Sony's new Alpha A300 and A350 get official
By Nilay Patel 
posted Jan 30th 2008 3:39PM
posted Jan 30th 2008 3:39PM
Read - Alpha A300 and A350
Read - New Alpha lenses
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
WTF, didn't they just release the A200 and A700???
Damn entry level DSLR market is far too flooded.
A700 isn't entry level. A200 is the new A100, the low end model. The A300 and A350 fit perfectly in between them, as they both have the live view option which is new to the line, and they are not as powerful as the A700.
The new A3x0 series blows away the Nikon D60 and will provide some stiff competition for the new XSI. I'll be curious how long it takes Nikon to respond because they are going to be hurting if they don't come up with something new.
Below the A700 there is only a $100 difference between them. If you want Live-view, swiveling screen, etc you can pay for the A300 over the A200, and you can pay an extra $100 over that for a better sensor. If the extra-megapixels, live-view, etc aren't important then the A200 is an affordable option.
In summary:
MSRP of A200 : $700 (with 18-70mm lens)
MSRP of A300 : $800 (with 18-70mm lens)
MSRP of A350 : $900 (with 18-70mm lens)
MSRP of A700 : $1300
*street price is usually much lower
Daniel, A300 is A200 with LV, how does it fit between A700 and A200? The A200 was basically obsolete when it was released. Pentax and Canon released their info about next low end camera with LV, and Sony has to follow. People who buy A200 now is screwed.
Still waiting for the A900.
At that price, a Canon 40D (street $1100 or so) is well within range of consideration, and it'll both outperform this camera *and* you get the benefit of all that Canon-compatible glass.
Now, if this was, say, a $250 camera, then Sony'd have something there's a market for. But in the $900 price range, we're not talking about entry level folks; these are prosumers - or pros who know they can use prosumer hardware for pro results.
It is *so* much about the available lenses, I think that's what a lot of these camera manufacturers just don't get.
I wouldn't consider myself a Sony shooter, but still the A350 does have several advantages over the Canon Rebel XSI (comparable price at $900 MSRP for the kit; Sony DSLR street prices are usually much lower).
>> 14.2 megapixels and 1.5 crop sensor (compared to 12.2 megapixels and 1.6 crop in the Rebel 450D)
>> 3200 ISO (limited to 1600 ISO in the Rebel)
>> More usable Live View (Actually uses the AF sensor, since the A350 has a second image sensor in the Pentaprism area, whereas the Rebel uses contrast-based AF in Liveview similar to point-and-shoots since in LV-mode the mirror isn't reflecting light into the AF sensor).
>> Swivel screen (to get the most out of your Live View)
>> Carl-Zeiss and a ton of Minolta lenses
>> Built in Image-Stabilization (great in combination with older Minolta glass)
Excellent breakdown. A200 competes (beats) against the XTi, A350 competes against the XSi (I think wins there too), the A700 competes against the 40D. (This is more of a toss up because the price and features don't totally match up, so its more of a judgement call.)
Clearly Sony's LV implementation is head and shoulders above the rest because AF is still active, there's no delay.
Missing Face detection for focusing and metering though.
I haven't tried the AF in A200, but the auto focus in A100 pretty much sucked.
IMO a $800 SLR body is entry level, albeit at the upper end of the category. The $1300 A700 is Sony's prosumer model. I think the fact that the A300 isn't offered as a body only implies that its meant for beginners. And a $250 dSLR? A lot of point and shoots cost more than that so don't hold your breath. I agree with you about the lenses though. Sony can only rely on old Minolta lenses for so long.
now if only Nikon were to add a swivel screen like that....i rather take a picture thru a viewfinder screen especially when taking closeup pictures of dangerous or poisonous animals without having to worry about getting tagged lol
Maybe it's just me, but I have no desire for live view on an DSLR. The viewfinder is much more accurate for determining proper focus, for example. I agree with the guy above me about available lenses. If I was in the market for a DSLR I would only consider Canon or Nikon.
spoken like a pro. Sony will soak up amateur money and will continue to try to crack the pro market. Maybe one day.
