Sony's Alpha A350 DSLR gets reviewed

For some, tossing around phrases like "live preview" and "flip-out swivel screen" would be enough to sell Sony's Alpha A350, but we know you're more discerning than that, right? Right. Truth be told, Sony's feature-packed Alpha only turned out okay -- not great -- during a review session with the folks over at CNET. Still, the unit did offer a sturdy feel, a fantastically useful LCD monitor and satisfactory color / dynamic range. Unfortunately, the extra $200 or so you pay for 14-megapixels (over 10MP on the A300) wasn't deemed worthwhile, as the extra processing "exacted a performance toll" in real-world use. The bottom line? These critics felt the Rebel XSi would be a better bet if you're just looking for a nice resolution bump, but for the vast majority of folks, you're likely better off snagging the A300 and putting your leftover dough towards a decent piece of glass.

[Victor @ Apr 11th 2008 4:38PM]

Not a suprise. THe mpix race is just crazy. Cameras need to strike a balance between resolution, usability (processing speed) and image quality. Too often, a company forgoes 1 or 2 of those things just for one thing.

[Hotrod @ Apr 11th 2008 4:48PM]

Indeed. 14mpixels is just insane.

I think those who have been waiting for this are should wait for some more reviews to pop up.

[A.C.E.R. @ Apr 11th 2008 4:43PM]

Awesome. Now tell me how to get my profile picture to work.

[holycow @ Apr 11th 2008 5:13PM]

1. Click Here: http://www.engadget.com/profile/1896362/
2. Login
3. Upload Picture
4. Enjoy!

[Ramon @ Apr 12th 2008 11:11AM]

"but for the vast majority of folks, you're likely better off snagging the A300 and putting your leftover dough towards a decent piece of glass"

Best. Advice. Ever.

[Kris S. @ Apr 11th 2008 4:46PM]

The A350 really is not worth it for the extra four megapixels, all you get by getting the A350 over the A300 is worse noise performance, slower continuous shooting and a higher price tag.

[chris @ Apr 11th 2008 4:49PM]

This looks like a great camera, but it's a Sony - No reason to get 14MP over 10MP - unless you want the picture the size of a billboard.

[Andrew @ Apr 11th 2008 5:15PM]

Still don't know what to think about these Sony cameras - I have to make a decision in the next few weeks, and the Canon definitely would seem to be the one to go for, but I keep getting drawn by the sensor image stabilisation in the Sonys. Any thoughts?

[Evilengineer @ Apr 11th 2008 6:11PM]

Here's the thing about in-camera IS: it doesn't stabilize the viewfinder image. The picture you are taking may show up wonderfully on the sensor, but for you, it's bouncing around like a cork. If you can put up with that, sure- but I prefer either my handy collection of Nikon VR lenses, or a nice monopod.

[Craig @ Apr 12th 2008 9:59AM]

It works quite well. I've found that I typically gain around 2 f-stops when using the in-camera anti-shake.

[giedrys @ Apr 11th 2008 5:42PM]

A350 is out ofmy list now. The question is, is it worth to spend extra $100 for A300 instead of A200. The only difference i found is live view on A300.

[Shaocaholica @ Apr 11th 2008 6:30PM]

Sony's LV makes a sacrifice on VF size. If you really love your VF like 99% of SLR shooters, get the A200. If you think you'll use the LCD for shooting in LV mode which I would recommend against as a habit but if you really really want to do that, get the A300.

[Hotrod @ Apr 11th 2008 7:01PM]

If live view isn't that important to you, then I highly recommend the Sony a200. I did a lot of research, tested the D60, the Canon XTi, the Olympus e-510, and the a200 won me over. Its the best bang for the buck, I think Circuit City gots it for $570.

[Austin @ Apr 11th 2008 5:44PM]

"but for the vast majority of folks, you're likely better off snagging the A300 and putting your leftover dough towards a decent piece of glass"

Or get a better camera and better glass! There is no reason to go Sony, in any price range and Mpix means nothing for 99.9% of people! 4Mpixels prints flawless 8x10s. Unless your looking at full frame 10 is more than you'll ever really want/ need.

