What to choose in the Sony Alpha lineup?

[markhendricks]

I want to upgrade from my Minolta Maxxum 7D to a new Sony Alpha. Image quality is most important. For shooting primarily landscapes, macros and portraits do I go with the Alpha 300, 350 or 700? I want to keep the cost under $1000.

[bob_r]

Mark,

Welcome to the forum!

You should be able to find any of these under $1,000. Here's a link to DPReview showing side by side comparisons.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare ... 0&show=all

I think the 700 has a few features that I would prefer over the other models.
1. Higher ISO settings available.
2. More AF sensor points available.
3. Double the shutter speed.
4. Should have a much brighter LCD display.

I wouldn't be impressed by the extra effective pixels of the A350 - the 12.2mp of the 700 should be fine.

I haven't used any of these cameras, but I hope this info helps.

Bob R

[Farmerj]

I know it's not really what you asked....

I was looking seriously at the Alpha 350, the Canon Rebel Xsi, 40D and 50D and the Nikon D90 and D300.

I finally settled on the D90.

The 350 and Xsi seemed to me too entry level. The 40D and 50D didn't sit right on pricing when I compared it to the D90. The D300 just didn't offer enough to push away from the D90.

I saved the money from the D300 and put it into lens. Damn will lenses get you so quickly...

I finally started to buy not the body, but the lenses for what I wanted to do.

I settled on Nikon because I use their glass at work all the time. I work with some high tech stuff and use Nikon camera scopes and stereoscopes. Couple years ago I was even using a High speed camera that had Zeiss lenses.

With that, I started to find the lenses I wanted in the Nikon and Zeiss line-ups. From there, I settled on the body that gave me the features I wanted.

And that's why I recommend the D90 or D40x

[jayryser]

I started with the a100 and quickly moved up to the a700. The pics produced have less noise and I can easily shoot at higher ISO's than I could with the a100. The body is weather sealed - I'm never been hesitant to take it out in truly awful weather. It doesn't have LiveView, but I don't mind not having this feature. I say go for the a700 - if you get a lower end model, you'll soon wish you'd have sprung for the higher model. Just my 2 cents

[MCS]

Mark,

I am a photographer who shoots landscapes on my vacations with a Sony Alpha 350. It has a great set of features for landscape photography including 14 megapixels, the best live view going, an articulating LCD, preset modes for landscape and sunset, light weight, D-range optimizing, and so on. I read a lot of comparative reviews on it, and it matches or exceeds most everything in its category with a couple concerns. For a review comparing it to the D300 and others cameras see:

http://www.epinions.com/review/Sony_Alp ... 3767543428

The concerns are mainly these: First, it does it best work at ISO under 800. This is seldom a problem for landscape photographers who typically work in light suitable for lower ISO. Second, the sensor needs some good glass to provide the resolution for its 14 megapixels. Sony has a series of Zeiss lenses that do the job and then some. I have had experience with Zeiss lenses since the film days. I realize that this is subjective, but those lenses ARE better than the competition. The colors and contrast they produce are often visually stunning. Yes, they cost.

As for preset modes, I had an experience that taught me their value. I was in Arches National Park near sunset on a stormy day when the sun appeared briefly below the clouds, providing a grand sunset. There was little time, so I set up the tripod, set the camera on sunset mode, and shot away. The preset provided images that may be better than if I had set the camera myself. The colors from the Zeiss lens were grand.

Other cameras may do as well, but the the 350 is hard to beat for the traveling landscape photographer.

Best,

MCS