Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 review

As usual, its Super SteadyShot sensor-shift image stabiliser does work well. At the long end of the range for the 70-200mm f2.8 lens (effective focal length 300mm), we successfully shot at 1/10 of a second, about 4 stops beyond the 1/200-second shutter speed determined by the reciprocal focal-length rule.

One of the A350's image-quality problems comes from pairing a middling lens with a high resolution sensor. On the left is the 18-70mm kit lens on the A350; on the right, the lens on the 10-megapixel A200. The A350's version looks more magnified, but perceptibly softer

Speedwise, shooting in live view with the A350 feels very similar to shooting with a snapshot camera. However, because it uses the two-sensor approach, the LCD only previews 90 per cent of the scene compared with 95 per cent with the optical viewfinder. Battery life is rated for 730 pictures.

Image quality
Rating photo quality tends to be difficult, but the A350 was particularly waffle-worthy. It renders good colour and dynamic range. Up to and including ISO 800, photos look solid, with a minimal increase in softness. However, at ISO 1,600 and ISO 3,200 colour noise kicks in and smeariness from the noise suppression algorithms degrades detail.

With some really expensive lenses -- an 85mm f1.4 Zeiss T* lens, 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 lens, and 24-70mm f2.8 Zeiss lens -- we got some nice low-ISO shots. But you're unlikely to buy those lenses for a budget/entry-level camera like this.

Conclusion
If you need the resolution bump at a low price, the Canon 450D is probably a better choice than the Sony Alpha DSLR-A350. It lacks in-body image stabilisation and the A350's intelligent live view implementation, but it does have the mode, and Canon offers better comparable kit lenses and a better selection of budget lenses, as well as better photo quality and performance. If you don't need the resolution, you can save yourself the extra money with an A300 and put it toward a good lens.

Additional editing by Shannon Doubleday