Sony A350 compared to the A700

[anthonyposton]

<p>I have done a lot of research on both of these cameras. I am poised to by another camera in the near future. I am just wondering if anyone could tell me from experience the better choice. The higher resolution of the a350 is very appealing to me. The 700 is suppose to be the professional version.<br>

Which is better? I can see some obvious differences in the specs of them. But when it down to picture quality, how can the 700 produce a better image than the 14.4 mp 350?</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>... because you can see what you are doing through the viewfinder of the A700?</p>

<p>.</p>

[drjedsmith]

<p>Actually, David Kilpatrick wrote an article on Photoclub Alpha about this exact topic. He was wishing Sony would put the A350 sensor in the A700 body...I'm sure the next generation "7" will be something along those lines.<br>

Tough call. A700 is a better camera as far as "photography" goes...features, grip, feel, weight, viewfinder...etc. But it is more expensive. You could probalby actually get a sharper photo w/ more detail out of the A350 if you shot both on a tripod, at lowest ISO, etc.<br>

Let us know what you decide! :-)<br>

Jed</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>The A700 has the features and controls of a pro camera but because it is a little older, the sensor isn't quite as good as the A350 which came later.</p>

<p>However, I would suggest that the difference between the sensors and the 14MP vs 12MP is basically minimal. Can't remember the exact specs but the A350 has approx 18% more pixels than the A700 which all things being equal, would allow you to print dimensionally about 4% larger.</p>

<p>What it really comes down to is would you be willing to pay more for the "pro" features on the A700.</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>The sensors in these two cameras aren't the same in terms build or quality they produce. The 350 uses a CCD where the A700 uses CMOS sensor . The CMOS produces a cleaner image even though it has less MP. This is in part because the the pixels are larger and can gather more light. The also has a top ISO rate of 6400 and a frame rate of 5fps vs 2.5fps with the 350. All pro level cameras use CMOS sensors, and may also encounter banding at higher ISO speeds with with the 350, a common issue with CCD sensors.</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>The sensors in these two cameras aren't the same in terms of build, or quality they produce. The 350 uses a CCD where the A700 uses CMOS sensor . The CMOS produces a cleaner image even though it has less MP. This is in part because the the pixels are larger and can gather more light. The A700 also has a top ISO rate of 6400 and a frame rate of 5fps vs 2.5fps with the 350. All pro level cameras use CMOS sensors. You may also encounter banding at higher ISO speeds with with the 350, a common issue with CCD sensors.<br>

I don't know why some of the words were missed the first time I posted it. Sorry about that.</p>

 

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Hi Anthony,</p>

<p>Check out these threads in other forums about the exact same question:</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=44384">photographyreview.com</a><br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=27808275">dpreview.com</a></p>

<p>If you want live view and a tilt lcd, the A350 is it.</p>

<p>I don't have an A350 myself, but from what I can see on the web and from using my A700 it looks to me like in pretty much every other respect the A700 will give you the wider range of options and sensitivity. That presumably means it also takes longer to master fully, but if you're willing to work your way up the learning curve that should enable you to develop greater skills in photography.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>I wouldn't get lost in sensor performance with your choice, it will have very little impact in the end. The A700 is by far the better camera.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>... because you can controll what you're doing on the A700?</p>

<p>----------</p>

 

<h2 >LINKS to nice reading from fellow Minolta Sony Alphatographer David Kilpatrick:</h2>

<p><a title="Which Sony Alpha?" href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/05/26/which-sony-alpha/" target="_self" title="Which Sony Alpha?">Which Sony Alpha?</a> Choosing between the A700, A200, A300 and A350.</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/05/26/which-sony-alpha/">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/05/26/which-sony-alpha/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p><a title="Alpha 350 Live view" href="http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/03/08/sony-alpha-350-live-view-tested/" title="Alpha 350 Live view">Sony Alpha 350 Live View tested</a></p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/03/08/sony-alpha-350-live-view-tested/">http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/03/08/sony-alpha-350-live-view-tested/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p><a title="Sony Alpha 700 review part 1" href="http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/01/04/sony-alpha-700-review-part-1-the-interface/" title="Sony Alpha 700 review part 1">Sony Alpha 700</a> operation and use review: the Interface</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/01/04/sony-alpha-700-review-part-1-the-interface/">http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/01/04/sony-alpha-700-review-part-1-the-interface/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>... because you can controll what you're doing on the A700?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much, yes. The interface, responsiveness and build quality of the A700 makes it a far better camera for the 'photographer'. Those all come well above any small difference in the sensors.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>A700, hands-down, it's the winner.</p>

[anthonyposton]

<p>Thank you all for the comments, links and information. That is what I was hoping for. The 700 appears to be the more likely choice. But I have to ask myself, if I am going to continue this way seriously shouldn't I go to the top of the line with the 900? This way my ability will be my only obstacle and not my equiptment? Thanks Again! Anthony</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>To me, the A700 is like an A900 with more sane file sizes and lower price tag. If you go with the A900, get ready for some pricey lens choices, but it will certainly be sweet!</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Anthony, if it helps easy your mind, just wait a couple more months for the A700 replacement, then you will have more 'high end' options infront of you and the A700 will be a little cheaper. If you're even considering an A350, I can't see an A900 being any help to you. Landscape/Studio/Fine Art is where the A900 is at it's best... are you that type of shooter? Semi/fully professional?</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Anthony, I chose the a350 for my introduction to DSLR photography, and in many ways I'm happy with it. At ISO <400, it does admirably well and produces some really nice detail. I've found it to be a great learning tool for a beginner. Unfortunately, the more I've learned, the more acutely aware of its drawbacks I've become. Particularly, in low/available light shooting with ISO as low as 400, it is a noise and fringe monster, and gets considerably worse above 400 -- I'd rather trade off a few Mpixels for better high-ISO performance. To me, this really limits the versatility of the camera.</p>

