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
Wesley Fink - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
Can you please post a link to the $30 price for the Sony NPFM500H battery? The battery for the new A700, A350, A300, and A200 is the same, but it is different from the earlier battery for the A100. The earlier A100 battery is both cheaper and available as a cheap generic, unlike the FM500H so far.I just checked and Amazon has a price of $54 with an "Out-of-Stock" for 1 to 2 months. Sony Style is $69.99. If it is now available for $30 ANYWHERE I'm sure a lot of Sony users would appreciate the link.
0roo0roo - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
typical sony arrogance. i would not give such a camera a second look because of the battery alone.Wesley Fink - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
The battery price was pretty annoying to a pot of posters on Forums and I thought it should definitely be discussed as most buyers don't discover this "gotcha" until after their purchase. As we mentioned, with Sony using the same expensive battery in all their new DSLRs there is some hope for a reasonably priced OEM battery in the future - unless Sony has something in the technology completely tied up with patents.Interestingly chargers for the old A100 battery work fine with the new FM500H. It appears the A100 batteries would work fine in the new cameras if they had the center groove that is on the FM500H. Perhaps some enterprising Asian source will come up with a battery at a decent price that will work in the new Sony cameras.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t resist helping out Mr. Fink with his K20D technology – in particular, the 14.6 megapixel CMOS sensor.Just a few searches on the net uncovered the Pentax marketing material that describes this sensor, as well as a slide from an Asian presentation showing the structure and size of the individual photosites of the sensor.
Unfortunately, this material only proves that my method of calculation of photosite area was correct: the Pentax sensor has a photosite size of 5 microns, with an intersite gap of .13 microns. I said we should ignore this gap, because it is difficult to find the exact dimensions for all sensors in the literature.
I did not calculate the size of the photosites for the K20D sensor, but, for the sake of clarity and completeness:
23.4mm/4672 pixels = 5.009 microns
15.6mm/3104 pixels = 5.026 microns
Please note that this number should really be 5.13 microns, so my calculation is not 100 percent accurate. However, I felt it close enough for the purposes of this review. I will leave it to the reader to be the final judge.
What Mr. Fink was really referring to was the size of the photodiode at each photosite. The photodiode, as we all understand, is the device that actually does the conversion of the incoming photons to electrical energy. And, as we all understand, since it is not yet technically possible to construct a photodiode that covers the entire photosite, a microlens is placed over the top of the photosite assembly to focus the incoming photons onto the active area of the photodiode.
With good engineering, the combination of the structure of the microlens and the size of the photodiode, will result in an approximation of a photodiode that effectively covers the entire photosite. Of course, each manufacturer has their own techniques for optimizing this approximation, and probably much of the engineering could be considered a trade secret.
I tried to avoid all this complication by simply giving Mr. Fink the benefit of the doubt, and assuming in my calculation that the photodiode did, in fact, cover the entire photosite area. I thought this was in keeping with the tenor of the review itself, and subsequent discussions in this forum – keep it simple.
What Pentax claims to have achieved is a photodiode size that is larger than the photodiode size of the Sony A700 12.2 megapixel sensor. This size is measured as being 40 percent of the area of the photosite, which would be 40 percent of 25 or 10 sq. microns. I will give them and Mr. Fink that. However, this does not change the size of the photosite itself, which is: 5 microns.
Finally, Mr. Fink claims early in his response – “… the photosite size for the K20D does not scale as you indicate.”
I can only refer Mr. Fink to the folks at Samsung/Pentax, as well as to at least two other photography sources. These people would say that , in fact, yes - it does. And, I am constrained to point out – as my own calculation suggests.
But, I fear I have gone far, far astray from the original intent of the review, which was to simply look at the crops and determine the comparative noise attributes. Maybe I will try that sometime in the future, but don't hold your breath.
jake123 - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
Danddon, I doubt if you even knew the difference between a photodiode and photosite beforehand.But a clarification of terminology is a good thing.
Also, you should just compare the photos as Wesley tells you and judge for yourself.
danddon - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
Actually, Jake123, I didn't even know what a digital camera was until I happened upon the AnandTech site. But, I am trying to learn.I have used the instant film cameras on occasion, but only when I could sell enough cans and bottles from my shopping cart to pay for them.
Thank you for your helpful words of advice, and appreciate your patience. I will be comparing those photos as fast as my limited intelligence will allow.
I apologize if my feeble attempt at technology was not appreciated. I hope you weren't too offended.
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
What is your point? The article does not mention photosite size except in passing. Did you really expect an in-depth treatise on the impact of photosite size in the front page discussion Forum of this review? There are many variables that affect the ability of a pixel to respond to light and the size of the pixel is one of them. It is important, but it is not the only variable, as you well know.The K20D and Canon 5D are CMOS sensors and the Sony A350 is CCD. I can point to articles at respected sites in the past who argued that CMOS sensors would always be inferior to CCD. Of course the entire Canon line is now CMOS, and all the new sensor introductions have been CMOS except this Sony 14.2 sensor. Even the A700/D300 is CMOS. Obviously manufacturers found ways to get around the inherent limitations of CMOS sensors. Photosite or pixel size is another inherent limitation.
The images are there for you to decide for yourself. If they aren't controlled enough for your liking you can perhaps find what you seek elsewhere on the web. Thank you for your research and for bringing your findings to my attention.
Barbu - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Last time I checked, being a PRO meant that you got your rent, your car and your equipment paid from the photography job. Mr. Fink might try to pose as a PRO, but no professional photographer would go on semi-auto mode in low-light. Really, that sentence looks like a high-school brag and for the real pros it's simply laughable.It's sad to see that the author ran out of valid reasoning and ended up using his fists to defend his... opera.
People, try to get this: even if the article is written in layman's terms, it has no practical value; mistakes over mistakes, and any beginner would make *different* mistakes or sub-optimal settings; the article is simply not relevant *for anybody*, enthusiast, prosumer, amateur or plain beginner.
_____________________________________________________
I'm almost certain of a thing: there would be no more polite replies, so I won't continue this thread. But (as many others will do) I'll have a very critical eye for WF's next articles, and any further error in dSLR testing will be sorely pointed out; the consequence will either be building mistrust in Anandtech (wich is a shame, considering the other very good articles), or -as an alternative- the author will be guided to other... workplace.
So, Mr. Fink: be very careful, you're watched.
Maxington - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
I've never seen a post more full of horrific levels of "YOU'RE NOT A PRO PHOTOGRAPHER" snobbery.Ken Rockwell is a pro photographer based on your criteria, and I'm not sure if he even knows how to take a photo in anything but full-auto, jpeg mode. And he reviews cameras!
Deadtrees - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
I agree Ken Rockwell doesn't know much yet reviews cameras. That's why he became a joke when it comes to camera reviews. Same mistake is being made right here on Anandtech.Not only that, Ken Rockwell is known for his huge ego. That, too, is quite same with the reviwer here on Anandtech.