Sony A350: Full-Time Live View at 14.2MP
by Wesley Fink on April 3, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Final Thoughts
Recent years in the photo industry have seen Canon and Nikon as the 800-pound gorillas playing in the DSLR jungle. Everyone else was further down the food chain. There have been some interesting cracks in that perception with Pentax teaming with giant Samsung who is making their new 14.6MP CMOS sensor in the K20D. However, no one has seemed quite so serious a challenge to Canon and Nikon in DSLR space as has Sony in the last six months with their unending parade of new models with significant new features.
Sony now has more interesting new entry DSLRs than any DSLR maker. The top entry DSLR - the A350 reviewed here - is truly unique and comfortable for those stepping up from point and shoots. It will also appeal to buyers impressed by high-resolution numbers, and frankly it delivers quite well on the promise of its 14.2MP sensor. Those who want to step up from entry DSLR can stay in the Sony line and choose the A700, and later this year Sony says they will introduce a full-frame Pro-oriented 24.6MP that will likely be called the A900.
There is absolutely no doubt that the A350 is the right camera for you if you mainly want to shoot using Live View. Nothing else comes close to the smooth and seamless Sony Live View for ease of use that makes every other implementation of Live View look complicated and slow. The A350 will certainly appeal to new DSLR buyers moving up form point and shoots. It will also attract a number of serious amateur photographers with the 14.2MP sensor, which is currently the highest resolution sensor available in any current or announced entry-level DSLR.
The good news about the sensor is that output is very clean and noise remains low up to ISO 1600. However, ISO 3200 is usable for only small prints. Color is very accurate across all ISO settings. While the A350 does not equal the CMOS sensors of the more expensive Pentax K20D 14.6MP or Canon's low-end Pro 12.2MP full-frame, side-by-side comparisons are better than we really expected. That is certainly good news for those looking for a bargain high-res DSLR.
Serious photographers need to also be aware, however, that the nifty Live View only shows 90% of the image you will capture, and the optical viewfinder is downright awful, with a somewhat dim view at the end of a very long tunnel created by the .74x viewfinder magnification. If you plan to do most of your shooting with the optical viewfinder the A200 is a better choice at a lower price, but you won't get Live View or a 14.2MP sensor if those features are important to you. The $1399 A700 seems to have it all with the best .90x viewfinder on a bright true pentaprism and the excellent 12.24MP CMOS sensor also used on the Nikon D300. However, you won't find Live View on the A700 as Sony believes it is not needed or wanted by photo enthusiasts.
The other good news is that the A350 is exceptionally easy to use. It is easy to reach a comfort level very quickly with the A350 - even if you are new to digital SLR photography. The flip side to this is that you won't find a submenu of custom functions on the A350 as you will on competing Canon and Nikon cameras. You can reassign some button functions if you would like, but you won't find anything that remotely resembles a custom functions menu. We doubt that will matter much to the A350 target audience, but you are forewarned if that matters to you.
At its price point, the Sony A350 is an exceptional value. It is easy to use with the highest resolution sensor in its class. One of our Editors just got his A350 this past week and he commented that in 15 minutes he felt comfortable with all the features of the A350 and was ready to go out and shoot like a pro. It's hard not to like the easy and fast focusing full-time Live View and the quality of the images you can take with the A350. If others feel similarly comfortable with the A350 in such a short time, this could become a best seller.
It is becoming clearer that Sony has ambitious plans in the DSLR market, and that they are willing to invest the resources for a large and varied product line to attract buyers and provide them a line to grow with. We strongly believe it takes great products, wonderful service, and competitive prices to win the market share Sony covets. The A350 is a great value in what has become a good DSLR line. Recently Sony also serviced a first DSLR product for us and the service far exceeded our expectations. That is certainly a good sign.
Sony is a huge player in the worldwide electronics market, and they bring considerable resources to a market they have said they intend to dominate. That huge size brings tremendous resources, but it can also be a handicap if Sony tries too soon or too hard to bully buyers in the DSLR market. Sony is not the biggest player yet, and the expensive proprietary battery is an example of such bullying. Sony, as one of the world's largest battery makers, is clearly self-serving in forcing Sony DSLR buyers to pay $50 to $70 for proprietary Sony InfoLithium rechargeable batteries that are available for every other DSLR brand as $10 generics.
The inability to even use AA batteries in the grips for the new Sony cameras is another example of Sony dictating to a market it does not yet lead. A smarter move would be a lower battery price along with serious marketing on the advantages of InfoLithium batteries. Then no one would care that you could only use the Sony proprietary battery. The current expensive battery only available from Sony smacks far too much of coercion to make sure Sony gets their extra pound of battery flesh from buyers who bought their cameras for the nifty features and didn't know to ask about batteries.
We wonder if accessory moves like the NP-FM500H battery and the "no AA" grips mean that Sony's thinking may be too far down the growth curve right now. Sony needs to tweak their thinking a bit and try to win new DSLR buyers instead of bullying them. Everyone knows Sony but not everyone loves Sony. Many in the photo market genuinely love Canon and Nikon and it will take a complete and solid effort from Sony to win them over.
The current lineup is a good starting point for Sony to win the market share they want to capture. If Sony can keep the announcements, innovations, and service coming - and tweak their marketing a bit to better mesh with DSLR market realities - they may actually reach their ambitious goals in the DSLR market.
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.