Sony Alpha 350 - 550. Should I?

srichards

srichards

Messages
11,165
Name
Suz
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got the upgrade itch. I really, really wanted the 550 when I bought my second hand 350 but they were loads more. But I have noticed online there is a decent supplier doing them for £399 brand new. This is only £60 more than I paid for my 350 6 months ago. So I'm thinking it was an error and I should have waited a bit longer or just got the 550 then instead of faffing!

I don't know whether the 550 prices have bottomed out or whether they will fall further. I'm not sure how much a second hand 350 with a kit lens is worth either, especially as there is no way of telling how much it has been used. It showed about 100 ish shots on when I got it which makes me think it had been reset...

The 550 has the liveview and the cmos rather than ccd sensor along with better battery life and a faster fps. Don't want the 450 as that is missing liveview. I don't use it often but I think it is a glaring omission these days.

It takes the same batteries as the 350 so I can use the spare I bought. But I also wonder whether in 6 months time when the A55 has also dropped down to £400 whether I'll get the itch again!

Low light focussing seems to be a problem. I did notice going from the minolta 40si to the dynax 7 that with the same lenses focussing was so much quicker and more reliable. With the 350 and the sigma 28-300 it can be hunting badly even with the AF assist flash on so I am wondering whether switching to the 550 would get me more reliable focus?
 
Ah. For some reason I've always had it in mind the 450 didn't have liveview. I only use iso 100 to avoid noise. If iso 200 on a 550 has no noise then it doesn't matter much :)
 
Ive never used the sigma 28-300 but online reviews indicates that it hunts for focus

Personally I would get some better and faster lenses and keep the A350
By the sound of it you are just upgrading for the sake of it without any real gain
 
I know I'm tempted into upgrading for the sake of it :) Gain is slightly lower noise and a faster fps which I don't know whether I'd use.

Was wondering about the tamron 28-300, instead given the sigma gear munching potential.

The viewfinder is kind of dark on the a350 compared to the dynax with the same lens. It is much harder to even use manual focus in low light. Have to guess. Take a shot, then twiddle back and forth until it's sort of sharp!

Tried it on the dynax - viewfinder slightly brighter but still hunts.

Tried standard sony kit lens - with same framing that won't focus either. If I stand further back then it will focus not but it isn't the same shot as it is a limited zoom.

Tried my old bridge camera and that worked perfectly :shrug: Same shot, under same conditions. No fuss, just took it. It's got some orange AF assist light. The sony just fires the flash a few times and that doesn't seem to work at all.
 
Last edited:
What settings are you using and how close are you?

I would invest in a faster lens such as the Tamron 17-50mm...which is what I have on the A450 and its a great combo.

ISO on mine is definitely better than my old A200
 
I was about 10 ish feet away from the subject. The AF assist on the lumix bridge is definitely much better than the one on the sony. Dynax was worse. Mostly tried automatic modes. Will experiment with other modes and settings to see if they're any better.
 
I think it might have something to do with energy saver bulbs. In natural light, with similar light levels, there was no issue focussing even on a dark coloured cat on a dark coloured background! Obviously the orange assist light of the bridge must be countering the problem.

I wonder if the range of light produced is confusing the AF as I think ES bulbs produce both IR (upsets remotes or used to) and UV. I don't remember having these issues with normal bulbs even in similar light levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top