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
haplo602 - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Well done on the reshot. The only one lacking is the Canon 5D (should be the same image area) but other than that, quite fine.I read through almost all the comment pages and I have a few things to add.
AT is a page for geeks and enthusiasts that want the best tool for the job. In this case mostly a gaming rig (AT still has gaps in OS, server, workstation reviews). I noticed that you do not want to mimic the other established sites. The problem is, there is not much choice.
The camera models differ in details that are largely unimportant to the usual AT visitor. And you cannot expect people to ditch an SRL system when they got more than just body+kit lense.
So I suggest you pick a place that covers what the average AT visitor wants to know - make a POLL/survey about that.
Pixel peeping is not for normal people. They shoot at max ISO 800 (or whatever the auto iso setting will max at). Mostly leave the photos in digital form to present on web galleries. Hardly anybody does larger prints (beyond 10x15 cm photo). BUT I think they are concerned about ease of use, good camera manual, availability of accessories (lenses, flashes etc.), performance in mostly auto or program mode, JPEG quality and such.
These are the areas AT should work on. Hardly any serious photo site does review the automated or (idiot) scene modes.
Truth is, whoever does use scene modes on an SLR shoudl be still using a point and shoot, but there is a group of people that are not satisfied with the limits of P&S cameras, yet they have not mastered the science behind photography. These will be interested in the areas I just mentioned.
I'd say give it a thought, do a review based on that and see the reactions ...
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Since I have had several requests for same "field of view" images and crops for the Canon 5D I have added a page 7 with two sets of Canon 5D crops and full images.One set is taken from the same location with the 50mm lens. That is the set that was already in the updated review an it 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.
With both sets of Canon 5D images you should be able to compare the A350 and Canon 5D images as you would like to see them compared.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Thank you for correcting this issue. These crops are better, but not the areas are still identical in size. Perhaps you can improve in your next set.Now, then - how about some comments on photosite size discrepancies between the a350 and 5D? Since the 5D has a larger sensor, with a smaller number of pixels, the photosites are correspondingly larger. Hence, for any given light level, these photosites will gather more photons than the a350. This will result in a higher signal to noise ratio, with less noise appearing in the crop.
Since you are fond of not getting too technical, let's say the photosites are twice as large in the 5D. If so, then should we not be comparing, say, the iso3200 on the 5D with the iso1600 on the a350?
If you do not like the above numbers, please give us unwashed readers your take on how to account for these differences in sensor sizes. Surely, you want to provide this analysis. Yes?
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Since we are still dealing with different sensor resolutions, the same field of view will yield slightly different crops since we are maintaining the same pixel crop size of 230x300. The Canon 5D is 12.2 megapixels and the Sony is 14.2 megapixels. So a same-size crop from an equivalent field of view image on the Canon 5D would still show more area than the same pixel-size crop from the higher resolution A350. To produce same pixel-size crops and take this into account would take endless manipulation with each camera tested that had a different sensor resolution or multiplier.The Pentax K20D at 14.6 and the Sony at 14.2 are closer in resolution so the differences are not as great, but there are still differences in the same pixel crops. As we would expect the Sony crop view is a bit wider since it is a bit lower in resolution than the Pentax.
We could just crop the same area from equivalent field of view photos, as I have seen done in some other photo reviews. However, it is my opinion that is not a fair representation of noise since the crop areas would represent different total pixels. This becomes an interesting problem when you compare a 10 megapixel sensor since the resolution is almost 50% less than the Pentax K20D.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
How about the issue of photosite size?From “Digital Photography Review”:
Canon 5D
Sensor Size = 35.8mm x 23.9 mm
Max Image = 4368 x 2912 pixels
Alpha 350
Sensor Size = 23.6mm x 15.8 mm
Max Image = 4592 x 3056 pixels
Assuming the above numbers are in the ballpark, we get a photosite maximum possible size of:
5D = 35.8/4368 = 8.196 or 8 microns
23.9/2912 = 8.207 or 8 microns
a350 = 23.6/4592 = 5.139 or 5 microns
15.8/3056 = 5.170 or 5 microns
Thus the 5D has a photosite area of 8x8 or 64 sq. microns
Likewise, the a350 has an area of 5x5 or 25 sq. microns
If we ignore the reductions in these areas due to photosite boundaries, which would be required for light shielding between sites and for electronics, then we can say that the 5D has approximately 2.5 times more photosite area than the a350.
Thus, everything else being equal and for the same iso setting, the 5D will gather 2.5 times more photons than the a350, with a correspondingly better signal to noise ratio, and less visible noise in the resulting image.
Therefore, why should one compare iso3200 on the a350 with iso3200 on the 5D, when the 5d would receive 2.5 times more photons in each photosite? Please explain.
Wesley Fink - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
First of all the photosite size for the K20D does not scale as you indicate. One of the Samsung/Pentax big deals is that they say they have reduced the space between photosites to increase the size. They claim the 14.6 megapixel sensor has about the same size photosites as the Sony A700/Canon A300 12.2 megapixel sensor.All else being equal the photosite size obviously matters, but all else is never equal. You can can compare the photos and crops for yourself in this review instead of calculating what should and should not be compared. As I have learned in reviewing computer components, assumptions and suppositions often get you in trouble.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Then how does it scale? How about some math instead of words?And who even mentioned the K20D? The comparison being discussed is between the a350 and the 5D. Can you read?
LOL ...
I have heard enough. And, it was far too little to be of any value. Thanks, anyway.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
This sentence:"These crops are better, but not the areas are still identical in size."
should read:
"These crops are better, but not the image areas are still not identical in size."
Sorry for the confusion. My bad.
danddon - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
This sentence:"These crops are better, but not the areas are still identical in size."
should read:
"These crops are better, but the image areas are still not identical in size."
Sorry for the confusion. My bad - 2.
Maxington - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Just keep improving your reviews and listening to constructive comments Wesley. I appreciate a different take on reviews regardless, you always have to read multiple reviews from multiple people to get a proper take on a product. All of them cover a different aspect that the others didn't take into account.There is no perfect way to review cameras, have you seen the DPReview forums? They are pretty much the gold standard for reviews, and after every review, there are dozens of threads decrying the obvious flaws in the testing system! You can't win again people who are far more interested in measurebating the tech specs than taking photos, and there is no way to remove all variances between different cameras, let alone entire brands.
I tend to feel there is a lot less bias in your reviews than most "camera" sites. A lot of those smack of "If its not Canon/Nikon, its not a camera".
Hell, most of the issues that the measurebater crowd are niggling at won't even be visible in real life photos.