File :-(, x, )
Sony A350X and similar cameras... Anonymous
So /p/,

Please help - I'm relatively new to photography and have only on occasion played with my friends SLR's.

I'm looking at an entry level-ish sort of camera, around the $1000-1400 AUD mark. Y'Know, D80, EOS450D, A350X kind of area.

So far I'm looking at the Sony A350X for a few reasons

CF Support and MS Pro Duo support- From what I was told there is a port for each, so you have a larger capacity to shoot to with two cards instead of one.

In-Body Stabilsation - I'm really a novice right now and I don't know If I want to have to buy more lens just to get Image Stabilsation.

3200 ISO - I hear this is a pretty good thing to have.

Adjustable 2.7" Display - I don't envisage using Live-View alot, but it seems like a good feature to have.
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
U dont want to be involved with canons. Iw heard Sony A350 X is great, but if i would be u, id go with Nikon D60, D80 or D90.
>> Anonymous
>>279821
U don't want to bbe involved with nikons. Iw hear u can't actully hammer nails
>> Anonymous
>>279823
U don't want to bbe involved with Sony. Iw hear they aren't for teh pros
>> Anonymous
>>279821

My only argument with the D90 is that its a comparatively large expenditure before I even look at lenses.

Mind if I ask why you'd look at a D80 instead of an A350X?
>> Anonymous
>>279825

You're seriously trying to have a conversation with someone that appears to type with their feet while drunk?
>> Anonymous
>>279826
Haha, valid point.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I only have a problem with Sony the company. I worry about how commited they are to this line of products and their standard. They have a pretty extensive history of pushing the wrong kind of standard. They never believed in mp3s and instead pushed minidiscs and that atrac3 garbage. Just don't be suprised when the entire product line is dropped for some reason or another and you're without lenses and accessories.

Also, I never liked any of their point and shoot/prosumer cameras. Pic very related.
>> Anonymous
>>279830
Sony has the KM heritage behind them. The only thing they don't use standard is their hot shoe. I personally think it's superior to the regular hotshoe, but some people's opinions differ on it.
>> Anonymous
i just got the A350 aweek ago,
and i must say im real happy with it.
its an outstanding camera.
you should go with the sony i think.
>> Anonymous
>>279830
I've never shot with it so I can't say how I'd feel about that weird layout myself, but Mike Johnston gave that (I tthink, I can't quite tell the model) or one like it a fucking glowing review.

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-07-29.shtml

"Finally...er, well, this is not very objective, but there's no getting around it: I LOVE THIS SONY. Some cameras you just take to. It's slowly become evident to me over the years that some camera designs are more than the sum of their parts, more than a collection of features. You can't discover this from a catalog or a spec sheet. They just work better; they're harmonious; they inspire more affection, more loyalty. They fit you. For me, these have been the Leica M4, the Pentax Spotmatic (especially the ES II), the Olympus OM-4T, the rosewood Wista 45DXII, the Rolleicord Vb. I'm not ensconcing the F707 on the A-list just yet, mind you, but just the fact that a digicam is mentioned in the same paragraph with my paragons has a lot to do with blue moons, cold days in hell, monkey's uncles, etc., etc."
>> Anonymous
>>279872
>I personally think it's superior to the regular hotshoe

Why's that? I'm honestly asking, I thought all hotshoes did the same thing as others, nonstandard or not.
>> Anonymous
>>279897


It has a quick "one button release" that is far faster and more secure than the old "screw on screw off" style canikon use. Also, the shoe not being metal insures that if you drop the camera you snap the flash and not rip off the hot shoe mount.
>> Anonymous
>>279901

Nikon's modern flashes have a simple switch to unlock them, not a screw.
>> Anonymous
very nice camera, got it a week ago myself.
i originally was looking at other cams, but coming from a sony f-828 i was kinda into live-view - and this is the only cam with a reasonable live-view (doesnt take 3 secs to autofocus like canons...)

imho it is the best entry-level dslr.
live view gives you a couple of great advantages, shooting from lower angles, etc,...

just one thing. try not to go above iso400 - this is the only weakness. the camera starts to noise more than other comparable cams at is400, but aside from that, the image quality is superb
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
atrac3 was superior to mp3.

nikon are doing more than sony to un-support things.

live view and *50 are both a huge waste of time buy a 200 and blow the rest on lenses and flashes.
>> Anonymous
>>280682
>>atrac3 was superior to mp3.

