a700 vs. a350

[jerome_smith]

I've held up buying long enough to be confused. I thought I would upgrade from

a D7 to an a700, but then the a350 came out. Sony's website does not give a

side-by-side comparison. Clearly the a350 has some new technology, but I'm not

clear what I might be giving up if I opt for the a350 over the a700. Besides

the construction materials, are there serious differences?

 

Thanks

 

Jerome

[dave_redmann]

What are you giving up with an A350 instead of an A700? IMHO, mainly:

 

(1) The A700 has a real penta-prism, like the KM 7D's; the A350 (and A300) have a penta-mirror that gives you an even smaller image than the KM 5D, A100, and A200 do.

 

(2) The A700 very likely has lower noise at most and quite possibly all sensitivities.

 

Note also that the supposed resolution advantage will only be possible to achieve with the best lenses on a tripod. Remeber, on an "APS-C"-size sensor, 12.2 MP demands 91 lp/mm and 14.2 MP demands 98 lp/mm. In many and quite possibly most real-world cases, the A350 will not show any effective resolution advantage.

 

So all things considered, if I could pay the extra money, I'd go for the A700, hands-down. I don't care for live view that much.

[theaudiodoc]

Jorome,

 

In addition to the differences Dave mentioned, I understand that there is no Depth of field (DOF) preview and mirror lock-up (MLU)with the A350. But you can compare both cameras on Michael Hohner's site here: http://mhohner.de/sony-minolta/bodies.php The A700 would seem to be a logical step up for you from the 7D, unless you feel live view is most important to you.

 

Kelly

[ricardovaste]

New technology? Well the live-view system is yes. But the CCD technology is not. A700 has a 'cleaner' CMOS sensor.

 

The A700 is way ahead of the A350 IMHO. The reasons have been mentioned:

 

(1) The viewfinder. It IS a big deal in a camera. There is nothing worse than a dim VF at times - the A700 as a pentaprism, where as the A350 is just a penta-mirror.

 

(2) The A700 is a cleaner sensor, lower noise.

 

(3) The A700 has a better contruction and ergnomics, its just going to feel better in yuor hands and be easier to use (for most/alot atleast), which again is VERY important for a camera.

 

(4) 14MP VS 12MP. As Dave has said, its not important. Very good lenses on a sturdy tripod. However, this becomes even less evident when you consider the fact that the A350 does not have MLU (mirror lock up). You generally need this for any high quality enlargments; landscape, macro, still life, portraits (formal). Anything where the shutter is dipping reasonably low.

 

(5) The usefullness of DOF preview is debated in these smaller APS-C cameras. I feel it is still useful, maybe people just dont give the time for their eyes to adjust...? The A350 doesnt have one, but it is indirectly activated through the use of live-view on the rear screen.

 

The 7D is a beautiful camera. I wouldnt upgrade it for anything LESS than the A700.

 

Hope everyone has helped a bit with your decision :-)

[ricardovaste]

Oh and doing a search sometimes comes up with results. There actually was a thread on this before luckily enough. There is the link to Kiklops review of the A350 on <a href=http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OPHh>here (a700 vs a350)</a> too.<P>

 

"Happy Shooting!"

[machts gut]

I hold the A350 in my hands last week and can clearly say "Not my camera". I am a left eye man and found it uncomfortable and also the controls are not that convincing. Don't know how the A700 is, but I would advice to not only look at features or megapixels, but also how it feels to work with it. I compared it to the much cheaper Olympus E-510 and the Olympus provided a better handling and a brighter viewfinder.

[douglas_ferling]

The A700 is a large step up in camera to the A350, and it has some of the best ergonomics available. Think Nikon D300-lite.

[jerome_smith]

Thanks to all for your help...the a700 it is. I notice that B&H is the only store doing any discounting, ie. $1299. Surprisingly, Amazon isn't carrying it...only their partners like Ritz, J & R, etc at $1399, which is the same price as the Sony store. Is anyone aware of any larger discounting, aside from the usual scam stores?

 

Thanks again

 

Jerome

[ricardovaste]

Check ebay Jerome. They are popping up second hand, hardly used, still with warrenty... thats unless you really dont like buying second hand.

 

Goooood luck and you can pick me one up while you're at it ;-)

[douglas_ferling]

Go to Berger Bros. Good sellers with the best deals.

