Sony 14.2 megapixel camera dslr-a350 what do you think about it?
 

I am upgrading my camera and would of bought a Canon 40D if not for seeing this first. The package comes with two lenses and the total price is $1099 plus shipping. I have a budget at this time of 1000 to 1200. Of course I would love to go off the wall but that is later. I wanted to know does anyone has anything good to say about this camera?


Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 SLR Digtial Camera with Sony 18-70mm Lens & 55-200mm Lens

* 14.2 Megapixel
* APS-C CCD Image Sensor
* In-camera Image Stabilization
* 2.7" Tiltable LCD Display
* Live Preview
* High Sensitivity (ISO 3200)
* Dynamic Range Optimizer
* 2 fps Continuous Burst
* Anti-Dust System
* Auto Scene & Style Selections

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5530/545842an1.jpg

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350A.HTM
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so...ew/index.shtml
it seems ok

A Nikon D60 would be a better bet its on sale now for around $780.00 and includes two useful lenses. It is only 10megs but dont get sucked into the "more megs the better the image" bull shit because it isnt so....

I agree its porn not national geographic.

Thanks for posting information both of you plus the links too. I saw the images that the camera produces. I like the bicycle image it seems nice and detailed. I did not like the outside night picture that looks like shit. That sucks for a 14.2 mega pixel camera it is true don't get sucked into the "higher mp the better" bullshit.

my personal choice is to stay with a name brand. nothing wrong with sony, makes the ccd/cmos for nikons and a few others. however how many lens choices are there for the sony? flash system? etc... -bmb

I'm going to get a soft box too and learn what the fuck I'm doing by doing research. I don't want to be one of those shitty producers and get no respect. My lighting has always been an issue for me.

Its worth investing in a few seminars like the ones Dean Capture runs. His focus is on lighting for nude and glamour work

the advantage with canon or nikon is the huge amount of extra equipment to choose from. especially the lenses make the difference. the canon lens we use with the 20D and 40D costs twice the price of the body.

I agree, a good lens is actually more important than the camera itself.

Sony is Minolta, in this case.
You could have a 20MP pinhole camera, and the results would still look blurry.
It's all about the glass.

I own and love very much my Sony DSCR-1 10.3 mp ... was the largest Mega pixel camera of it's time .. I was going to go with the A series SLR models but i am just to damn happy with mine the way it is .. and for porn .. it is awesome .. a huge flip out streaming screen that was designed to get away the heat produced buy the huge CCD .. it flips into almost any position for those "under shots" as well as the infamous over the shoulder POV pic .. I haven't found anything better .. and to quash the Sony has no lens or flash options .. they as well as other companies have come out with tons of stuff for the new line of Sony SLR cameras .. and damn I just like the interchangeability of Sony products .. everything i use for this biz is and always has been Sony primarily because of their reliability ...
* I know they won't bang off 5 pix per second..but i haven't needed it yet *

this is a great review and comparison between one of their older mainstay models ..
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/So...ntview-001.jpg

very nice ...

Sony bought Minolta, used some of their technology and got away with Minolta lenses being usable on Sony cameras.
I bought the Alpha 100 quite some time ago, still use it today. Awesome piece of camera.

ep

Good thread, keep the posts coming bitch nuts!

Post some photos in 14.2 megapixels! :thumbsup

Sony in the camera world is sorta like Samsung in the LCD world.... drastically overrated specs for what you actually get.

Just like Samsung what you get may not actually be bad but doesn't quite live up to expectations.

With cameras stick with Nikon or Canon, you simply can't go wrong with them. Like somebody said above just get a D60.. spend that extra $300 on lights because once you're into D60 range all that matters is knowing how to use the camera and getting proper lighting.

I thought Samsung were one of the *only* LCD manufactuers that delivered. Hell, to the best of my knowledge 'Dell' LCDs that everyone rave about are still all rebadged Samsungs.

Thanks for the information. I might as well get an awesome lens because I can see that the lens really matters. I didnt know that. Thanks again.

I stay with the big 2, nikon and canon. I have used fuji however fuji uses nikon lenses. I shoot with a nikon d80 and a canon 5d now. a camera body goes about 1 year with me. -bmb

nikon works stil lbest for me.. i would reccomend sony 4 sure!

Very nice...

So what did you end up buying?

I have the Canon 40D and wouldn't use anything else, but... :-)
the Sony looks good except many for the 2fps... that seems very low; the 40D does 6fps which is sometimes handy for quick action (cumshots, ...)

They were basically the first to drastically overrate their displays...

Like I said you still get something good BUT nowhere near what you'd expect for what the specs are.

Camera bodies are disposable. Lenses are a long term investment. It's the lens system that you choose more than the camera body.

What did you shoot the above pic with? Do you already have SLR lenses?

I have the 20D as well, and just using the factory lenses it produces amazing results.

I also use the DSC-r1 by Sony... great camera. Love it.

If you have any questions about it.

Contact me.