A300 vs A350 whats the difference?

[F1addict]

After reading countless reviews. I've settled on Sony's two middle of the road cameras. But I now can't decide which one to get.

The A350's $100 more but from what I can tell the only difference is 4 megapixels and .5fps slower burst mode.
Is 14.2 Megapixels really necessary for an amature photographer like me that has zero intention of ever being professional. 10.2 for the A300 seems like it would be more then enough for me. But 4 more megapixels seems like a pretty big jump when I can get it for just $50 more then the A300's retail price on ebay. Although I can get the A300 for $50 less then retail also. What would you guys suggest doing, lower price or higher mp because thats what it really comes down to I think? Unless theres another difference I haven't discovered

I know I said I'd have a DSLR by now on here before but I decide to spend $400 on my computer instead because I needed it more and would get more use out of it. I spend alot of time on the computer. I only really use my camera in the summer spring and fall. I have a thing agianst cold weather, yet I live in upstate New York, go figure:roll:

 

[skieur]

Another major difference between the A300 and the A350 is that you have to buy the kit lens with the A300. You can buy the A350 body only and pick a top quality lens with it that you really want.

The Sigma f.2.8 macro 18mm to 50mm zoom is quite good providing a 35mm equivalent of 27mm to 75mm with macro capability at all focal lengths. The older Minolta Maxxum lenses are high quality as well and the 50mm 1.7 (75mm equivalent) can be had for under $100.

So, it pays to go for the A350 get more megapixels and pick the lens you really want.

skieur

 

[nickisonfire]

okay well before I got my a300 I looked into both the a200 and the a350. I dismissed the a350 early on because looking at pictures from both I didn't notice any real improvement in image quality from 10 to 14 mps. Also the price difference at the time was $100. Unless you are regularly blowing up pictures to poster size the a300 with 10 megapixels would be sufficient. With the money I saved purchasing the a300 I got my self some new glass (minolta 50 f/1.7 to be exact) which is a great lens. I think you should also consider saving yourself a couple bucks to put towards new glass and go the a300 route.

Hope that helps.

 

[F1addict]

I'm not really sold on the idea of buying a seperate lens right when I get the camera simply because I don't want to spend that much at one time. A minolta maxxum lens is an option but I have a few Sigma and Tamron lens in mind that I'd want to buy down the road that would replace whatever minolta lens that I's buy. And if I bought them when i bought the camera I'd have to spend between $900 and $1200 which is too much. I have something against spending that amount of money at one time for a camera. I'd really like to keep the initial cost below $850 max, preferably below $800.

looking around online there are some decent minolta lens for under $200 but I think I still want a kit lens with it because I've heard that its supposed to be decent for a kit lens

 

[nickisonfire]

what do you mostly shoot? that will really determine what kind of lenses you should pickup

 

[F1addict]

Landscape, car shows, my dog (also know as trying to take a picture of something that moves at lightspeed) and hopefully I'll be getting to more auto races this year, and various other sporting events. The New York Giants hold summer training came a few minutes from me so I go to that.
I healty mix of everything if I do say so myself:mrgreen:

 

[nickisonfire]

well if your shooting Giants training camp depending how close you get to the field your probably gonna need a telephoto zoom in order to get close (75-300, 55-200 ect.) so you proably want to make room for that in your budget

 

[F1addict]

well if your shooting Giants training camp depending how close you get to the field your probably gonna need a telephoto zoom in order to get close (75-300, 55-200 ect.) so you proably want to make room for that in your budget

yeah I can get some good deals on ebay that include them but if I don't go for those there's also a few Tamron and Sigma len's I've been looking at that are around $300-$400. And no they don't let us very close to the fields. We can only watch from one endzone so there almost always atleast 70-100 yards away because the fence is about 20 yards from the endzone.

So do you think I should just go with the A300 pay about $550 to $600 for it with the kit lens, $700 if I can get a good deal with a second 75-300mm zoom lens and then save up for a better lens?
Should I even bother with a two lens kit? The 75-300mm thats normally offered with it is't really all that good I don't think.


oh and another question. What would you think about getting an older 105mm lens meant for a minolta Maxxum? I can get one for under $200 and it'd be a faster lens then any zoom that I could afford and it will get me that much closer to the action then the kit 18-70mm. I think it'd be good for when I go to the races. I used my uncles Rebel XT with a 55-105mm lens and it got me pretty close in with at some areas when I went to a vintage race last summer. I could have used a little more length with it but I couldn't find any ~150mm-200mm lens's when I was searching the internet last night.

 

[nickisonfire]

oh and another question. What would you think about getting an older 105mm lens meant for a minolta Maxxum? I can get one for under $200 and it'd be a faster lens then any zoom that I could afford and it will get me that much closer to the action then the kit 18-70mm. I think it'd be good for when I go to the races. I used my uncles Rebel XT with a 55-105mm lens and it got me pretty close in with at some areas when I went to a vintage race last summer. I could have used a little more length with it but I couldn't find any ~150mm-200mm lens's when I was searching the internet last night.

minolta has a 100-200mm which you can find pretty cheap also minoltas beercan ( 70-210) is a pretty fast lens i heard but that isn't always easy to find

 

[anubis404]

Go with the A300. I have been an amateur for 1 year now, and I have never needed anything more than 6 MPs. Unless you are blowing things up larger than poster size, don't bother with any more than 10.

As for lenses, get the Sigma 18-50 HSM F2.8 macro which was mentioned above. Its an awesome lens for a good price.

As for a telephoto, I would save up for a 70-200ish lens. The speed of the glass and the image quality are awesome. A 75-300 would work if you don't have the money though. You just won't get the speed and quality of the 70-200.