The Sony Alpha 380 – review
Extra features
What, then, has been added to the A380 relative to the A350?
The first addition involves subtraction. They have removed the remote control socket entirely, and you can no longer fit a corded remote. Instead, the A230/330/380 all use the same RMT-DSLR1 wireless remote release and playback controller that is supplied with the Alpha 700 and 900. That’s good news for us, we have two already. It’s not such good news for others, as the control is not provided with the camera and must be purchased as an optional accessory. I was able to order a neat little Jianisi Remote Control for Alpha from Hong Kong for £6 including postage, and it works well.
If you use a tripod, the new models feature an extra 10 second self-timer multi shot mode which does away with the need for a remote release in self or group portrait shots. A three or five shot set (not bracketed, all the same exposure) is taken at the standard motor-drive speed which is a standard 2.5fps for all three cameras (this is an improvement over the 2fps of the A350). The five shot set gives more time for people in a group to make silly faces or change pose. Three shots can catch random expressions but by the time you realise the camera is operating, the last shot is taken. But there is a caution. Many such pictures are taken at parties, or gatherings indoors. If you enable the 3 or 5 shot self timer, you disable the built-in flash entirely. The tiny battery of the new cameras would never be able to recycle the flash fast enough, especially at group distances (the official recycling time is 4 seconds). To use flash with this mode, you must attach an accessory gun. The camera can not tell whether direct or bounce flash is being used, so there is still some risk of losing pictures if you discharge the gun fully.
Cards and connections
A wide-angle shot of the live view shooting itself – with a self-portrait in the TV cabinet…
The new models are much improved for HDTV playback. They have a standard HDMI mini socket, similar to the A700 and A900, and are controllable via Bravia Sync when connected to a compatible Sony TV. The television remote control can then browse pictures on the camera’s memory cards, run slide shows with the facility to zoom and pan individual shots. Not only that, the Live View feeds directly to your TV complete with the LCD screen overlay (settings, focus points etc) and you can shoot with your TV as the monitor in place of the LV screen. Just like the LCD, after each shot you get a review mode, but this is provided at something resembling 720p resolution – it’s an HD preview, not the same modest resolution as the rear screen.
USB connectivity is improved by switching from a special USB connector to the standard mini USB used by most portable hard disks, card readers and similar devices. A cable is supplied. The old USB to video function, for feeding images to traditional televisions using a bunch of phono plugs, is gone.
Finally, the card compatibility leaves CompactFlash behind and switches over to a dual Memory Stick Pro Duo HG and SecureDigital HC choice (both high capacity – no problem with 4, 9, 16, 32GB cards). The slots are very close together and the card contacts must face in towards each other so you have to remember that SD and MS cards face in opposite directions when inserted. There is a switch to change between the cards, instead of Quick Navi menu-diving as found on the Alpha 900 and 700. It takes a second or so for the camera to make the change, and there is no automatic overflow or simultaneous RAW/JPEG recording option.
Given the very low price of memory in both the Sony MemoryStick Pro Duo and more widely used SD format, the necessary 2GB minimum needed for a reasonable number of shots works out cheaper than film. You really don’t need a portable storage device, or a card reader, with the A230-380 series. The standard mini USB connection enables the camera to act as a fast card reader.
The neat sliding door which covers the interfaces is a good design, and the only interface cover on the camera apart from an anchored, push-fit plastic cover on the right hand end for the AC adaptor input.
The smaller NP-FH50 (right) compared to the NP-FM500H (left) as used by the Alpha 200, 300, 350, 700 and 900 (also compatible with the Alpha 100 though that officially uses a slightly different cell).
The small NP-FH50 battery is only 900mAh compared to 1650mAh for the A350’s NP-FM500H. There is no percentage charge display, just a three-step graphic indicator.
Sony supply comprehensive literature with the camera. There is a proper printed manual, a system brochure and a lens brochure, a quick start guide, and even the box packaging has a panel suggesting some accessory purchases.
In the manual, it is made very clear that the A230-380 models are not dustproof, moisture proof or splashproof.
There are small changes to both the optical viewfinder and the rear LCD, both to allow a slightly slimmer body. The viewfinder eye relief at the -1.0 dioptre standard is reduced to a modest 19.7mm from the A350’s better than average 20.8mm (eyepiece glass to eye distance), and from viewfinder frame the difference is A380 14.1mm, A350 16.7mm. That is a 2.6mm change in the distance from the rubber surround for viewing the entire screen for a typical user. Comparing this with the Nikon D5000 at a tighter 17.9mm standard eyepoint (glass to eye), I found that the D5000 eyepiece is not as recessed or the surround is not as thickly padded, and the rear screen does not stick out so far (nose contact issue), making the Nikon more comfortable to view through despite tighter limits on where you can position your eye.
The rear LCD is claimed to be brighter, but I still found it difficult to use in sunshine. The new accessory hood might be advisable:
The articulated screen mechanism is tighter, packing the screen closer to the body, requiring a little more force to operate because it hinges from the screen centre. It allows a slightly better overhead view, but less angle range as a ‘waist level finder’, and keeps the screen closer to the body all the time. I immediately fitted my screen with a Fujifilm adhesive (slightly soft, not relying on firm glue) protector – pack of three for a small sum, seemed worthwhile.
Having used the Nikon D5000 with its rotate and tilt mechanism, I realise the A300/350/330/380 design is flawed – it offers no provision for vertical composition. You can view with the camera above your head but only for landscape compositions, and the same goes for waist or ground level use. I’ve used many cameras with live view, and with articulated screens – the Sony Cyber-shot DSC R-1 was one of the best ever designed. The A3xx series is one of the most basic solutions, it is not even possible to protect the screen by reversing it against the camera body. I regularly shoot with the D5000 and keep the screen folded away if I feel no need to ‘chimp’ or use live view. I don’t need a screen protector as it is always stored reversed.
My A380 kit body and lens was made in Japan. Latest deliveries worldwide are being made in Thailand.
The big question remains – is the image from the A380 a step up from the A350, with lower noise (easy), better dynamic range (difficult), better sharpness (difficult)?
There may be some very small differences present between my A350 and the A380, but they are not fundamental. They are the kind of differences you can also find between two identical DSLRs with different serial numbers. The A380 is a little more generous with exposure and also has a more realistic preview on the camera LCD in terms of colour balance. It’s a bit bright and I ended up reducing exposures when no compensation was needed.
A standard ISO 400 shot here – exposure 1/1600th at f/8 – can be viewed as processed from raw with no NR at all, and no sharpening. Normally I would use colour NR 50, luminance NR 25, and sharpening 25 in Adobe Camera Raw for this same setting. The SAL 70-300mm SSM G has focused very accurately at 200mm and the quality is visibly superior to the kit lens. The 2.5fps sequence shooting of the A380 is in no way suitable for sports shots. I timed most shots manually, single frame, for a whole set of tests on cricket using A380, A900 and A700. The A380 was not bad, but the much faster reaction time (delay) of the other cameras generally got the ball on the bat, just off it, or in-frame. Here the batsman deliberately missed the ball, seeing it was high and not heading for the wicket, and the wicket-keeper caught it.
As far as I can see, the output across the ISO range with and without NR (high ISO and long exposure) and with various DRO settings and JPEG adjustments is identical. There is no visible improvement and the A380 (at least) appears to use exactly the same sensor and in-camera processing as the A350. It is also certainly not worse. What I am pretty certain about is that Sony has not made any revision of the sensor, firmware or processing. Had they done so, no doubt claims would have been made for improved performance.
Value for money
I mentioned the price at the start of this review. You can get a Canon EOS 500D or a Nikon D5000 with a more solidly built 18-55mm image stabilised lens for exactly the same £600 as the A380 with lightweight SAM 18-55mm. Those cameras both offer off-sensor live view, both have HD video filming, and the Nikon has a better articulated rear screen (Canon’s is just a normal plain fixed screen). They also both feel far more substantial and have more visible control functions. Added August 9th: I forgot, here, to say that if you are working with a good lens at ISO 100 the Alpha 380 is the best of these three for image quality, and the Alpha 350 is equal to it. Last week I was processing a stack of our daughter’s Alpha 350 shots for Alamy, and accidentally forgot to switch back from 25 megapixel upscaling after doing a tight crop/panorama which needed the larger size. The results were looking so sharp on-screen at 100% I did not notice I was creating files larger than the Alpha 900!
Maybe matching the video function of the Nikon and Canon is something Sony wanted to avoid, and the new models will capture technophobe upgraders. Even so, I feel I have just bought a £399 kit for £599 and it’s not a good feeling. I bought an A350 body for £300 in March and that was a real bargain. I bought a Nikon D5000 kit for £630 in May and felt it was good value for the new experience of HD video. Added August 9th: I’m not feeling quite as negative about the price after a bit more shooting. It’s rock solid on exposure and focus, at least with all lenses except my 500mm f/8 RF which it consistently back focuses.
Perhaps the price will fall rapidly but right now the A200, A300 and A350 are better buys for anyone already owning Alpha gear (same CF cards, same battery, charger etc). That’s the bottom line from the enthusiast/owner point of view. No doubt Sony’s market research tells them the real potential lies with those new to DSLRs. The 18-55mm lens is only weak towards the edges at 18-28mm, wide open. The reduction of colour fringing in JPEGs makes up for that. SAM is neither better nor worse than in-body drive.
We look forward to seeing what the full-frame Alpha 850 offers – whether it will have unchanged image quality from the 900 (same way the A380 is the same as the A350). Then there will be APS-C Alpha 500 and 550 models, with features not yet known. Many are hoping they don’t take the Alpha 700 and move it in the same direction the Alpha 380 (and 230, 330) have gone.
– David Kilpatrick
David,
First of all, thank you for a most detailed and informative reply. I very much appreciate the time and consideration you put into it. I am also impressed by your knowledge and respectfulness to your patrons — the level of which is not always shared by your peers when dealing with Joe public snapshot artists 😉
You make a good point about cost/price influencing the level of QC and reliability and of parts and production that is more intertwined and interdependent than can be observed from outside the industry.
I do still believe that there is a difference in the level of QC between mfr. branded lenses and third party alternatives (Sigma being the worst offender), although it becomes more understandable when i consider that the prices of the 3rd party lenses are significantly lower than the mfr. lenses (designing to a price point, as you put it). Afer all, if the 3rd party alternative is a couple hundred dollars cheaper and the optical performance is engineered to be relatively close, something has to give… and sometimes, it seems to be QC.
I’ve tested or owned all the lenses you mentione except the Tokina 12-24mm. You are right, of course the 70-200mm Tamron has a motor for Nikon. I tested this in Canon and Nikon fits (never in Sony) and it was equally slow in both. I thought the 17-50mm was screw drive for Nikon but maybe not, and must be updated now anyway as Nikon’s system demands micromotor lenses for the entry level models.
The Sony SAM lenses are not all Tamron, or made by Tamron. The 11-18mm is not SAM, it is screw drive (and definitely a Tamron). Konica Minolta made specific changes to Tamron lenses, such as reversing the direction of focus or zoom rings to match older Minolta standards where possible – Tamron always made their lenses to work the same way as Nikon, which is the reverse to Minolta. It was not always possible and the 28-75mm (pre-SAM) for example works exactly the same as the Tamron.
The 18-200mm and 18-250mm lenses are also Tamron in origin, and not SAM, just screw drive. The 17-35mm (discontinued) was Tamron. The original 55-200mm was definitely Tamron, I am not sure about the SAM variant.
Tamron, Tokina, Cosina and Sigma should never be thought of as second-tier lens companies. They certainly all make, or have made, budget priced lenses; that’s where the market lies. All have also made lenses which everyone thinks of as being from the camera manufacturer; in some cases they held the patents, and developed the design. Hoya-Tokina, for example, created the Minolta APO 100-400mm and 100-300mm APO designs. Sigma produced the Leica R 24mm which replaced the Leitz-Minolta period 24mm.
Minolta used to sell most ‘end of life’ lens plant to Shanghai Optical (Seagull) in China. Shortly before the Sony takeover of the Alpha line, KM set up a joint venture for a new optical plant with Shanghai. That plant produced the Sony 50mm f/1.4. Sony was also involved in setting up yet another plant in China, with Carl Zeiss help; in the meantime, Tamron was contracting some lens production to a Chinese plant, or was/is a partner in one.
Sony/Zeiss established a plant in Japan. Sony took over the Sakai (Minolta G) plant and initially closed it down, moving the equipment and engineers. It seems that unit has now been relocated to a single Japanese facility which combines the Sony/Zeiss and Sony/Minolta G teams. The SAM lenses are not made there (so far) but come from Tamron (Japan or China) and one of the various Chinese units – looking at the design and construction of the 30mm f/2.8 macro and 50mm f/1.8 SAM, I don’t think it’s Shanghai Optical, but probably the same plant which made the pilot run of the 16-80mm Carl Zeiss which was a failure (and was transferred permanently to Japan).
In every case, no single plant makes everything. The optical units of the Carl Zeiss lenses are produced in the Sony/CZ factory and subjected to benchtest quality control. They are then shipped to the Sony (non-CZ) assembly plant where they are mated with barrels to produce the complete lens. This is why Sony/CZ lenses have two serial numbers, one of the optical assembly and one for the barrel.
This is not an unusual process. Tamron specialises in the production of hybrid aspheric (glass/plastic sandwich) elements, a technology originally developed by Minolta and licensed by Tamron. It’s likely that Tamron actually makes most, possibly all, of the hybrid aspheric elements used by all makers. Sigma developed moulded glass aspheric technology after a period of working with Carl Zeiss. As far as I know, they are the source for most moulded/pressed glass aspheric elements and supply Zeiss and others (the original glass comes from yet another source).
In short – you can’t untangle all this and class the third party makers as inferior, because a lot of the time, they are also making for the big names. As for QC, or design down to a price, that’s another matter. You get what you pay for. I don’t know who made my Nikon 18-105mm VR for example, but it’s no better than any Tamron or Sigma and also didn’t cost any more!
David
From what i have heard, Sony SAM lenses are just Tamron lenses with a built-in motor (the same micro-motor that Tamron uses for the lenses that they have updated to include built-in motors). Besides the 28-75, i consider the 55-200 SAM as being a rebadged Tamron 55-200, and the Tamron/Sony/KM 11-18 to be identical as well. Do i have proof for these claims? No, unfortunately not. But if you look at the optical design and specs for those lenses, they sure *look* identical.
My impression of Tamron is that they are a second tier lens company like Sigma and Tokina. Their lenses all have some good designs and good characteristics, but they also seem to fall short on one aspect or another whether it be QC, reliability, or AF performance / accuracy. This is mostly due to my experience with 3rd party lenses on the Nikon mount*, so it would be in comparison to Nikon lenses.
* – which includes the Sigma 10-20, 15-30, 24-60, 24/1.8, 30/1.4, 50/2.8, and 50-150, Tamron 17-50 (with & without AF motor), 28-75, and 70-200, and Tokina 12-24.
[I understand that listing 12 third-party lenses doesn’t necessarily establish my credibility (especially as I am basically seen popping in out of nowhere and commenting on one of your reviews (which was excellent, btw)), so i will enlist the help of a more objective and credible source:
http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_defect_results.php ]
Regarding my specific experience with the two Tamrons with built-in motor, the two i tried were the 17-50 and 70-200 — both about a year and a half ago.
In the case of the 17-50, my friend had just purchased a new D300 and asked me to check out the AF calibration with the 17-50. The thing backfocused all the time on both his body and mine, where my original version 17-50 w/o the built-in motor did not. The AF motor was also noticeably slower than the screw drive.
