Latest Sony A350 gets its head handed to it.

Discussion in 'Sony' started by RichA, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Just "recommended?" The A700 showed such promise. The A100 was a
    cheap,cheap plastic thing, but it did have one good thing going for
    it..unmolested raw files which rendered the best 10 meg resolution at
    the time of it's introduction. The new Sony seems to have a clever
    Live View system, but the reviewers have come to only appreciate
    whitewashed near noise-free images only, so it didn't make the grade
    of "highly recommended."
    RichA, Jun 7, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Focus Guest

    Well, it's extremely high recommended by me ;-)

    I seriously think the reviewers don't understand the enormous advantage the
    liveview has.
    A pro photographer friend of mine saw it immediately: holding it to your
    stomach not only reduces camera shake, but also lets you take "candid"
    photos on the street etc.
    He said: "Just like a Hasselblad!"
    He bought one for his father, who is also a photographer.

    You can see the pictures I made with it in the thread: "Americans love
    It performed fantastic, even at 1/2 second the pictures are supersharp.

    I do take reviewers with a great shovel of salt. They claimed you absolutely
    need a much better lens then the supplied 18-70 kitlens (which some agree is
    one of the best in its class) to get all the power of the 14 MP. Preferred
    weapon of choice: the 600 euro CZ 16-80.
    Funny enough, I found some pictures on SLRgear with the lenses:
    If you look at the 18-70 and the CZ wide open at 35 mm, the cheaper 18-70 is
    much sharper in the corners. Not a little, but much!
    Look at the threads, specially the white one: the expensive 16-80 has left
    virtually no detail.

    So much for reviewers....
    Focus, Jun 7, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Your plastic argument remains as null and void as always, esp. as all
    manufacturers at the low end of the market do exactly the same thing.
    Even if it was a major flaw (which it isn't) it is not a discriminator
    amongst offered models.

    350: Sony tried to cram too much sensor onto too small a surface.

    What this really proves is what I've said here for a long time:

    Olympus' 4/3 system is over-constrained in surface area and will never
    deliver a high pixel count platform.

    The other manufacturers, Canon, now Nikon and soon Sony have FF
    offerings that allow lower density with higher pixel counts. That's
    where the quality images will be.
    Alan Browne, Jun 7, 2008
  4. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Meant to say it thus: _ all the manufacturers use plastic only designs
    at the low end of their offerings _

    at that end of the market.
    Alan Browne, Jun 7, 2008
  5. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    What a shame. :(

    I assumed that your wickedly brilliant pun was intentional. Let's
    pretend that it was . . . :)
    ASAAR, Jun 7, 2008
  6. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Just sloppy writing; nothing wicked or brilliant.

    Happens when my typing gets in the way of my thinking.
    Alan Browne, Jun 7, 2008
  7. RichA

    bob Guest

    Like Yoda you sounded like.
    bob, Jun 8, 2008
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Not really. The Nikon D300 has 12 meg, this is only 2.5 or so meg
    RichA, Jun 8, 2008
  9. RichA

    Focus Guest

    And the Super HAD CCD sensor allows for it without compromise ;-)
    Focus, Jun 8, 2008
  10. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Sound that good it did not.

    Okay, I took my ribbin' ...
    Alan Browne, Jun 8, 2008
  11. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    As the sensor "pits" get ever smaller, the signal gathering ability
    falls _geometrically_ v. constant (mostly) noise. At over 97 lp/mm, I
    believe they've pushed it over the edge.

    I'm the first to say that Sony are not the noise champs in any sense;
    OTOH, at these resolutions you hit tipping points very hard and fast and
    it makes less than optimal into poor when you make even marginal
    increases in resolution.

    Also, it's very germane to note that at more common ISO (100 - 400) the
    Sony -350 does quite well noise wise.

    Where Sony is "measured" to have less noise in a comparable camera (D300
    v. a700 for example), Sony is quickly revealed to "smooth" too
    aggressively. This is an area where I hope Sony improve soon; esp. with
    the new FF camera.
    Alan Browne, Jun 8, 2008
  12. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    I should have added that this is a CCD design, so thermal noise bound to
    add to the problems.

    The D300 is a CMOS, and so has that advantage as well.

    The a700 is a CMOS design, like the D300 (nearly identical chip from
    Sony in both).
    Alan Browne, Jun 8, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.