However, in an independent double-blind test (2004/05) without format encoding parameters reference against Ogg Vorbis, AAC, and LAME VBR MP3, ATRAC3 came last.[5]
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>280688
and?

same bitrate, smaller files, better battery life.
>> Anonymous
>>280691
>same bitrate, smaller files

wut?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>280693
that'd be compression dear, the exact reason why we use different encoders.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>280695
lolwut. You do know what bitrate is, right? It's a measurement of compression, sure, but it's still the same rate for filesize regardless of compression algorithm. ie, at 128kbs, the same track of audio will have virtually the same filesize whether it's atrac3, mp3, vorbis but some will sound worse or better.

Think of it similar to ISO. If you have a D40 and a D300 in the same lighting conditions (lol, same lens too), putting both at ISO 1600 will let you use the exact same settings for aperture and shutter for either and get the same amount of light in exposure but the D300 will of course have a cleaner image.

Also, at 192Kbps and above, all compression algorithms sound the same unless you're a bat. Best quality at 96kbps is AAC(MP4) followed my Vorbis last I checked yet mp3 is still such a popular format simply because there are so many players for it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>280701
bitrate = number of samples per second.

compression (here) = talking that sampled data (which will be the same size) and reducing it digitally with no loss in data.

While multi-pass VBR can produce better "compression" im implying here that atrac3+ can compress a 192kbps file to a smaller size than mp3 which would both (theoretically) produce the same waveform.

You're getting sampling and compression mixed up.
>> Anonymous
>>280702
I suggest you go recheck your facts before you make an even bigger ass of yourself
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>280702
Bitrate is the amount of data per unit of time. That's why it's called bit rate. So a 1 minute audio track at 192kbps (that's kilobits per second if I have to spell it out for you) gives a file that's about 1.4MB whether it's Atrac3 or Mp3.

The sampling you're thinking about is Pulse Code Modulation which is measured in Hz as samples per second. These are usually just 44100Hz or 48000Hz in high def audio or as high as 192000Hz in audio processing and of course higher means more data. Uncompressed 16bit wav files are 16 bits per sample at 44100 samples per second making them 706kbps for a single track or 1412kbps for a stereo track.

Compression is simply making that number smaller through many ways. There are lossless ways where it's mathematically reducing the data stream and there are lossy ways which are more efficient but have lower quality where data is discarded like frequencies above and below human hearing or removing data that can be recreated through interpolation during playback. Atrac3 and Mp3 are both lossy so they can't recreate the whole waveform of the originals but it's not like we'd notice anyway while listening to them.

That's why Mp3 isn't going to decline in use. You can't hear the difference in a real world setting and storage is cheap so it's pointless to try and compress music even further. The only use low bitrate audio has in the modern world is transmission or internet telephony or possibly even audiobooks and stuff and we already have aac and vorbis for that.

And more battery life is spent on the processor uncompressing and recreating data during playback than simply reading it so complex algorithms like atrac are detrimental. That's why the PSP homebrew scene came up with LightMP3 which underclocks its proc during playback. Also, the PSP can't play Atrac natively, I wonder what that means...
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
>>280722
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>280722
>post = blah
MP3 isnt going anywhere, but you've totally missed what i said. ADC the wave, sample it then compress it, atrac and mp3 handle the last stage differently.

>Also, the PSP can't play Atrac natively, I wonder what that means...
It means sony dropped it a while ago because they couldnt be bothered supporting their own software and no-longer use atrac3+, this is sads because it was pretty decent at what it did but given the bad rep their software had it makes sense to join the rest of the non-apple world.
>> Anonymous
>>280722
I can hear a difference on good speakers / headphones between a FLAC and 256 MP3.
The file size is about 4 times as big, for a small difference, but the FLAC definitely sounds better to me.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>280734
gb2/g/ kthnxbai.
>> Anonymous
>>280732
At which point does the bitrate turn into sample rate, fucktard?
>> OiD
Ignoring trolling in the middle...

I have the alpha 350, it's a camera, it works, it has konica minolta accesories, Sigma, Tamron, Cosina, Zeiss lenses. Very comfortable compared to Eos450, don't know about nikon, never held one.

I'm happy with mine.
>> Anonymous
>>280667
>>280989


listen to them
>> Anonymous
>>279925
Though I do hate Minolta's hot shoe because it forces me to get different strobes, It IS a lot more solid. It feels more rigid and the click is a lot better, I suggest people try it before saying it is stupid.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>281155
Agree with you on the hotshoe, although I have 2 strobes that fit it. thankfuck.
>> Anonymous
IT SAYS THE NAME RIGHT THERE.

ITS A FUCKING A350.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A A350X?

FAGGOT.
>> Anonymous
>>281173

it´s one of the different kits
the 350k is the body +18-50, the 350x is body+2 lenses (18-50+55-200) and then theres the 350h which includes only the 55-200 lens.
>> Anonymous
>>281173

oh and yeah, you fail!