the camera, yes, frame rate would be the main disqualification. My thoughts behind this are related to serious sports photographers you see on the side lines of major events.

It doesn't mean you can't shoot sporting events and get good results, its just that its not a high spec camera.

Ill modify the language a bit though.

Carl

One of the "biggest" assets of the camera is its small size. Smallest SLR yet. Sony is targeting two areas with this camera. Anyone who doesn't want to lug around a big SLR for a few shots at the zoo. (My wife actuall will grab her P&S over the a700 if she doesn't want to carry the extra weight.) The other shot is at the micro 4/3 cameras.

If Sony can keep the price of these cameras less than competitors, even with it's advanced shortcommings it will be a home run.

Carl,

I saw your comment on A330's compatibility with older Minolta lenses. I have a complete lense kit for a Minolta STSI 35 mm camera that has been gathering dust for the last several years. I switched to point and shoot digital long time back and since then, have not used the film camera. I tried selling it but got a price quote of $30. Here's the question: Is it worthwhile to buy a Sony specifically to be able to use the 300mm lens that came with my SLR? I see some good point and shoots that are out there that have comparable zooming capability but I know they cannot match the picture quality of a DSLR. Zooming is important for me. So is it really worth spending $700 on a camera just in order to find some use of the telephoto lens from my older camera? Any advice will be helpful.

Thanks

That is etirely up to you, ultimately.

I will say, that if you want better image quality in all segments, then yes, worth the cost to get a DSLR. By the way, all Alpha DSLRS will use legacy lenses, so you can probably find a good deal on an A100/200/300 body only that will cost much less than that, if cost a concern for you.

Speed, versatility, are two other advantages to a point and shoot. Apples to oranges comparison of course, just thinking aloud. I have ultra compacts, all the way up to my A900 FF. All serve a purpose.

Carl

I see Sony continues to dumb down their cheaper SLR's to the point they are simply not attractive to anyone who is not a novice. Even the AE lock button has gone!

Not everyone can afford A700/900 prices and currently Sony offers nothing of interest to the more experienced at a lower price.

In fact I am not sure why even a novice would want one of these.

I always thought the whole idea of moving up to an SLR was to get a more flexible and capable camera.

As has been pointed out a novice can easily use cameras as "intimidating" as an A100. Stick them on P mode or the "green" mode and fire away. All a novice user needs to do is spend five minutes reading the manual and if Sony was any good at writing them a "quick start" guide would have them in P mode and shooting as soon as the battery was charged. Give a novice an A900 and stick that in P mode and say "press this (shutter release button) to take photos" and they will get a result.

With the new cameras anyone who decided to take the hobby seriously will find if they buy a photography book or read photography magazines their new camera is far more limited than the competition.

I do not understand the marketing behind these cameras. I still own a Minolta A1 and no one with one of those would be happy moving to one of these SLR's. People who own simpler cameras than the A1 would be better off with one of the super-zoom cameras as it is getting to the stage from such a users perspective the only difference between the two is on one you can change the lens.

I think someone said these cameras show the Sony DNA more so than the old Minolta DNA or words to that effect. I think that is true and they are the worse for it.

I have no doubts that many with any real knowledge about DSLRs or those wanting a capable budget entry level DSLR would think much like you. The design is a change in procedure for sure, but I guess we really don't know it they will sell well yet or not.

I'm pretty certain Sony will make other models that might be more attractive to enthusiasts. These cameras remind me of the old Minolta 300/400 series film cameras, stripped down and bare in comparison to other models.

After the fiscal year is over, and its time to report market share I guess we will have a better understanding of how Sony's philosophy worked (to a degree). Until then I look forward to later in the year and perhaps PMA early next.

For now I'm thinking that when the entire line up is revealed and refreshed, many will have a better understanding as to the whole philosophy to Sony's dslr lineup.

Carl

The B&H Photo people put a picture of the new Alpha in here but they didn't say anything about it :)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Traveling-Light.jsp

I have a question that doesn't seem to have been addressed anywhere. When connected to the TV via HDMI, is the camera be able to switch the entire LCD functionality to it (including live view and settings displays), or the TV is used strictly to display the images already taken ?

Second, does Live View mode offer enough resolution to be able to focus manually with it (or confirm the autofocus) ?

Thank you!