[Doug F @ Apr 11th 2008 6:00PM]

Three reasons to pick Sony over Canon and Nikon.

--Carl Zeiss glass (the 24-70mm, 85mm, and 135mm Zeiss AF lenses are better than their Canon/Nikon counterparts.
--Built in stabilization, so it works with every lens
--better user interface.

[lars @ Apr 11th 2008 7:03PM]

@Doug F:

-- The Nikon/Canon *kit* glass perhaps. I'd take a Canon body and a L-series glass (or even Sigma EX) any day over the Sony.
-- Get IS-glass
-- Better UI?! Well. :)

Besides. The sensor on both the Nikon and Canon is better ;P

There is *no* reason to buy Sony.

[Jaken @ Apr 11th 2008 8:27PM]

@ Lars

Why? I had a choice between A100 and 400D and to be honest, I didn't like the canon at all and like the sony much more. Thats one reason for you.

Also, Nikon buys their sensors from Sony

[Craig @ Apr 12th 2008 10:03AM]

"4Mpixels prints flawless 8x10s"

Um, no. 4MP yields images about 2400x1600 pixels. An 8x10 print from that size image would have a max resolution of 200ppi. When the human eye sees resolution at around 300dpi, that print is certainly not going to be "flawless." Good, yes, but not more.

[Jeebus @ Apr 17th 2008 10:53PM]

200dpi is fine for full color photos. 300dpi is minimum for b/w print.

[Sambee @ Apr 11th 2008 7:16PM]

Why should you care about the type of digital camera your using or can and can't afford! How many mpixs and cool gadgets come along it. Its the image that counts. A true photographer can use any type of camera to produce beautiful and interesting prints.

[Austin @ Apr 12th 2008 1:36PM]

Are you talking theoretical physics, or what you have printed?

I have a 3 year old Kodak point and shoot that has made great prints at 8x10. No flaws that I can see without a loupe!

[Doug F @ Apr 11th 2008 8:26PM]

lars, you have little to no idea what you are talking about. Much of Sony's high end glass, labeled "G", is as good or better than Canon's L glass. Sony inherited a lot of Minolta glass, and they've rebadged it with the Sony label. Minolta was so well known for their glass that even Leica used them to manufacture lenses for them. The new Sony fullframe Zeiss glass is testing better than both L and G glass, so it is even more outstanding. Maybe you should do a little research into camera history before writing this drivel. The main reason Canon did so well in digital SLR was because of the bodies available, not the glass. Nikon and Sony are now answering with good bodies of their own.

As far as IS-glass is concerned, please show me the Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 20mm, 50mm or even 85mm glass with IS in it.

And finally, Sony definitely makes and designs all Nikon DSLR sensors except for the D3 (which they only make,) so saying they're are inferior sensors is silly.

Canon and Nikon make great DSLRs, and now Sony does too. When the fullframe Sony comes out this summer, we will have a legitimate choice for professional and advanced photographers.

[Jim @ Apr 12th 2008 3:23AM]

I have one of these and I have to say I am slightly disapointed

Jim
http://www.bulgariasfinest.com

[Steven @ Apr 12th 2008 10:05AM]

Can someone please explain to Sony that *consumers* don't need more pixels, they need larger sensors. 10 Mpixels is good for a print larger than A2 size at 150 lpi. Think you need more? I doubt it.
A 10 Mpixel full-frame sensor would reduce pixel noise over a 14 Mpixels, let alone the 24.6 Mpixel sensor of the upcoming A900.
And it saves faster too.

Dear Sony, I'm not gonna buy an A900, but I would buy a 10 Mpixel full-frame camera. Any time soon, please?

[sony-alpha @ Jun 16th 2008 9:52PM]

I have had several digital cameras, and this is my first dslr. I love taking pictures with it, especially action shots. Super fast auto focus, choices of programs etc. are found on lots of dslr's. The reason I bought this one is that it accepts Minolta af lenses and the anti-shake technology is in the camera and not in the lens. This makes additional lenses much more affordable.
http://www.sony-alpha.org