Sony A350: Full-Time Live View at 14.2MP
by Wesley Fink on April 3, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Resolution and Sensitivity Tests - Sony A350 vs. Pentax K20D
All crops represent a view of 230x300 actual pixels cropped from the larger 14.2, 14.6, or 12.2MP images. The crop area on the 1.5X multiplier Sony A350 and Pentax K20D are represented by the red rectangle on the full image above. Since the Canon 5D is a full-size sensor the coverage of the 50mm is greater on the 5D than the two 1.5X multiplier sensors. Therefore two sets of crops and full images are presented for the 5D. One set is taken from the same location and the 50mm lens provides a greater field of view on the 5D than on the 1.5X multiplier cameras. The second set of 5D images were shot with the same camera and 50mm lens moved closer to the image to try to maintain the same field of view. Despite the different fields of view, all Canon 5D cropped images are still maintained at 230x300 pixels. The comparison to the Canon 5D sensor is presented on the next page.
Links to the full JPEG images are also available on each camera sensitivity crop. These files are huge, but they can be downloaded for those who wish to view the actual images or explore EXIF data embedded in each image. A shareware EXIF viewer, OPanda IEXIP 2, is available at for download at Opanda.
| ISO Comparison - Sony vs. Pentax | ||
| ISO | Sony A350 | Pentax K20D |
| 100 |  |
 |
| 200 |  |
 |
| 400 |  |
 |
| 800 |  |
 |
| 1600 |  |
 |
| 3200 |  |
 |
| 6400 |  |
|
Click on any of the above image crops for the full image. Note: Full size images are between 3.5MB and 11.4MB! |
||
The Sony A350 exhibits very accurate color with the tungsten setting at all ISO settings. Noise is well controlled through ISO 800, with little increase in noise. By ISO 1600 we begin to see increased noise, but considering the crops are larger on screen than a 20x16 enlargement we supsect the images would still be very useful at ISO 1600 even for enlargements. By ISO 3200, noise has become an issue, but color is still very accurate at the Tungsten preset under tungsten light. ISO 3200 images are usable for small prints but are much too noisy for enlargements. The K20D noise is well controlled through ISO 3200. Noise at ISO 6400 is comparable to the Sony A350 at ISO 3200, making images at ISO 6400 useful for small prints only. Color on the Tungsten preset remains warm in some colors with the K20D, much like the Canon 5D crops shown on the next page, but whites are very clean. Custom white balance would probably do a better job than the Tungsten preset on the K20D.
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