Review: Sony DSLR-A300
A month ago, I picked up a Sony DSLR-A300, a mid-to-low range DSLR offered by Sony. I did consider other cameras out there, but two key features brought me back to the A300:
Those two features alone were worth conceding the slightly better image quality and low-noise high ISO images of the likes of Nikon and Canon. The reason I chose the 300 over its more pixel dense sibling (the 14MP A350) was that the lower megapixel count translated to a slight edge in continuous shooting speed and image noise.
This is not a detailed review, and if that's what you're looking for, you should look here, here, here and here instead.
I'm not kidding myself - I'm no Sam Javanrouh or Ansel Adams, but my wife and I do like taking pictures of our families and our garden. I've had a film SLR in the past, but never really got into it, because back in the 80s, photography was a truly expensive hobby. You had to pay (and wait) for film processing, and you had little control over the imaging process. In today's Flickr based world, you can take a gazillion shots, and only print the images that you want to. I think I've already shot as many photos in the past month as I did the entire time I had my old Nikon F801. Without having to worry about the cost associated with film, I just go nuts.
I don't quite believe that I am qualified to talk about why any SLR camera may be better than another. I think that for the average Joe like me, most cameras these days can take better pictures than the person holding the camera. That being said, I chose the camera for what I considered the most important criterion for my wife and I, usability.
Since I got the camera, a funny thing happened. It turns out there were additional benefits to going with Sony. Sony, having swallowed up Konica Minolta, is not as proprietary as one might think. There are tons of lenses and accessories to be had. Not being one of the top two mounts has its advantages. Nikon and Canon glass don't really depreciate. Second hand Minolta lenses, on the other hand, are widely available for fantastic prices (although this is rapidly changing).
It's not that hard to find pretty nice fast Minolta glass that is full-frame. For around 400 bucks, I've managed to get a fast 50mm/F1.7 prime, a 70-210mm/F4 long zoom (the famous "beercan" lens), and a 35-105mm/F3.5-4.5 medium zoom with a Macro mode (I'm quickly becoming a macro enthusiast). For this price, I would have only gotten a single 50mm prime from Sony. Keep in mind that these 20 year old lenses don't have the same types of coatings that are available today, so if you're a really anal pixel pusher, you may not be happy. For me, they're great. The build quality is phenomenal (don't get me started on the plastic mount of my kit lens), and they all deliver nice bokeh. If I wanted the same coverage with first party glass on a Nikon or Canon, I think I would have ended up spending twice as much.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of nice new Sony glass, especially the 135mm Smooth Transition Focus lens, and the Zeiss 85mm/F1.8, but I am just not ready to throw that kind of cash around (they're both over a grand each). At least not until my skills have developed more. In any case, I think I'm covered for most photographic situations that I'll get into.
Comparing the images to my 7MP Sony point-and-shoot have been difficult, since my P/S is a pretty fantastic camera. The main areas where I start to see a big difference are in the smoothness of the images (i.e., less noise from having a bigger sensor), depth of field (I'm now in bokeh heaven) and low-light shooting. The bulk of a DSLR, however, is a huge downside.
So, in a nutshell, I love my Sony DSLR. To be honest, I think you could be happy with a Canon Xsi or a Pentax K200D. All DSLRs are great these days, it invariably comes down to what fits best with what you need, and for me it was point-and-shoot usability. In that area, today, the Sony A300 (and A350) win hands down.
- The articulating screen, which makes it easy to capture shots from difficult perspectives
- Sony's unique implementation of Live View, which makes shooting as easy as with a point-and-shoot camera
Those two features alone were worth conceding the slightly better image quality and low-noise high ISO images of the likes of Nikon and Canon. The reason I chose the 300 over its more pixel dense sibling (the 14MP A350) was that the lower megapixel count translated to a slight edge in continuous shooting speed and image noise.
This is not a detailed review, and if that's what you're looking for, you should look here, here, here and here instead.
I'm not kidding myself - I'm no Sam Javanrouh or Ansel Adams, but my wife and I do like taking pictures of our families and our garden. I've had a film SLR in the past, but never really got into it, because back in the 80s, photography was a truly expensive hobby. You had to pay (and wait) for film processing, and you had little control over the imaging process. In today's Flickr based world, you can take a gazillion shots, and only print the images that you want to. I think I've already shot as many photos in the past month as I did the entire time I had my old Nikon F801. Without having to worry about the cost associated with film, I just go nuts.
I don't quite believe that I am qualified to talk about why any SLR camera may be better than another. I think that for the average Joe like me, most cameras these days can take better pictures than the person holding the camera. That being said, I chose the camera for what I considered the most important criterion for my wife and I, usability.
Since I got the camera, a funny thing happened. It turns out there were additional benefits to going with Sony. Sony, having swallowed up Konica Minolta, is not as proprietary as one might think. There are tons of lenses and accessories to be had. Not being one of the top two mounts has its advantages. Nikon and Canon glass don't really depreciate. Second hand Minolta lenses, on the other hand, are widely available for fantastic prices (although this is rapidly changing).
It's not that hard to find pretty nice fast Minolta glass that is full-frame. For around 400 bucks, I've managed to get a fast 50mm/F1.7 prime, a 70-210mm/F4 long zoom (the famous "beercan" lens), and a 35-105mm/F3.5-4.5 medium zoom with a Macro mode (I'm quickly becoming a macro enthusiast). For this price, I would have only gotten a single 50mm prime from Sony. Keep in mind that these 20 year old lenses don't have the same types of coatings that are available today, so if you're a really anal pixel pusher, you may not be happy. For me, they're great. The build quality is phenomenal (don't get me started on the plastic mount of my kit lens), and they all deliver nice bokeh. If I wanted the same coverage with first party glass on a Nikon or Canon, I think I would have ended up spending twice as much.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of nice new Sony glass, especially the 135mm Smooth Transition Focus lens, and the Zeiss 85mm/F1.8, but I am just not ready to throw that kind of cash around (they're both over a grand each). At least not until my skills have developed more. In any case, I think I'm covered for most photographic situations that I'll get into.
Comparing the images to my 7MP Sony point-and-shoot have been difficult, since my P/S is a pretty fantastic camera. The main areas where I start to see a big difference are in the smoothness of the images (i.e., less noise from having a bigger sensor), depth of field (I'm now in bokeh heaven) and low-light shooting. The bulk of a DSLR, however, is a huge downside.
So, in a nutshell, I love my Sony DSLR. To be honest, I think you could be happy with a Canon Xsi or a Pentax K200D. All DSLRs are great these days, it invariably comes down to what fits best with what you need, and for me it was point-and-shoot usability. In that area, today, the Sony A300 (and A350) win hands down.
