Nature Noticed is photography first. The products come later. Every photographic design starts with an image I have taken myself, so the cameras I use are part of the story behind the work rather than just a list of specifications.
For a long time my main camera has been the Sony Alpha A350. I have recently added a Sony Alpha A35 to the kit. The A35 is not here simply to replace the A350. They are two Sony A-mount APS-C cameras from different technological generations, and the biggest difference between them is right at the heart of the camera: the sensor.
The A350 uses a 14.2-megapixel CCD. The A35 uses a 16.2-megapixel CMOS. On paper that sounds like a small change in megapixels. In practice, the move from CCD to CMOS changes much more than resolution.
Two APS-C sensors, two different approaches
| Specification | Sony Alpha A350 | Sony Alpha A35 |
|---|---|---|
| Sensor type | CCD | CMOS |
| Sensor size | 23.5 × 15.7 mm APS-C | 23.5 × 15.6 mm APS-C |
| Effective resolution | Approx. 14.2 MP | Approx. 16.2 MP |
| Largest 3:2 image | 4592 × 3056 | 4912 × 3264 |
| ISO range | ISO 100–3200 | ISO 100–12800 |
| In-body stabilisation | Sensor-shift SteadyShot | Sensor-shift SteadyShot |
| Lens mount | Sony A-mount | Sony A-mount |
The sensor dimensions are virtually identical, so neither camera has an advantage from using a fundamentally larger imaging format. Both give the familiar APS-C field of view and both work with the same Sony, Minolta and Konica Minolta A-mount lens system. That makes the pair especially useful to me because I can move lenses between bodies rather than maintain two completely different systems.
What I like about the A350 CCD
The A350's CCD belongs to an era when digital still photography was the main design priority. CCD sensors transfer the captured electrical charge across the sensor for readout. That approach is comparatively demanding in power and readout speed, which is one reason this generation of camera has a much narrower sensitivity range and none of the high-speed video-oriented behaviour that later CMOS designs made practical.
That does not make the CCD obsolete for still photography. In good light, the A350 can produce detailed files with excellent colour separation and a very natural sense of texture. That is exactly the sort of photography Nature Noticed was built around: plants, wildlife, woodland, water, skies and small details that are easy to walk past.
There is a lot of discussion online about a special “CCD look”. I would not reduce the finished image to the sensor alone. Colour comes from the colour filter array, electronics, white balance, exposure, lens, light and processing as well as the sensor architecture. What matters to me is the result I actually get from the A350: in decent light it remains a very capable stills camera.
What the A35 CMOS adds
The A35 comes from the next stage of Sony's Alpha development. Its 16.2MP CMOS sensor is designed for much faster readout. That supports the things I bought the A35 to add to the kit: a much wider ISO range, faster continuous shooting, live electronic viewing and Full HD video.
For me the important difference is flexibility when the light falls or the subject starts moving. The A350 can still make excellent photographs in the right conditions, but the A35 gives me far more room to raise sensitivity and keep a useful shutter speed. That makes it the body I am more likely to reach for at dusk, at night, for moving wildlife, aircraft, fast-changing scenes and experimental astrophotography.
The A35's extra two megapixels are useful, but they are not the main reason for having it. Its maximum image width is 4912 pixels compared with 4592 pixels from the A350—only about seven per cent more linear resolution. The much bigger practical difference is the newer sensor architecture and the faster electronics built around it.
More megapixels do not automatically mean a better photograph
Because both sensors are almost exactly the same physical size, fitting 16.2 million effective pixels onto the A35 means its individual photosites are slightly more closely packed than those on the 14.2MP A350. Calculated from the sensor width and maximum image width, the spacing is roughly 5.1 microns on the A350 and 4.8 microns on the A35.
Older rules of thumb would suggest that larger photosites should always be better in low light. Sensor design moved on, though. Improvements in CMOS readout, amplification and processing mean the newer A35 can offer a much broader usable sensitivity range despite the slightly finer pixel pitch. This is a good example of why megapixel count by itself tells very little about how a camera will behave.
How I intend to use both cameras
I see the two bodies as complementary rather than as an upgrade ladder.
- A350: deliberate still photography, daylight nature work, landscapes, plants, texture and subjects where I can prioritise the cleanest low-ISO file.
- A35: lower light, night work, movement, faster sequences, handheld shooting, video and situations where the electronic viewfinder and faster sensor readout make the camera easier to use.
Because both bodies use A-mount lenses and both have sensor-shift SteadyShot built into the camera, the rest of my equipment can move between them. A lens that gives me a particular look on the A350 can be put straight onto the A35 when I need the newer body's speed or sensitivity.
So which sensor is better?
If the question is simply which technology is newer and more versatile, the A35's CMOS sensor wins. It reads faster, reaches much higher ISO settings and supports features the A350's CCD generation was never designed around.
If the question is whether that makes the A350 irrelevant, my answer is no. For slow, considered still photography in good light, the A350 remains entirely capable of producing the sort of files I want. The A35 extends what I can shoot; it does not erase what the A350 already does well.
That is why both cameras now sit behind Nature Noticed. The A350 gives me the established CCD-based stills setup I already know, while the A35 opens up lower-light, faster and more experimental work. As I build a larger A35 archive I will be able to publish direct scene-for-scene comparisons rather than relying only on specifications.
About the photographs used by Nature Noticed
Every photographic image used on Nature Noticed products originates from a photograph I have taken myself. I do not build the range around stock photography or other photographers' work. Physical products are then printed, packed and shipped by specialist third-party fulfilment partners, allowing me to concentrate on the photography, image preparation and finished designs.
Technical references: sensor size, effective resolution, ISO range and recording dimensions were checked against Sony's official support specifications for the DSLR-A350 and SLT-A35. Approximate pixel spacing is derived from the published sensor width and maximum image width.