<p>Additionally, while the articulating LCD is neat, I"ve rarely found it really useful, and it's a schnozz-bumper when your trying to use the ridiculously small OVF, which itself requires too much guesswork in framing a shot. I've found a few of the controls oddly situated on the body, and some available only through the menu system, making for somewhat clunky ergonomics at times.</p>

<p>Having no experience with the a700, I can only guess that it can create better pictures simply by being less prone to noise. Unless somebody is able to convince me otherwise, I'm (sadly) beginning to think that neither camera is a good choice if you want superior performance at higher ISO settings. Sony really needs to get a handle on this if they ever want to be considered seriously as more than an entry level to prosumer product. I find it very surprising that as the inheritors of Minolta technology and the developers of the (groundbreaking?) Mavica, Sony can't do a better job with their sensors (even in their higher end models).</p>

<p>In short, I suspect the differences between the two models go well beyond pixel count and density. There is a good reason the a350 is considered an entry-level camera, albeit a pretty good one: it's made of "entry-level" components. It has some nice bells and whistles for the buck, but if you're already an experienced photographer, I can't see it being a serious option.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>Kevin, you'll find that CMOS sensors like the one in the A700 will definitely be cleaner at higher ISO than any CCD sensor. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best we've got right now.</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Steve, you're absolutely right, but why go A700 (or even A900?) when Nikon's D700 is so far ahead in terms of high-ISO performance? It just doesn't make sense that the mighty electronics giant that is Sony can't put out a camera with a better sensor, CCD <em><strong>or</strong></em> CMOS. I for one have a problem with a camera such as the A350 that has available ISO settings up to 3200, but with everything over 400 (and sometimes even <em>as LOW as</em> 400) virtually useless in terms of image quality.</p>

<p>I suppose proper perspective would require that I understand that Sony is in the <strong>consumer </strong>electronics biz, but then I go back to the Minolta heritage they took on and still scratch my head...</p>

[anthonyposton]

<p>I shoot almost all of my photos at 100 ISO, very rarely 200, never higher. So ISO seems nominal to me. As far as Sony goes quality is their business. Compared to Nikon, their is no comparison in quality of product. I am not down on Nikon, they make great cameras no doubt. I know two other people who bought Nik cameras at the same time I bought a Sony.<br>

Within the first month, one of them had to return the entire camera because it quit working all together. The other has had problems as well. Now they both are having nitches and have had to return them for repairs. Both camera are less than a year old.<br>

This could be an isolated incident.<br>

With my current camera I am producing better quality images than a D300, a D50, and a D40. This is; I'm sure partly user based, but I have not had the problems with my camera they have had.<br>

I am investing my money in quality, and after deep study. Sony is the answer for me...<br>

Don't take that the wrong way but, I know Nikon makes great lenses, and good cameras. I do not think the quality of product from Nikon is at the same level Sony produces.</p>

[anthonyposton]

<p>One other little thing I would like to add to the above, Nikon uses Sony sensors in some of their DSLR Cameras.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>True, Anthony. Not sure about the D700, but I know the D300 and D3 / D3X use Sony sensors. I also know a D3 or D3X are twice what an A900 costs, which makes me wonder why Nikon is so proud of them? There simply cannot be 3 or 4 grand difference between these two camera bodies and internals.</p>

[anthonyposton]

<p>Your just paying for a name more than anything....</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Whether or not specific Nikon models use Sony sensors, almost every objective comparison I've seen rates Nikon near or at the top and equivalent Sony models consistently much lower in terms of high-ISO performance. I can only assume that IF the same sensors are being used in both, then something else about Sony's body design or circuitry is causing the problem. In any event, I have to disagree with Anthony... if I were to purchase a Nikon, it would be strictly for its performance, and I'd consider it worth the extra expense. I pay for performance, no matter whose logo is on the thing.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>So according to Kilpatrick the A700 for ergonomics and the a350 for resolution? I'd heard that the a350 can out resolve just about everything out there right now with the right lens attached. </p>

[anthonyposton]

<p>Yeah I think the reviews are in on the 350, the resolution is very high quality. I have made my choice and it is an a700...Should be in the mail as we speak. Thanks all of you for helping me make the right choice for me. Now just getting it in my hands and learning it. I was stuck on these cameras but, all of your input really helped a lot. Kevin you are correct in the fact of ISO output, my current camera and a200 does not stand up and deliver in a higher ISO when needed. But, the smaller versions of the Nikon do not really either. I agree that Nikon makes great equiptment, but for me SONY is the only way to go....Thanks again to all that contributed....AP</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Anthony, given the original options you posed, I think you made the right choice. The only significant gripe I have with Sony in general is the high-ISO issue, and that may apply less to your particular photographic interests/style than it does mine. I think you'll appreciate the A700's larger OVF and its performance across the board as opposed to the A350. Best of luck with your new camera!</p>