Regarding the 70-200, i was trying out all the 70-200/2.8 zooms to help me decide which one to get. Went to B+H with my D300 body and spent about 20-30 minutes specifically testing the AF behaviour of the Nikon 80-200, Sigma 70-200, and Tamron 70-200. The Tamron stood out for having by far the slowest AF. By far. While Sigma’s HSM was very fast, it wasn’t quite as reliable as either Nikon. It basically came down to the Nikon being the most reliable when it came to acquiring AF lock, so it was the “winner” of that test. However, in the end, i got the Nikon 70-200 over the 80-200 for the VR.
I don’t think the SAM motor will be more accurate, just that in the process of redesigning aspects of the AF system, including adaptation for better SSM/SAM performance, Sony has improved over older models.
Tamron does not make any SAM lens, or SSM, yet; they OEM the Sony 28-75mm and that’s all. All official SAM lenses apart from this are made in China, and the 28-75mm may be, as Tamron also uses the same plant. You can’t distinguish Tamron QC from Sony, as they are identical if the lens is identical (the 28-75mm Sony for example is not identical to any existing Tamron but may be to a future one). Tamron has made lenses for all the major camera brands over the years and is highly respected for professional video camera lenses; don’t know why you should think them poor.
Which Tamron lens with a built-in motor for Nikon mount have you tried? They only introduced the first this year, I think. All Tamrons for Nikon have been screw drive previously, causing them quite a problem with compatibility right now. I have used Tamrons with built-in motors for Canon; nothing special, but OK.
David
Interesting… So you suspect the SAM motor helps with the accuracy? Do you think it is just the Sony SAM lenses or would that extend to the Tamron branded versions of the same lens too? I have to say that I don’t have much faith in Tamrons with built-in Af motors from my experienc with them on Nikon mount. Slower and less accurate than screw drive from my limited experience.
I wonder if Sony specifies a higher level of QC or focus calibration with reference bodies before Tamron is allowed to ship Sony SAM lenses?
Thoughts?
In your A550 review, you mentioned that it had a vastly improved AF system compared to all of the older models up to the A350, and that all the newer Alphas, including the A380 had usably accurate AF.
However, you didn’t mention specifically if the A380’s AF system was just as good as the one in the A550 that you were so impressed with. Are there significant differences, and if so, how would you characterise them?
The AF system on basic level Alphas was improved or changed in algorithms (I suspect it is mainly software based improvement) with introduction of the A230, A330 and A380 along with the new SAM lenses. It is I guess partly down to individual experience, but from the A380 onwards I have experienced far more reliable accurate AF from these models and the A550 is no exception. I don’t think there is any real speed difference, if anything the newer 2/3 models could have a slower AF motor than the earlier 200-350 range. Accuracy, or calibration matching to lenses, is improved even over the Alpha 700.
So far I have not heard of anyone with major front or back focus problems with the A230-380 series or the A450-550 series. All my own lenses, old and new, work well. Conclusion: they got a lot of hassle from the A100 to the A700, maybe it is slightly better with the A350 but I am not sure of that since I did get some focus errors with that camera and my 18-250mm; they have managed to fix things well enough to avoid the hassle continuing. I still have the A350, and like it, but it shows front focus sometimes (worst with wide angles). The A550 doesn’t and nor did the A380 – especially with the SAM lenses, they are a bit crude but seem to hit the mark.
David
I have made some major updates to this review on August 5th, following a few enquiries about whether or not the flash operated in wireless mode, whether Live View could be connected to TV via HDMI – etc. The good news is that it all works, the Flash modes are actually a big all-round improvement on the A200-350 series (very clever firmware remembering your settings as you change modes and intelligently accepting or over-riding), the HDMI connection allows Live View tethered shooting. Had Sony been bright enough to include a wired remote socket, the A380 would have become the world’s best camera for aerial mast photography – 50 or 100ft is nothing to an HDMI cable (they are designed for long connections), and LV on a portable HDTV monitor with focus point confirmation would work well. A super-power infra red trigger would be needed to fire the shutter though!
David