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
GoSharks - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
However, in a typical situation, I doubt anybody is using ISO100 in combination with a 2 second exposure. I do not believe this is a real-world condition.Wesley Fink - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
Agreed. That is another obvious concern. I am very happy to hear suggestiosn on what any of you feel are the best "real-world" test conditions. Nothing is set in stone at this point.Justin Case - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
It's beyond me why AT bothers with this. AT's photography articles are little more than rephrased sales brochures and spec sheets from the manufacturers. Most don't even have photos taken with the cameras (why do I need 7 or 8 photos of the camera itself? I can get that at the manufacturer's site, which is where you downloaded them from anyway), and the testing procedures are inconsistent and amateurish to say the least.There are dozens of photography sites out there that have tested these and a lot of other models, using relevant methods, and with reviews written by people with years of experience with all sorts of different cameras and all sorts of situations (film, digital, studio, wildlife, holiday snapshots, etc). Heck, there are forum posts at DPReview with more information and better test shots than all AT "photography" (meaning camera spec sheet) articles put together.
If you're not going to at least attempt to offer something that all those sites aren't offering, why bother? If you can't offer expert opinion, at least include a lot of samples, so people can get an idea of what each camera can deliver in different situations. As it is, these reviews seem like something out of a teenager's blog, put together in one afternoon, and reflect negatively on Anandtech's image of professionalism.
I guess it's all about filling the space between the ads...
Deadtrees - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
I'm amazed how the comparsions are poorly done.The more look at it, the more I find problems.
1.K20D - Saturation:Normal, Sharpness:High, Contrast:Hard
A100 - Saturation:Normal, Sharpness:Normal, Contrast:Normal
I hope you know those changing those parameters can impact image qualities. Let's see what's possible: I can turn down sharpness/contrast/saturation of camera A and turn up those values on camera B and come out with a conclusion that camera A produces blurry, faded colored, and low noise images with better dynamic range/tonal reponse, and than camera B.
2. K10D: 1.5 sec, 5D: 1 sec. (of exposure time)
Even after numbrous posts about setting the same exposure, you re-shot images with different expososure settings. As I mentined earlier, 5D and some other cameras has different ISO standards (ISO 100 being 125, 3200 being 4000) and along with different exposure mechanism, this could've resulted the difference as you used AV mode. However, you should've mentioned it if it's the case or just set the same manual exposure settings.
Also, what kind of long shutter noise reduction setup did you have? Without mentioning it and understanding it, the reivew of the samles are pointless.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
Actually I reviewed the A350 and not the Sony A100, but I understand it was an honest mistake. I wish you could provide me the same courtesy.Frankly you would be amazed at the level of integrity at AnandTech in terms of presenting accurate data in as unbiased a manner as possible. Our ad agency is completely separate from AT and we don't even see data on who the biggest advertisers are. That is by design.
We have stated many times that we have no desire to mirror the large established photo sites. I have read and enjoyed them for years, but they are not everyone's cup of tea. Most of our readers are intimidated with the depth of info at the dedicated photo sites and they have asked us to provide reliable information at a lower level that is more accessible and requires less specialized knowledge. That is our intention.
I do understand the impact of noise reduction algorithms on image detail. I also understand the potential impact of adjustments in sharpness and saturation. I will use that knowledge to try to test DSLRs as fairly as possible, but delving deeply into those variables will not be a standard part of our reviews in the near future. Perhaps we will do more standard testing of those variables down the road.
Deadtrees - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
There're many things you need to know before you can be, at least, a fair reviewer. Reading your reviews and replies, I doubt if you even have a somwhat basic knowldges. When I said that certain cameras have different ISO standards, you had no idea what I was talking about. How can you make conclusions about any cameras noise level without knowing this?Not only that, what kind of reviewer tests image resolution/noise level using different aperture values?
On the other hand, do you know that noise reduction algorithm differs from brands to other brands? What's even more confusing is that even cameras from a same brand have different noise reduction system. For instance, noise reduction on Nikon D200 will kick in After ISO 400 even if you turn it off in the menu and it's not the same way in other Nikon cameras.
Without knowing this, you might just think that you tested cameras equally as you've had the same setup but it's not.
Before doing the test and writing up the review, did you care to know the noise processing mechnisms of those cameras? I doubt so.
Look at images from A350, in order to maintain low noise, it utilizes way too much noise reduction(more like smearing) that results great loss of deatils. Hell, it even looks like water painting. Sure, the noise is low but with the cost of loss details.
