A300 or A350?

[bruce lee]

The extra MP count is also good for taking less pictures due to its larger filesize.

That's not good.

However, if the price difference between the two cameras is $120, will you still choose A300 over A350?

 

[boombox]

That's not good.

However, if the price difference between the two cameras is $120, will you still choose A300 over A350?

My recommendation to you is that you keep your budget low at this time of the year.

Cash on hand is better than a piece of hardware that starts to depreciate immediately after purchasing...

First of all, do ask yourself some questions:

They can help you a lot when it comes to determining what you need - a salesman usually tries to sell you the more expensive stuff, and you might end up with things you'd probably don't really need too much.

What are your usual habits when you shoot, view or post photos? Do you shoot to view on a computer, or share them on the net via networking sites? Or do you develop them into large prints?

Well, if you consider the uploading function of facebook, by default, all your photos will be converted into 600 x 400 sized files - which effectively, is only 0.24 megapixels.

And many photographers here post their photos here at 900 x 600 (some bigger, some smaller) - which is only 0.56 megapixels - so your 10 mpx shot can survive a cropping to an area which is probably just 10% original size or below - and that kind of cropping is rather extreme, and it doesn't happen that much.

The difference of 4 megapixels isn't really that much. if you want to make a difference, it's better to double your pixel count - that effectively, for example, allows you to develop a print at 1.5m x 2.25m instead of 1m x 1.5m, and view it from the same inspection distance. It's like going from an A1 print to an A0 print.

The difference of an extra 4 megapixel is only adding a couple of inches to the border of your print - provided if - the a350, in this case, is shot at its most optimal mode. Well, it's quite known that packing more pixels in the same area increases noise, and as sensitivity increases, the noise increases, reducing the effective resolution. In the case of the a350, with its 14 mpx sensor, quickly loses its resolution edge to the a700 as we go up in ISO ratings.

If you are able to appreciate and manipulate the banding free, stochastic (random) noise of the a350 - (even if pushed to the maximum sensitivity), which resembles high sensitivity colour negative film, while retaining the flexibility to do high resolution stock work under controlled conditions (ISO100), and not requiring a fast burst speed, the a350 is the machine for you.

If you want something that's more of an all rounder, in terms of speed, and relatively high resolution, (as compared to the older 6 mpx machines), better noise control compared to the a300, and cheaper value, the a300 is the machine for you.

 

[bruce lee]

My recommendation to you is that you keep your budget low at this time of the year.

Cash on hand is better than a piece of hardware that starts to depreciate immediately after purchasing...

First of all, do ask yourself some questions:

They can help you a lot when it comes to determining what you need - a salesman usually tries to sell you the more expensive stuff, and you might end up with things you'd probably don't really need too much.

What are your usual habits when you shoot, view or post photos? Do you shoot to view on a computer, or share them on the net via networking sites? Or do you develop them into large prints?

Well, if you consider the uploading function of facebook, by default, all your photos will be converted into 600 x 400 sized files - which effectively, is only 0.24 megapixels.

And many photographers here post their photos here at 900 x 600 (some bigger, some smaller) - which is only 0.56 megapixels - so your 10 mpx shot can survive a cropping to an area which is probably just 10% original size or below - and that kind of cropping is rather extreme, and it doesn't happen that much.

The difference of 4 megapixels isn't really that much. if you want to make a difference, it's better to double your pixel count - that effectively, for example, allows you to develop a print at 1.5m x 2.25m instead of 1m x 1.5m, and view it from the same inspection distance. It's like going from an A1 print to an A0 print.

The difference of an extra 4 megapixel is only adding a couple of inches to the border of your print - provided if - the a350, in this case, is shot at its most optimal mode. Well, it's quite known that packing more pixels in the same area increases noise, and as sensitivity increases, the noise increases, reducing the effective resolution. In the case of the a350, with its 14 mpx sensor, quickly loses its resolution edge to the a700 as we go up in ISO ratings.

If you are able to appreciate and manipulate the banding free, stochastic (random) noise of the a350 - (even if pushed to the maximum sensitivity), which resembles high sensitivity colour negative film, while retaining the flexibility to do high resolution stock work under controlled conditions (ISO100), and not requiring a fast burst speed, the a350 is the machine for you.

If you want something that's more of an all rounder, in terms of speed, and relatively high resolution, (as compared to the older 6 mpx machines), better noise control compared to the a300, and cheaper value, the a300 is the machine for you.

Really appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining it to me. Thank you so much, I guess A300 suits me more.