Sony A350: Full-Time Live View at 14.2MP
by Wesley Fink on April 3, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Live View and the Optical Viewfinder
Sony Live View impressed us at PMA, and now that we've spent more time with a production A350 we are even more impressed with the Sony version. Sony Live View is definitely unique compared to others, and their description as Quick AF Live View is justified.
Everyone else now uses the imaging sensor to provide Live View, and while that method works and is fairly cheap to implement, it does have serious limitations. First, it eats precious power, as the mirror has to be flipped up and held out of the image path during Live View. Second, the camera must flip down the mirror for focus and metering, which slows down shooting and momentarily turns off Live View. This makes Live View more a check-box feature on today's digital SLRs than something truly like the Live View seen on Point-and-Shoot cameras. Some variations of this exist, such as the Canon Live View system with contrast-detection focusing that has been announced for the Canon XSi, but all the Live View systems have been slower and less capable than optical AF.
In the A300 and A350, Sony introduces a totally different Live View System, based on an additional live view sensor and a tilting pentamirror. In the Sony Quick AF Live View, the pentamirror tilts and the optical viewfinder closes during live view. It can also run continuously without overheating the sensor, which is an early reported problem with the Canon system.
One huge improvement from the prototypes we saw at PMA is the top mounted switch for Live View or the Optical Viewfinder. It is a mechanical switch that works with or without camera power, and it is exceptionally easy to slide without the excessive resistance we saw on the PMA cameras. When the switch is in Live View, the viewfinder blind closes so there is no mistaking the camera mode.
In our shooting with a production A350, the Quick AF Live View seemed just as fast as the optical viewfinder. Sony specifies a slight speed penalty with Live View, however, with continuous shooting of 2FPS in Live View and 2.5FPS with the Optical Viewfinder. If you look closely at the specs on page two you will see this is slower than the 10.2MP models (A200 and A300) which manage 3FPS with less info to write with the lower-resolution sensor.
Those who are used to the Live View capabilities of their point-and-shoot digitals will love the new Sony A350 and A300. They will seem very familiar and Live View is exceptionally easy to select and use. The bad news is that the 2.7" Live View LCD only shows 90% of the image you will capture. That won't matter for the snapshots LV will mainly be used for, but it is an obvious problem if you are using Live View for high or low-angle Macro shots with the tilting Live View Screen. When you process or review the captured images, there is a lot more around the image than you framed on the Live View screen. Keep that in mind during critical shooting and it will be less of a problem.
Optical Viewfinder
It's a good thing the Live view is useful and fast because the optical viewfinder is absolutely horrible - both dim and tiny with a pronounced "looking down a tunnel" effect. You can see why this is the case with a close look at the viewfinder specs on page two. The top A700 has a good viewfinder with a .90x magnification, and it uses a true pentaprism for a bright clear image.
The 2006 A100 had a decent .83X pentamirror viewfinder that was both larger and brighter than normally seen on cropped sensor DSLR cameras. That viewfinder appears to be carried over intact to the new A200. Then there is the new A350/A300 with a .74X optical viewfinder. The view is reasonably bright - for a light at the end of a tunnel - but the tunnel is so long you are left with the impression that the viewfinder is dim. The screen itself appears tiny and the usefulness of the optical viewfinder is seriously reduced in the A350 and its sister A300.
If you will mainly shoot with the optical viewfinder and don't really care about the tiltable LCD and Live View, then go with the A200 as the viewfinder is much better. The fly in the ointment comes if you want the 14.2MP sensor because the other options are 10MP - and that gives the A350 about 40% higher resolution than the other entry-level Sony cameras.
It's a good thing the A350 has good full-time Live View because we would flunk the camera if we had just the optical viewfinder to depend on. Even the tunnel-like Olympus E-510/410 viewfinders are better than the new A350 - and they are hampered by the smaller sensor with the 2X multiplier. There are ways to get around most viewfinder issues as Olympus showed us with the superb viewfinder in the new E-3, where the small sensor is assisted with a high pentaprism with a 1.15X magnification. The A350 optical viewfinder is usable, but in general it is pretty awful. Sony really needs to improve this viewfinder because it will matter to most users who don't mainly use Live View, and many will be buying this camera for the 14.2MP sensor and not just the Live View.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
113 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
I didn't think that was possible. Sounds like it falls in the same category as the optical viewfinders some compact cameras have, designed for emergency use only. I can't wait until some owner, blindly going by what is recommended as "best" on the forums, is trying to shoot with a 70-200/2.8 on an A350 held out at arms length.Wesley Fink - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
The Olympus E-510 and E-410/E-420 actually have a viewfinder magnification of .92X, but the smaller sensor with the 2X crop factor makes the viewfinder look smaller than competing 1.5x/1.6x APS-C cameras. As mentioned in the review Oly got around this on the E-3 by going to a 1.15X multiplier. The E-3 has a great viewfinder that still needs a bit more eye relief to bbe nearly perfect. By comparison the A350 has a viewfinder magnification of .74x on a 1.5X crop camera.Deadtrees - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
As many others have pointed out, the test is just wrong.It's so wrong that it even makes me wonder about credibility of computer hardware tests done here in Anandtech. Well, no, I do trust hardware reviews but not this one.
