Photoclubalpha

Previous to A350 I have used Minolta 7000 and Minolta 9000. Within a year of shifting to A350 in November 2008 (I did not buy A700 because it was due for an upgrade) I have found Sony launching a host of different models. At my site I have posted some Minolta shots, but primarily A350 shots. I would be grateful if you could let me know after going through the photographs posted there whether A350 is still competent enough, that is good enough to continue, or should I shift to other cameras?
I mean to say if you find the images powerful, OK then I would continue with A350.
I would always appreciate greatly even if you let me know that the fault is not of the camera but of my perspective, capabilities and techniques.
I am posting here one of the photographs for your critique. The rest is at my site.
Best wishes,
Arun Gaur
http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com

I have owned an A350 for a year now and I use it in preference to my A700 when photographing landscape and travel at lower ISO settings. With my CZ16-80 the images are simply fantastic and sharp at 100%. The functionality is limited compared with the A700 and a host of competitive cameras costing a lot more. I am going to purchase the A550 when the price has fallen a bit but only because my wife is increasingly taking over my A350. The A380 will not give you anything you do not have with the A350. Watch David Kilpatrick's review of the A550 he has just received when posted here. You will probably find that the A550 is better and particularly at higher ISOs. I passed my old A700 to my son and purchased a replacement at £500 here in UK. I use it at higher ISOs and when I need faster frame rate and telephoto. Often when out I have A350 with CZ 16-80 and A700 either with Tamron 10-24 or Tamron 70-300 depending on shooting requirements. My main stay is the A350/16-80 for low ISO images. You may recall an entry by David Kilpatrick having re-discovered the image quality of the A350. The A550 is bound to be better, particularly at higher ISOs and better rear screen - and higher costs, but the A350 is still a good camera within its functionality limitations. Some people have complained about the Jpeg engine but I always shoot RAW with both cameras. Just my opinion.

Welcome to the forum, Arun.
With a quick glance, specially the horses, I should say, you have a style. But, the pictures are too small and imho lack a bit of contrast and sharpening. Though, have to admit, I find them very interesting. I'll return to your site at home and will try not to get lost in the pages

The A350 is more than competent. It probably still has the best ISO 100 image quality of all the models (the A380 is equal). My impressions so far of the A550 are that not being able to get ISO 100 is a disadvantage, and the image quality though very much better at high ISO doesn't have the same finesse that the A350 has at low settings. I may be wrong, it may just be the camera screen and the limited choice of raw converters.

David