[glyn r]

I have an A350 which I am finding a great camera. Look at images at imaging-resource to compare A700 to A350. I had an Olympus E330 so became a convert to Live view. The tiltable live view system on A350 is pretty good. Not quite up to the E330 but for low angle shots or tripod framing its just as good. The image quality is far better than E330 and IMHO the images at imaging resource show little difference between A700 and A350. All the technical points in the post are valid but the camera is much better than this thread suggests.

[ricardovaste]

Glyn,

 

I am glad you like your new camera. For what you use it for, you may well not see much better results between teh A350 and the A700. But the differences are there, and this thread is not trying to 'sell' one or the other, just give the honest facts.

 

If you shoot 1:1 or beyond that macro, the A350 will stumble and fall. If you want to shoot lowlight, the A700 will give you a bit better IQ, and it can go for 6400 of course. The viewfinder is much brighter, allowing you to focus manually in lowlight/general use much more accurately.

 

The focus speed of the a700 and the actual focusing system is better than the A350. You can also fire off 5FPS with the A700 compared to a mere 2FPS with the A350 in live-view mode.

 

The A350 has a live view feature. Lesser noise control. A poor viewfinder. Lesser ergonomics.

 

No, neither will take better photos. But they both have their clear advantages, and the a700 does hold a clear lead in most/all respects. Its priced significantly more for a reason.

[glyn r]

Thanks for that Richard, I did actually know all that when I decided to save money and buy an A350 rather than a A700. I guess the A700 is due for upgrade so I may be tempted when the Live view version arrives. In the meantime I can get some more a-mount lenses and enjoy my A350. I am also offering a different perspective as an A350 user in this thread.

[ricardovaste]

Look forward to seeing your snaps Glyn :-)

 

I trust you will post them on dyxum sometime.

[redwoodtwig]

I bought the 350 because I wanted to be able to afford the 85mm zeiss. Very happy with the quality of the images (as seen so far only by using Adobe's DNG translator and loading the DNG into lightroom).

 

However, the body's ergonomics leave something to be desired, particularly the placement of the shutter button and the too small size of the grip and I don't have very big hands. One of the main factors that helped me go that way was the live view --- not so much for the live part as the ability to frame without the camera up to my eye, the tilting would be nicer if it also went to the sides, but up and down is so much better than scrunching myself into awkward positions.

 

I'm using the Raw compressed choice for storage, since it claims the compression is lossless. I hope that is true. The file sizes range between 10 and 13 MB.

[carbon_dragon]

"(4) 14MP VS 12MP. As Dave has said, its not important. Very good lenses on a sturdy tripod. However, this becomes even less evident when you consider the fact that the A350 does not have MLU (mirror lock up). You generally need this for any high quality enlargments; landscape, macro, still life, portraits (formal). Anything where the shutter is dipping reasonably low. "

 

I don't buy this. For one thing, if you're going to buy a camera with a very high resolution, you are probably already using good lenses (rather than the respectable, but dated kit lens). And with the vibration assist feature you can really get quite good results even without a tripod (though having a tripod would of course be better).

 

For another, I'm sure it varies by camera, but I think most modern cameras are already mirror damped very well so that again it might be theoretically better with the mirror locked up, but I've gotten spectacular results with my Canon 5D without a tripod OR mirror lockup.

 

Third, it's my understanding that the live view already locks the mirror up while you're live viewing, so I wonder if that is even a factor with the 350.

 

I would REALLY like to know what the 350 can do with one of Sony/Minolta's first ranked lens. Yes it's pointless to use a great sensor with a poor lens, but surely that's a pretty meaningless (and unfair) test. Let's put the thing ON a tripod with a 1st rate lens (the equivalent of Canon's L series) and see what that 14MP can really do. Will it equal or better my Canon 5D with my 24-105/4L lens?

[dennis_lam]

<p>I know this thread is old but when I read some of the post hmm....isn't it all sony line have issue with noise above 800, one thread stating a700 can goes up to 6400, yep sure it could but when you crank it up pass 800 image become unuseable. <br>

Live view- come in handy for over head, low angle and also histogram reading.<br>

I'm not an engineering but when you have 14MP vs 12MP....doesn't 14MP will have a better resolutions on an image? this is just like the LCD more dot per inches give you better pictures.<br>

For IQ I just think it all combine...lens, setting, technique and so forth....not just expensive lens will do.<br>

Conclusion to A350 VS A700.... A700 have other of functions which A350 don't have like ISO goes up to 6400 !!!! (who goes that high?) and few more just check sony website but A350 got live view which A700 don't. Bottom line if you're just having fun buy A350..if you're getting paid for your photo then go for A900, yep one of the post above said...they popup on Ebay like mushroom but A900 is not.</p>