1.How can you possibly claim that it's the resolution test when Sony camera had its aperture set as f/2 and other set at f/1.4? On 50mm f/1.4 lens, the difference it makes is quite huge. It'd just be retarded to claim that this camera has better or worse resolution when the apeture value is full 1 stop different on a 50mm f/1.4 lens.
(I checked some pictures' EXIF data and it seems like they have all mixed apeture values. That's just so wrong)
- Use fixed aperture value.
2. Do you know that the actual ISO level can be quite often different than the others? For instance, 5D has higer ISO level than the other cameras: ISO 3200 on 5D can be ISO 4000 on the other cameras. Dpreview mentioned it as well.
- Show at least basic EXIF information regarding exposure setting so that readers can at least think about it.
3. Why the claimed Sony A350 ISO 1600 shows exif ISO level of 800?
Also, A350 was set to use manual WB whereas 5D was set to use preset tungsten WB. Based on this, how can you claim "Canon 5D is somewhat warm at the Tungsten preset compared to the cooler and more accurate rendition of the Sony A350."
Well, I gotta go now so I'll finish here for now.
Basilisk - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
I understand you're still working out your aperture/f-stop/ISO parameters for testing. When you've decided on those, you might want to increase your available illumination considerably to get shorter exposure times: 1/6 second seemed unnecessarily long, but that is indeed what the EXIF indicated. Or, perhaps you're setup is immune to vibration?Unlike an earlier poster, I'm not so sure camera reviews are a natural extension to your other hardware reviews. A few other sites have been doing those pretty well for some time....
Wesley Fink - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
We have already reshot the K20D and 5D tests using a fixed aperture and remote shutter release. It is not possible to reshoot the A350 since it has already been shipped to another user. Otherwise we would reshoot the entire sequence using f4.0 on the f1.4 leneses. We have talked about the changes that will be made in future reviews and we have definitely listened to comments and suggestions.The EXIF information is available (and has always been available) in the full images that can be downloaded by right-clicking any of the crops. You can see those for yourself in the review. Our conclusions were based on analysis of the full images and not the crops. The crops were designed to show details on the web and we agree they don't communicate noise well in theri current form - that's why we're updating procedures. The EXIF for the 5D on H, BTW, reports 3200 ISO. We did check all the EXIF values and we used the latest 1.1.1 BIOS just released a few days ago by Canon.
haplo602 - Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - link
hmm I still get f-stop 1.4 on the pentax 100iso shot (I did not bother to check the others). truth is, I am using the builtin opera image properties option, but it looks like exif data to me ...Deadtrees - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
You haven't replied to some of my crucial questions.1. What's the point of ISO 1600 comparisons when A350 was set at ISO 800?
2. A350 had Custom WB setting and 5D had Tungsten WB:
Given that, how could you possibly claim that "Canon 5D is somewhat warm at the Tungsten preset compared to the cooler and more accurate rendition of the Sony A350"
3. What's the point of this review when you said "It is not possible to reshoot the A350 since it has already been shipped to another user?" Should readers just suck it up this false review because you can't redo the review? I think it's just better to take it down as this review just makes fool of Anandtech. Oh well, after all, it's the April Fool's day, isn't it?
BTW, your answer on the second paragraph didn't make any sense. Not only you did not understand what I was saying, you came out with some weird answers for what I haven't asked. Why are you giving me the instruction of how to view EXIF info? Why are you telling me the point of having cropped images and that the conclusion was based on full sized images? I was not talking about those and I didn't say that the review is false because of that.
Sorry if I'm being harsh but as you and Anandtech Staffs know, this is Anandtech. Though it's not a site about cameras, the credibility you guys gained over the decades does have a deep impact over readers.
I really think camera reviews should, at least, meet half of hardware reviews.
Wesley Fink - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
1. The ISO 1600 being an 800 ISO image is an honest mistake. We uploaded over 127MB of full images for the 3 camera comparisons to our servers and that file name was incorrect. I will replace the 1600 with the correct file as soon as this comment is posted.2. The A350 ALSO used Tungsten white balance. I just checked the A350 files with OPanda EXIF 2 and the files are indicated as a Tungsten light source and "Custom White Balance".
The Canon is almost famous for its poor performance on Auto WB in Tungsten lighting. On AWB it was extremely orange in cast. Even on the Tungsten setting it is warmer as we were comparing Tungsten WB to Tungsten WB. A custom light temperature would probably work better on all 3 cameras.
3. The review is definitely NOT false, and we stand by our conclusions as we looked at many more images than those published here in reaching our conclusions. Our procedures can definitely be improved. We've committed to doing that in future reviews and we have listened carefully to all suggestions. Cameras are not given to us by manufacturers to hold indefinitely, and we generally have to beg manufacturers for a few days of use to review new cameras. That will change in the future, but short of buying the cameras we evaluate we have them for a limited time.
strikeback03 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
It's not an EXIF issue, it's that the actual sensitivity of the camera is not what is indicated (when compared to a good light meter).http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21....">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21....
qbfx - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
Hmm, I thought it was in the same price and performance class as the Canon 450D and the Nikon D300, why are they comparing it to the 5D ?? I still think the 400D and the 450D are better