Sony Alpha A350 DSLR looks sweet!

[Hot'n'Chilly]

Hey, I was just looking at DSLR's and saw that Sony has a new 14MP Alpha out for around the $700 mark. From all the reviews I could find and the specs I'm pretty excited, could very well become my next camera.

Anyhoo, has anyone here got a chance to shoot with one yet? How is it, do tell.

[Soulburner]

No one here has any of the new Sonys yet. Mostly Nikonians here ;)

With that said though, look at the A300. All the A350 has is a big megapixel bump and a drop in framerate.

Alpha DSLR-A300 [specs]
10.2 effective Megapixel CCD
Supports all Minolta/Sony Alpha-mount lenses with a 1.5X focal length conversion ratio
Sensor-shift image stabilization
Live view on a 2.7-inch, tilt-able LCD display (with 230k pixels)
Sony uses a secondary CCD near the viewfinder to provide the live view; they did things differently than Olympus did with the E-330, though -- there's a tilting mirror instead of a prism, so the viewfinder is still bright
Due to the design of the live view system, the camera can use phase detection AF at any time; no mirror flipping necessary!
Optical viewfinder has 0.74X magnification and 95% coverage
Dust reduction system uses image stabilizer to shake dust off the sensor
Full manual controls; ISO goes to 3200, shutter speed range is 30 - 1/4000 sec
Can shoot up to 6 RAWs or an unlimited number of JPEGs at 3 frames/second
9-point center cross AF sensor
Hot shoe for external flash
CompactFlash Type I/II slot
Optional battery grip
Uses NP-FM500H li-ion battery; 730 shots per charge with LV off, and 410 shots with LV on
USB 2.0 High Speed supported
Ships with an 18 - 70 mm lens this April for $800

Alpha DSLR-A350 [specs] - changes:
14.2 effective Megapixel CCD
Burst rate drops to 2 frames/second
Shipping in March for $800 body only, or $900 with the 18 - 70 mm lens

[MaxxxRacer]

You'll have to hold a gun to my head to get me to buy a sony product unless its wrapped in a Nikon Chassis.

[Soulburner]

Says the guy with the D300...:p:

As for me...definetely holding out for the D90...I really have high hopes and won't settle for any other brand. Well I don't have a choice really since I decided on Nikon and have my lenses/accessories. But that was done on purpose ;)

[MaxxxRacer]

Get the D300. You wont regret it. If you dont like it as a camera you can attach a monopod to it and use it as a battle ax.

[Soulburner]

Get the D300. You wont regret it. If you dont like it as a camera you can attach a monopod to it and use it as a battle ax.

:rofl:

I would love to have one, but I put my money in lenses and a flash instead and came out about the same. When the D90 rolls around...we'll see how big the gap is then. The two will share technologies...just like the D80 -> D200.

[MaxxxRacer]

:rofl:

I would love to have one, but I put my money in lenses and a flash instead and came out about the same. When the D90 rolls around...we'll see how big the gap is then. The two will share technologies...just like the D80 -> D200.

technology wise, the D90 will essentially be a D300 minus the focus mechnisim. and prism.

The big thing with the D300 other than the magnesium chassis and awesome grip (with it fully setup I had it at 5+lbs and was able to one hand it), you get all of the external switches do you almost never have to go into the menus. I rarely use menus whereas when I use my d40 I go into menus every 5 minutes.

[Soulburner]

I almost never have to use the menus on my D80. The only time I am in there is to turn AF Assist on/off, change my on-camera flash to commander mode or change its channel, and maybe a rare few other things. But day to day, I'm never in there. Everything I need is on the outside including my preset button to turn the gridlines on.

[MaxxxRacer]

IDK. I use the buttons alot.

[KorbenD]

Since the Alpha line is built mainly around Minolta's tech that Sony bought out, I wouldn't have any problems buying one.

In fact, I'm planning on getting an A350 to replace my Maxxum 7D in the next couple of months.

[Soulburner]

Question to you guys...what draws you to the A350 over the A300, after seeing the above specs?

[KorbenD]

Actually I'm more interested in the A700 than the 350. I'd forgotten Sony's naming convention. ;)

However, since I don't often do action photography, the continuous FPS doesn't mean much to me, so I'd pick the higher resolution over the lower. Even with the price premium.

That's why I would at least.

[Soulburner]

But then if you are going to be spending in that price range you may as well get the Nikon D300 and have a much better camera overall - and a much better lens selection.

[KorbenD]

Maybe, if I didn't already have a hefty investment in Minolta glass . . .

[Soulburner]

Then that changes things :D

As long as they still autofocus and meter properly.

[tetete]

I want a A350 badly

Minolta's lenses are nice and cheap

[chunkylover77]

I had an A100 for awhile(the wife made me return it) It was a real nice camera.

[hieuhef]

heh, the price difference between a a700 and d300.. yeah, they're not really that close when you look at it.

it's tiring watching people force the market.. buy canon.. buy nikon.. let them choose their system. it's not as if sony has let their dslr brand go to the wayside, they're just slowly shoring it up.

[Soulburner]

The difference is $350. Paltry money when talking dSLR cameras with lenses easily doubling that and more.

And the D300 is easily worth that much more than the a700, especially when you get a much better lens selection.

[hieuhef]

the d300 may have some compelling features, but if you're on a budget for a semi-pro camera, you'd be hard-pressed to look past the monolith that is canon with their 40D at a tick past 1k. i still see the dslr market being filled predominantly with people who don't know their ISO from their apertures, so a $350 price differential may be enough for them to shrug it off and go for a cheaper model, damn the lens selection.

it's all relative, you'll get zealots from every camp saying why their system easily trumps the others; but when it comes down to it, it's what feels better in your hands, not what the biased fanboys and slanted reviews say.

[Dave_Sz]

But then if you are going to be spending in that price range you may as well get the Nikon D300 and have a much better camera overall - and a much better lens selection.

or he could get the k20d and have an even better camera and even better glass than the nikon...

[Nate P.]

or he could get the k20d and have an even better camera and even better glass than the nikon...
:confused: Please site your sources:ROTF:

Seriously, what are you basing that on?

[Soulburner]

or he could get the k20d and have an even better camera and even better glass than the nikon...
Are you on something?

If you really think the K20D is a better camera than the D300, I think you're all alone. You obviously have no idea what either camera has to offer or why they are priced where they are (and why one is $1000 cheaper).

[Dave_Sz]

sorry, I just saw the d300 listed at $1100 at a few places and seeing as the k20d is same price i figured why not. Now i see those are some less than stellar places and witdraw my previous statement...

[Soulburner]

sorry, I just saw the d300 listed at $1100 at a few places and seeing as the k20d is same price i figured why not. Now i see those are some less than stellar places and witdraw my previous statement...
Someone once said..."When it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" ;)