A300 OR A350

Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
gusm35
Acolyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm

A300 OR A350

Unread postby gusm35 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:12 pm

Which one?
i have a alpha 100 just now.

Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby Javelin » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:38 pm

Both!!

well no .. what do you shoot? what lenses do you have/want Are the cameras being considered solely for live view (in view of you already haveing an A100) when else are you expeting the new camera to do for you that your A100 doesn't?

gusm35
Acolyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby gusm35 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:45 pm

I shoot models, landscapes but also want to shoot sports.
At the moment i have the older minolta lenses 50 1-7, beercan, kit lens 35-70 f4 and a sigma 24 superwide 2-8.

really looking to have faster af.

Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby Javelin » Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:45 pm

Do models = people? or are these like set ups of things on a table? because other than that I don't see anything you couldn't do with an A200 (for example) the Live view might be nice for tripod work though if your posing people or things. For landscapes it might be nice to have the 14MP the A350 offers and the better detail that comes with it. all of the newer cameras focus faster than the A100. one other to consider, if your doing a lot of sport would be the A700. it's faster frame rate and lower light capabilities might help you quite a bit. Sorry this wasn't as much help

gusm35
Acolyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby gusm35 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:28 pm

yes i mean people.

i would love to have the a 700 but think the wife may complain.

would the lenses i already have be ok with the a700?.

thanks for the info so far.

Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby Javelin » Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:22 pm

Your lenses will work fine i'm sure. the sigma I have no expreience with but I have a beercan and a 35-70F4. the 35-70 is fine for anything that faces away from the sun becase of flare. I'm looking to replace mine with something of similar range and sharpness but it'll be more expensive than that lens so I do appreciate it because it was a bargain for the quality it is. Seriously I would give the A200 a try. and maybe save a little for a lens that will really work well indoors (for the sports I mean) the focus is fast on the A200 but where I see the weak part in your kit is a fast zoom for inside. the beercan does do well at this. but it is just a tiny bit slow both in speed and focusing. The A700 is more expenmsive but some of the features the A200 lacks you have on your A100 already.

gusm35
Acolyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby gusm35 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:15 pm

A700 wheres the cheapest and would i be better waiting to the A900 comes out and wait for some to come on the second hand market?.

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:11 am

Have you got two years to wait? The Alpha 700 may continue to be my main camera even after the 900 arrives. There are many reasons - I have good lenses for it, they are compact and light, and it does 'enough' to meet professional requirements. I'm not entirely sure I need full frame but I will buy one, and try it.

David

alphaomega
Viceroy
Posts: 1196
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:20 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby alphaomega » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:17 pm

I have both the A700 and A350. I think that for landscape use the A350 would be better that the A300 because of the larger sensor and the widely acknowledged wide dynamic range. I rarely have found a problem with the A350 blowing out highlights. I think this is important for landscape. Also that 14 Mp sensor allows for more cropping without deteriorating IQ. When deciding what camera to take with me I basically think about the type of photography I want to do and if speed is important I take the A700 whereas difficult locations would pre-dispose me towards the A350 because of the LV and movable screen. I have found that on many occasions being able to stretch up or out or hold the camera low over bridges and what have you has been a great aide. Both cameras will deliver "professional" results and David hints at above. I feel that either of these cameras depending on main usage will deliver the goods and personally I see no need to replace them in the near future. As I have said elsewhere if Sony brings out an upgraded A700 with the same basic capabilities but a new CMOS low noise sensor with 17.5 Mp and a movable 3" LV screen as useful as that on the A350 I would consider it. It would provide me with a camera that can deliver a 50 Mb TIFF or opened Jpeg image without upsizing and combine the advantages of the A700 & A350 and then a bit more. I would not consider the A900 or any other FF model. I see no need to make such a considerable investment in new and heavier hardware.

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:40 pm

A900 has its own place in photography (I mean it will have for sure). Most of APS-C shooters will not move to FF for quite a time.
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

alphaomega
Viceroy
Posts: 1196
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:20 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby alphaomega » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:12 pm

I agree with Dr. Harout that the A900 will have its place in photography and there will be buyers including David Kilpatrick by his own admission. I will not be one of them though. I believe that it will be a good camera. Sony have not been rushing it out. They seem to take their time to get it right. They are probably aiming at getting a camera on the market that will beat the EOS-1D Mk 3 as far as IQ is concerned - particularly when linked with CZ lenses as they become available to cover the range of focal lengths professionals require. They will probably also want to target medium format users who do not need the Hasselblad 39 or 50 MP versions (or cannot afford them). I also think that Canon are taking their time with the 5D replacement. I think that the Nikon and Sony moves into FF has sent Canon back to the drawing board on the 5D replacement. They do not want another 40D situation at 10 Mp compared with the A700 & D300 at 12. They do not want the 5D replacement to look dated on launch - at least that is what I think.

gusm35
Acolyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby gusm35 » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:36 pm

just need to find the cheapest seller then.

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:39 pm

alphaomega wrote:I agree with Dr. Harout that the A900 will have its place in photography and there will be buyers including David Kilpatrick by his own admission. I will not be one of them though. I believe that it will be a good camera. Sony have not been rushing it out. They seem to take their time to get it right. They are probably aiming at getting a camera on the market that will beat the EOS-1D Mk 3 as far as IQ is concerned - particularly when linked with CZ lenses as they become available to cover the range of focal lengths professionals require. They will probably also want to target medium format users who do not need the Hasselblad 39 or 50 MP versions (or cannot afford them). I also think that Canon are taking their time with the 5D replacement. I think that the Nikon and Sony moves into FF has sent Canon back to the drawing board on the 5D replacement. They do not want another 40D situation at 10 Mp compared with the A700 & D300 at 12. They do not want the 5D replacement to look dated on launch - at least that is what I think.


I think that Canon is in a bit of panic. Nikon is striking hard from one side, Sony is advancing step by step and shaking hard from time to time, Pentax is quite slow but very attractive, Olympus with its 4/3 is moving the market. Waiting for Sep. 14 :D
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:55 am

gusm35 wrote:I shoot models, landscapes but also want to shoot sports.
At the moment i have the older minolta lenses 50 1-7, beercan, kit lens 35-70 f4 and a sigma 24 superwide 2-8.

really looking to have faster af.


I would compare the two models each to your a100. With either of the newer cameras you will get a slower frame rate, given the live view feature, and especially so with the a350. Essentially, you'll sacrifice speed for live view with one, and even more speed for live view and higher resolution with the other. Neither of these is an appropriate move if you seriously want to capture sports, but they have plenty of advantages that you would appreciate for other uses, and 2.5 FPS is not exactly like capturing no images.

I have to very seriously recommend the a700 to you. Five months ago I was comparing the same two models you're comparing now, and I am very glad I chose the a700--never regretted it once. It is a fine camera, very robust and reassuring to hold (when I held the a200-350, I perpetually felt as though I was about to drop it), in other words, loads of "pathos," and it will work on your subjects, too. It has the speed you'll need for sports (5fps is insanely fun), a middle ground in resolution, and all it lacks is the live view. Plus, having a set of lenses already, it can be had for about $1100 US for a body only, or if you want to spring for a kit, it comes bundled with the 16-105 (at a good savings) unlike the others.
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

gusm35
Acolyte
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm

Re: A300 OR A350

Unread postby gusm35 » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:07 pm

has anyone used this company?. http://www.buyacamera.co.uk


Return to “Alpha A-mount System”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron