#SONY A350 VS A390 ISO#
That said, I also remember that it has a peculiar way of processing poorly lit red tones and makes those come out noticeably noisier than other colors at iso 800 and above. Compared to the a100 and a200, I found the a290 to be decidedly better at iso 800, though it definitely did not manage to please at iso 1600. I've had the a100, a200 and a290 and I wasn't nearly as unhappy with the latter as thornburg.Īt low isos in bright southern california sunlight the a290's 14 Mpx CCD gave (to my eye) very much the same kind of crisp and vivid images as the a100 and a200's 10 Mpx sensor before. (Note that those are both SLTs with CMOS sensors, so if you're specifically after CCD and/or OVF, they're not what you want). My disappointment with the A290 led me to my first A55, which is a great camera, although I believe the A57 is worth getting for a few extra features it has. If you shoot indoor ambient light photos, or outdoor photos in the evening, I suspect you will not be happy with the performance. If you're going to be shooting in broad daylight or with flash, it's a fine camera. At 1600 the images look like they were taken with expired film and shot through two screen doors. I had an A290, and it was OK, but I absolutely could not stand the high-ISO performance.
![sony a350 vs a390 sony a350 vs a390](https://img.joomcdn.net/907640bdb36dcc07f67eece205631265b13b8ab8_original.jpeg)
Is there a reason you specifically want a CCD sensor?
![sony a350 vs a390 sony a350 vs a390](https://cameradecision.com/sizecomparison/Sony-Alpha-DSLR-A230-vs-Sony-Alpha-DSLR-A390-size-comparison.jpg)
Thanks! Is the A290 lighter and has bigger viewfinder than A200 as well? Is the A200's 10MP CCD that much better? Any suggestions on which to get? Flickr also has around 12K more photos uploaded taken with A200 (13,204 uploads) than A290 (1,220 uploads). I currently have a chance to buy an A200 and A290 for dirt cheap 2nd hand and based on common sense, the A290 is a newer camera with newer sensor shouldn't it be more preferable? But based on Amazon and B&H reviews, the A200 is a much more popular camera yielding more reviews than A290. I am planning on getting a CCD Camera cheap as backup camera. If CCD does produce better tonal detail at low ISO should the 14MP CCD be just as good? But I've heard less praise for the 14MP CCD on the A350, A290, A390, etc? Or am I just not reading enough? I have heard a lot of praise from the Minolta 5D/7D CCD sensor for it's tonal/color rendition, as well as Sony A100/A200's 10MP CCD.
![sony a350 vs a390 sony a350 vs a390](https://data2.manualslib.com/first-image/i10/49/4838/483704/sony-dslr-a390.png)
I'm sure that there are a lot of members here who will be able to say how good the tonal rendition was and probably even show some examples.
#SONY A350 VS A390 SERIES#
Not sure how many 200, 300 and 400 series cameras were sold but I suspect that most buyers either upgraded very quickly or went back to point and shoots. Then the SLTs came along in the shape of the A33 and A55 and the last CCD cameras were phased out.
![sony a350 vs a390 sony a350 vs a390](https://s1.bukalapak.com/img/12612502192/s-330-330/data.jpeg)
At the time the last CCD cameras were being produced (2008/9) the A900 and A850 were introduced and that meant a lot of A700s were relased onto the second hand market. The A100 despite its low number was seen as Sony's replacement for the two KM cameras (5D and 7D) whereas the 200, 300 and even the 400 series were seen more as entry level models. You probably hear less about the CCD on the later cameras you mention because they were introduced at a time when Sony seemed to be bringing out new cameras every few months. I believe that the A350 was capable of similar results and certainly I was tempted to buy one at the time but didn't. I still won't let go of my A100 even though I now own half a dozen newer DSLRs and SLT cameras. You are right that some of us really liked the rendition from the first three cameras in the digital A-mount era.