After making the transition from bridge camera to d D-slr less than 2 years ago I’ve slowly worked my way through the Alpha range, of the 3 I’ve owned so far the A300 is by far the best, the A100 was chunky & clunky, the A200 was a big improvement, it was quicker, easier to use & was more grounded, on the downside even though it boasted a pretty decent spec, it’s the most basic of the Alpha’s.
So why the A300 and why not the A350 ?; the addition of live view presents a totally new way of taking photo’s, the ability to simply flip out the lcd has enabled me to take many shots that very few cameras would have been to take, the ability to use live view to set the correct white balance and the correct exposure has enabled me to take better photo’s, the A350 has received much praise, but for me it’s the A300 that rules the roost, you don’t have to buy a decent lens to get the most out of the camera, A300 file sizes are smaller, Noise control is slightly better, it has a faster burst rate, it’s cheaper & more importantly I never print larger than 7 x 5. The nearest Nikon spec wise costs double the price I paid.
As for the viewfinder being small; thankfully we all have different opinions, I like it & it seems to have better dioptre adjustment.
In a nut shell:
Sony Alpha A300 highs
• Very easy to use camera with good ergonomics
• The Minolta Mount (Sony’s trump card, especially with the credit crunch)
• Image quality, especially when using RAW.
• One of the best and most practical Live view Systems on the market
• Good reliability with 3rd party lenses (no gear issues)
• The Super Steady Shot system
• Exceptional value for money
The Low’s
• Poor Noise Control above ISO 800.
• Specification inconsistencies (MLU & DOF preview missing from A100)
• Slightly squat flash unit
• Anti-dust system
• No full articulation
• Only available through Jessops
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