Personally, I don't think Live-view is a very useful feature, however, unlike the Nikon/Canon's approach, Sony's Live-View actually is using AF sensors inside the viewfinder. As DPreview explains it:
"Sony's idea is particularly interesting: it adds a small imaging sensor into the viewfinder chamber with a secondary mirror redirecting light onto it in live view mode. This means light is still able to reach the focus and metering sensors. All other contemporary systems use the main imaging sensor to generate the preview, meaning the primary reflex mirror has to be raised to engage live view mode. In most cases this mirror then needs to flip down to allow focus and metering, then back up again before shot can be taken. Because Sony's system keeps the primary mirror down, this delay is avoided. In theory this means you can compose the image as you might on a compact camera, but retain the rapid response times you'd expect from a DSLR."
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013003sonyalpha1st.asp
Depends. Have you used live view on a new Canon or Nikon? You can crop/zoom into the live view at 100% pixel size so you can fine manual focus way more accurately than using the OVF. You can literally see each independent pixel on the sensor go into and out of focus. Something you cant do with the OVF even with a magnifier attachment.
>>Depends. Have you used live view on a new Canon or Nikon?
Actually, Yes, I own a Nikon D300. Manual fine-tuning in live-view really has limited use, its slow, cumbersome, and not very useful compared to what you can do from the viewfinder. The only real benefit that LV offers is that you use the larger screen instead of the view finder. The swivel-screen & the full use of the AF sensors actually make the live-view in Sony's iteration actually useful. Now you can at least use LV to compose shots that may not have been possible from the VF without the sacrifice in AF or performance and actually be able to look at the screen from different angles (akin to Olympus' screen) . Let's hope that Canikon's future LV uses something similar; its a feature worth emulating.
>> The only real benefit that LV offers is that you use the larger screen instead of the view finder.
Even this is a misnomer, though, because when you put a viewfinder up to your eye, it fills your entire field of vision.
Those little LCD screens on cameras and all the dickery made over .5" or 1" size differences doesn't matter at all when you consider how far away people are looking at them. It's like bragging that you bought a 53" TV and then sitting 40 feet away from it. It sort of defeats the purpose of all that size.
Since viewfinders are designed to be viewed from basically on top of your eyeball, they will always have a larger perceived size than any Live View LCD. And they will always have higher resolution, better color accuracy, etc. because you're basically just looking through the lens without any digital conversion at all.
One thing a Live View *could* offer over a viewfinder is better coverage; I guess a Live View could have 100%, whereas a typical viewfinder usually offers 85%-90%, or slightly higher than that in better SLR's.
Still, I can't see ever relying primarily on a Live View LCD, although I admit it might be nice to have. (Yes, I've used pocket digicams... I actually have a tough time adjusting to not putting the thing up to my eye, and I have a hard time keeping the camera steady without basically using my head as the third "arm" of a "tripod".)
I want the live view AND the swivel screen - I miss those from my old Nikon Coolpix 990. The swivel screen allows for pictures you could never otherwise take, and keeps people unaware that you are shooting. Which makes for more natural faces.
And you can always turn it off and have the best of both worlds. Love the feature. It's not a case of either-or, it's a case of wanting it all. To that, I say: YES!
i dont know if it was my stupidity but when i skimmed the article and read the fps it looked like it was 32fps and i said WTF!!! i pissed my money on a D40x and this thing is only a little more at 32fps but then i re-read it and knew it was 2 good to be true....
I especially like the fold-out snack tray!
so you're saying the a300 has 3fps and a350 has 2.5fps? how does this work???
CompactFlash DSLR??? Isn't Sony supposed to support its own child, MemoryStick? Or why doesn't Sony instead expand UMD beyond its PSP realm by adding it to this camera? Now I really don't understand Sony's tactics and strategies. I just hope this format inconsistency doesn't spread out to Blu-ray and SACD...
well, whatever people may say, especially those arrogant nikonist/canonist, a Live View with swivel screen IS useful when you want to shoot in awkward positions; not like the silly, fixed, no-use screen of D300 and 40D (who is going to use it if not a beginner coming from point and shoot cameras?). AND, the Sony Live View system keeps the Autofocus operating at the same time you use the LV. The mirror remains in fact down (for Canon and Nikon the mirror is lifted when one uses the LV.. )...
I believe that this is a very good system, certainly very appealing for those new DSLR users coming from compact cameras, but also very useful to more advanced amateur since it is a LV system with features which make it really usable....
Nikon and Canon will need to come up with something better than they did so far....
MINOLTA lives on...