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 - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
I have been a Senior Editor at AnandTech for over five years. In fact I have been here longer than anyone except our CEO, Anand Shimpi. I have started or expanded many review areas for AnandTech, brought on-board other AT Editors you will recognize, and handed off new sections to others after getting them up and going. I am NOT quaking in my boots at your threats.What I cannot figure out is why you are so determined to discredit me and my work. It certainly won't work, but I cannot figure out your motivation. I can only assume you must be from a photography web site as we have been attacked before by other web sites who were threatened by the success of AT in other areas. If my work is so mediocre and laughable who bother worrying about my camera reviews enough to threaten me? Something is not right with your vehemence and threats.
Deadtrees - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
What are you talking about? The question was about your being "PRO" photographer, not about your resume on Anandtech.Are you implying that your reviews are bound to be decent because you've been here for some years, did this and that for Anandtech?
Who cares expect you and your ego? Reader don't care whether you're the founder of Anandtech or the creator of Internet when your camera reviews show too many problems.
The very methods you've choson only shows how you're incapable of doing the review on this matter and you know it. Stop the ego trip and find someone who can do the review. If you feel like it's something you gotta do as you're the "PRO" photographer, stop doing silly and nonsense benchmarks as you just can't cut it right.
You see, you're walking down path of Ken Rockwell with this stupid review and ego trip. If you want to do a good review that's not based on benchmarking, www.luminous-landscape.com would be your guide line. Learn from that site instead of Ken Rockwell's.
GTVic - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
Wow, you should really calm down before you give yourself a heart attack. The same goes for some of the other people posting here. The tone of your comments is extremely angry and your attacks are largely demeaning (eg. "this stupid review") rather than constructive and friendly.Your spelling and grammar are so atrocious and juvenile that I imagine you are writing these comments with steam coming out of your ears due to your intense anger. In short, you have very little credibility in spite of all the technical details that you so venomously spew out.
brian_riendeau - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
I think the motivation for a lot of people is the fact that they like AT (otherwise why would they be here reading your article?) and this feels like a letdown. I posted some stuff earlier that may not have been in the best tone, however I can assure when I first clicked on the article I was really excited to read it. Then when I finished I was like "Wow.........." A lot of computer enthusiasts are photogs as well, and its frustrating to come to a site we look to for solid information and read this article. Personally I am someone who currently knows more about cameras than PCs, so reading a head scratcher like this article can make me question some of the PC hardware articles and discredit those.Its also frustrating that you do not have the camera anymore. DSLRs can be finicky things and often the best results or feedback comes from second and third looks at the camera. Obviously you are trying to generate some traffic and expand the site user base a bit. Now what I would love to see if for AT to take the feedback from this, and consider that for a revision to this article or at least future articles. I would love to see a good comparison over the current crop of <$1K DSLRs.
Just keep in mind that megapixels really do not matter. Photography is extremely subjective, and when it comes down to it, people want to know what will take the best pictures for them.
kleang - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Well done on the review and all correction you're doing. This type of review is really what's I'm seeking for.Who's care on everything must be perfect or measured right? I just need something easy to understand, some opinion from pro, some compare to guide what's I got if I buy this product.
If I seriously to buy and need in depth information, dpreview and other many sites is my choice.
May be I'm just your target group, and I'm sure this group is large segment from now.
punchkin - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
This is not an opinion from a pro. In addition, if you actually don't care about basing your opinion on wrong information, you can satisfy yourself easily with a random search anywhere on the web. Hell, I'll send you bad advice for free if you give me your email address.kleang - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
1. You need to build your credibility 1st if you want to give any advice to people. At the moment, your credit is zero for me(sorry to say that).2. Anandtech is one of best information web for a long time, so any advise is good to hear. And I think they response to many comment as a pro, try to correct and very patient to answer.
3. Many comment are very good and helpful but some just try to blame and show off.
4. Like it or haste it, just give polite comment and it's depend on AT if they think it's neccesary or not to correct. No meaning to try to blame to prove you're right. AT must responsible on their review but we (you and me) just reader which didnt provide even realname/email.
5. It's helpful to point the error and give some opinion. But let reader decided if they think this review is helpful or not, you may just not the target group.
Just my 2cent.
punchkin - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
1. We're not discussing your belief in my credibility, but the credibility of the reviewer and his "review".2. Nope, obviously NOT for camera information. The word is "advice". Bad advice or "advise" is bad to hear.
3. My comment is dead on point. A "review" that puts vastly different lenses on different camera bodies, and "tests" using wide-open apertures to show supposed merits of the sensor in each camera, or the imaging capabilities of each camera system, is UTTERLY WORTHLESS.
4. Like it or not, your half-intelligible posts here do nothing to show that the review has any worth whatsoever. If you want to play "politeness police", go elsewhere.
kleang - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
"4. Like it or not, your half-intelligible posts here do nothing to show that the review has any worth whatsoever. If you want to play "politeness police", go elsewhere. "Just in case you didn't realize, this post already shown yourself to the public, lol.
punchkin - Saturday, April 5, 2008 - link
Let's try to keep this to standard English. :D