Photoclubalpha

I'm getting ready to order my Alpha 900. Probably will go grey-market and save $700 over the US prices at the risk of no warranty.

Christmas Eve and Christmas day I shot all day long with the Sony R1. I was using 24mm (equiv), f/2.8 and ISO 800 (some) and ISO 1600 (mostly). I used the LCD to frame every single last picture I took. For many of them, the camera was at my waist and I was shooting 3 - 5 y/o kids at their eye level. Results were mostly pretty decent, a few the AF was too slow, and on more of them the subject moved during the exposures (averaging 1/30 second for many of them, as fast at 1/80 a couple times, and as slow as 1/10).

Given the way I like to shoot indoor available-light events, and the possibility of some wedding work this spring, I'm thinking about picking up an Alpha 350 and Sigma 20/1.8 to supplement my 900. 30mm equivalent seems a nice focal length for family gatherings / wedding receptions, I always have the option of using it on the 900, and f/1.8 is 1 1/3 stops faster than my R1 at full wide. I'm not looking for perfection by any means, I just don't feel like getting on my knees / the floor every time I want to shoot kids, and I ABSOLUTELY do not shoot "top of their head" style.

I also have the 50/1.4 which should make a nice short portrait on the 350 or a good normal on the 900.

My question is, how accurate is the AF on the Alpha 300/350? I will be shooting wide open most of the time indoors. And how usable is ISO 800 / 1600 on the 350 versus the 300? I would prefer to get the 350 for its higher resolution if the full image noise is not substantially worse than the 300 (not per-pixel noise, but noise at any given print size). Can you do anything with the ISO 3200 RAWs (I never use this speed on my R1).

mdcromer wrote:Given the way I like to shoot indoor available-light events, and the possibility of some wedding work this spring, I'm thinking about picking up an Alpha 350 and Sigma 20/1.8 to supplement my 900.

My question is, how accurate is the AF on the Alpha 300/350? I will be shooting wide open most of the time indoors. And how usable is ISO 800 / 1600 on the 350 versus the 300? I would prefer to get the 350 for its higher resolution if the full image noise is not substantially worse than the 300 (not per-pixel noise, but noise at any given print size). Can you do anything with the ISO 3200 RAWs (I never use this speed on my R1).

The Alpha 300 will be a better choice based on your intended use. The AF on the 350 is pretty good, but exactly the same as the 300, and the 300 does much better at ISO 800-1600 and has almost usable 3200 RAWs. At 400, there's not a lot to choose, but from 800 up the A350 becomes increasingly in need of careful raw processing. I tested my A350 at all speeds, and since doing so, I have never used anything over 800 and normally do not go over 400. I know that it is possible to get more from the A350, so we sold our 200 not the 350.

I just think the overall response, colour, shooting speed etc point to the A300 for your uses. If you had said landscapes or studio shots, I would have gone the other way. My only problem with the A350 is that when you work every day with the 900, the A350 viewfinder becomes almost unusable!

David

Thanks Don and David.

Good info. I'm gonna download some Alpha 300 and 350 RAWs and see what I can do with them.