Given that, your saying "The good news about the sensor is that output is very clean and noise remains low up to ISO 1600" is quite thoughtless.
Again, you're the reviewer of Anandtech and that means something. It means you shouldn't write a review that is more like a blog posting of somebody on the internet.
I know it's a computer hardware site but the respect Anandtech has achived should reaim even in camera reviews. Readers shouldn't be the victim of amateurish reivews.
Heidfirst - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
"Look at images from A350, in order to maintain low noise, it utilizes way too much noise reduction(more like smearing) that results great loss of deatils. Hell, it even looks like water painting. Sure, the noise is low but with the cost of loss details."Experience with the A700 says that this can be due to the processing software used & afaik the A350 uses the same file format as the A700 - e.g. ACR does a poor job (in the same way that it did a poor job with the Oly E-3 until Adobe issued a patch for it) whereas e.g. Bibble handles it better.
So, at the end of the day we are not only comparing the individual sensor output but the camera's processing (& as mentioned there may there be also be differences between camera settings - e.g. what one calls a high setting may not be the same as that on another), the lens quality & how the processing software used handles the individual output.
That's quite a lot of variables to get a truly level playing field fora comparison.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, April 3, 2008 - link
Of course I knew what you were talking about when you mentioned ISO variance among cameras at the same ISO setting. I am always willing to listen to constructive criticism, but I have little patience with comments that are self-serving grandiosity. I have made a living as a PRO photographer - have you?You should also mention that almost every NEW camera that has been tested for ISO speed variation is today largely correct in the reported ISO. I am aware of the issue but its importance today is low and not that signigficant to our intended audience. The biggest offender was Canon, and their newer cameras are now testing correct as well. I doubt, however, that your real goal was to share information. It sounds from your tone that your goal was to belittle rather than educate or provide constructive criticism..
I don't know everything, but you haven't mentioned one thing that I don't understand, so please get off your soap box. We have stated many times that we have no desire to mirror dpreview. They are a terrific site for photo information and in-depth reviews. I have read and enjoyed them for years, but they are not everyone's cup of tea. Most of our readers are intimidated with the info at the dedicated old school photo sites and they have asked us to provide reliable information at a lower level. That is our intention.
I also briefly discussed the impact of noise reduction in the review and I am keenly aware of the ongoing discussion about the impact of noise reduction schemes on image detail. I also am aware the K10D is best RAW and the noise reduction algorithm is poor, but that is from my experience with the camera. I might add that the K20D behaves differently - from experience - but you don't know that yet because while I have done a first hands-on look at the K20D, the major photo sites haven't posted any real reviews of the K20D yet.
Yes, we made errors in this first real DSLR review, but we have worked diligently to correct them. I have just posted the crops and full images for the reshoot with the Sony A350, so all images are now consistent in shooting conditions and they can be fairly compared. I think you will find what I concluded in my initial review can now be more clearly seen in the crops and full images.
We are obviously too basic for your tastes and I wouldn't want your head to hurt with the drivel you see here. By all means continue to get the information you need from the current established photo sites. We are aiming to provide reliable information to a wider cross-section of users and we will not likely satisfy the level of detail you seek.
cputeq - Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - link
I just wanted to give you guys props for trying to "make things right" ;)We're all guilty of missteps sometimes (hell, I'm King Screwup..just witness my home improvement attempts!), so it's good to see you guys take this in stride and do what it takes to correct any apparent errors while also trying to improve the review.
So, I hope you guys don't get too disgruntled with some of the forum posts -- people type stupid crap on the web every day ;)
I look forward to seeing the reshoot -- and yeah, btw, the proper crops are now showing up for me on page 6. All I have to say is "wow". The ISO 400+ crops are horrible for the Sony :( I'll be interested in knowing the culprit, as I couldn't imagine a camera of this caliber looking that noisy at 400.
While a smallish printout may not count, so people (like myself) are cursed and look for the smallest stupid details in pictures!
Thanks again for all you guys do!
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - link
Your comments are sincerely appreciated. I suspect the f4 reshoot with fixed f4 aperture will fix the apparent Sony issues. THe first crops, with the Sony at f2 and the Pentax and Canon at 1.4, made the Sony look like the better camera, which is not the case. In the reshoots the K20D and 5D look more as you would expect. We will post the new A350 crops and images late tomorrow assuming the camera is received as promised.