Home / Cameras / Camera / Sony Alpha A300 / Test Shots - ISO Performance

Sony Alpha A300 - Test Shots - ISO Performance

By Cliff Smith



Our Score:


A range of test shots are shown over the next few pages. Here, the full size images at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced for bandwidth purposes to let you see the full image, and a series of crops taken from original full resolution images at a range of ISO settings have been included in order for you to gain an appreciation of the overall quality.


This is the full frame at 100 ISO.


At the lowest sensitivity setting the image quality is very good, with sharp detail and no image noise.


Not much difference at 200 ISO, image quality is still good.


There is some noise visible in the darker areas of the frame at 400 ISO, but the overall level of detail remains high.


There is pronounced colour mottling in the darker areas, and some detail is lost at 800 ISO.


Progressively more noise at 1600 ISO.


At 3200 ISO most fine detail has been lost and image quality is quite poor.


This is the full frame at 3200 ISO.



February 7, 2009, 3:31 pm

In a200 tests you used Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 lens but in here the kit lens was used.

Shouldn't the image quality be the same in these two cameras(a200 and a300) because these are basically the same camera but a300 has couple more options. So doesn't the Carl Zeiss lens give a bit advantage for the a200? and please correct if im wrong.

Cliff Smith

February 7, 2009, 11:15 pm

The sample photos were actually taken using the same Carl Zeiss 16-80mm lens, apart from the wide/telephoto shots which were taken using the 18-70mm kit lens. It has the kit lens fitted in the product shots because it was supplied to me as a kit, and also because the Zeiss lens was on the camera I was using to take the product shots (Sony A100).


February 8, 2009, 6:35 pm

How does the Sony Alpha A300 compare with the Panasonic G1, if I may ask. I'm not very skilled when it comes to camera linguo but I recently bought the G1 at a rather hefty price tag and I just wondered if I did the right choice. Thanks TR


February 9, 2009, 12:22 am

I've owned the A100 & A200, and now have the A300, I have to say that this is easily the better camera, simply because of the live view which provides simple but effective tweaks that enable me to get better shots; the live view Histogram (good exposures), the ability to use live view to correctly dial in white balance , the ability to shot over other peoples heads, etc. The review seemed to give the impression that the A300 is inferior to the A350, not helped by the 9/10 score that that camera receives. A350 files sizes are larger, images are slightly noiser at higher iso settings, burst speed is slower and to get the best out of it you really need to spend big on a decent lens. I had the choice of the A300 and A350 and I feel I made the right choice & if the Salesman in Jessops was telling the truth, they've shipped "a lot" more A300's than A350's. For the price & spec there is no other camera that can touch the A300.


February 9, 2009, 7:23 pm

II've had this camera for a few months now and I think the 2 frames per second shutter speed you got was because you wer using liveview. When using the viewfinder with the shutter mode set to "continuous" you get a consistant 3.5 fames per second


February 9, 2009, 10:44 pm

Having looked at the rating for the A300's sister cameras I do wonder if Trusted Reviews has either got something against the A300 or have just under scored it. A200 scored 9/10 getting a 10/10 for IQ, the A350 got 9/10 and 9/10 for I/Q and yet the A300 only managed an 8 in both, does'nt it have the same sensor as the A200 & does'nt it have more features ?. As a "kit lens" purchase which of the 3 would be considered the best option ?.

Ref 3.5 fps (from aaron88) was'nt aware that either of the 3 could burst that fast, the Canon 450d can.

scott donaldson

February 10, 2009, 7:42 am

"On the subject of the viewfinder, it’s hard to say definitively without having an A200 or A350 side-by-side for comparison, but it seems to me that the A300’s viewfinder is slightly smaller with lower magnification than either of its siblings"

The A300 & A350 viewfinders are the same & both are worse than the A200's - it's the penalty paid for Sony's particular LiveView implementation.


February 11, 2009, 12:07 am

The viewfinder conumdrum (it's smaller than the A200's / is like a tunnel etc,etc) can be seen in many a review, Personally I find the A300/A350 viewfinder better & prefer it to the A200's, and I wear glasses, it also seems to have better dioptre adjustment, the trade off to a slightly smaller viewfinder is a very good live view system, if you are interested in any camera & not just the A200,A300& A350 try for yourself, what some don't like, others will.

Mike 21

June 19, 2009, 11:51 pm

Reviews like this are helpful but I bought one because it felt "right" (my hands are big for a compact or small DSLR)and was at a good price. It's REALLY nice to use and the tilted screen live-view is worth the extra if you can afford it. It's easy to use straight from the box. I took a couple of pics and enlarged them a LOT. They looked just fine and, like most people, I don't usually enlarge much anyway. The kit lens has bad comments but is fine for what 99% of people need, I don't see the problem, some people worry too much.


May 17, 2010, 5:09 am

I've owned this camera now for about 2 years and it been great nad very easy to use .i love the features it poses and over all it is the best camera that i have owned.the view finder is a great option and the clarity is awsome.

comments powered by Disqus