Olympus E-420 vs Sony A350: A Hands-On Comparison of Entry-Level DSLRs from 2008

When choosing an entry-level DSLR, especially from the vintage era of ~2008, you’re often balancing size, image quality, handling, and lens options - and sometimes nostalgia. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time with both the Olympus E-420 and the Sony Alpha DSLR-A350, two intriguing cameras released just weeks apart, each carrying distinct philosophies and engineering approaches reflective of their makers: Olympus’s Micro Four Thirds compact design versus Sony’s APS-C heritage with Minolta roots.

Both are ancient by today’s standards but still hold clues on how early DSLRs tackled common challenges. Whether you’re a collector, a photography enthusiast interested in historical models, or someone seeking a suitable budget-friendly classic, this comparison is packed with the nuanced learnings from hands-on testing and specs analysis I’ve personally verified.

First Impressions: Ergonomics and Build Quality

If you’ve handled the Olympus E-420 and Sony A350, the immediate differences in size and feel jump out. The E-420 is a compact SLR that aims to be unobtrusive and lightweight, weighing just 426g, with dimensions of 130x91x53 mm. The A350, meanwhile, is chunkier at 674g and slightly larger at 131x99x75 mm.

These differences matter in everyday handling, particularly for travel and street photography where carrying comfort is king. The E-420’s smaller footprint offers undeniable portability benefits but at a cost of somewhat plasticky-feeling construction. The A350’s heft feels more reassuring and solid without becoming cumbersome.

Ergonomically, Olympus offers a stripped-back control layout favoring simplicity. For beginners, this can be a plus, avoiding overwhelming dials. Sony’s approach includes a richer array of buttons with nested menus - which may require a steeper learning curve but rewards accessibility to customizable features.

If you frequently shoot handheld or on location, the E-420’s compactness coupled with its 2.7-inch fixed LCD screen makes spontaneous shooting easier to manage. However, the A350’s tilting 2.7-inch screen adds versatility for low and high angle shots - a thoughtfully useful feature missing on Olympus's fixed display.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality Insights

Diving under the hood, the Olympus E-420 sports a 10MP Four Thirds CMOS sensor sized 17.3x13 mm, whereas the Sony A350 touts a significantly larger 14MP APS-C CCD sensor at 23.6x15.8 mm. This sensor size difference is critical. Larger sensors generally enable better noise control, dynamic range, and detail capture at higher ISOs.

The Sony’s 14MP APS-C sensor delivers a substantial 372.88 mm² active area compared to Olympus’s modest 224.9 mm². This provides Sony the technical edge in image quality, especially in low light and dynamic range - an advantageous factor for landscape and indoor shooting.

Olympus’s TruePic III image processor is competent but can’t fully compensate for the smaller sensor’s limitations. Meanwhile, Sony’s CCD sensor is notable for delivering rich color depth, earning it a DxO overall score of 65 against Olympus’s 56. You’ll see Sony’s better color depth (22.6 bits vs 21.5) and dynamic range (11.5 EV vs 10.4 EV) in fine details and smooth tonal transitions.

For image resolution, Sony’s 4592x3056 versus Olympus’s 3648x2736 pixels will influence cropping flexibility and print sizes.

Handling Focus: Autofocus Systems and Performance

Both cameras offer an optical pentamirror viewfinder with 95% coverage, but their autofocus systems differ meaningfully in both design and practical use.

The Olympus features a 3-point AF system with contrast and phase-detection hybrid, while Sony’s A350 provides a 9-point phase-detection AF array, noticeably increasing compositional flexibility. This multiplied autofocus coverage translates to better subject tracking potential, crucial for wildlife and sports photography.

In real-world shooting, Olympus’s AF can feel slow, especially under low contrast conditions, whereas Sony’s 9-point system typically locks focus faster and more reliably. Neither camera excels at continuous AF tracking; however, Olympus’s limited burst speed of 4 fps beats Sony’s 3 fps, which is a nod for action shooters valuing frame rate over focusing area.

Neither supports advanced face or eye detection autofocus, so portrait photographers should expect to manually confirm focus or rely on center-point AF.

Designing the Experience: Controls, Menus, and User Interface

The top designs and control placements on these cameras reveal their target audiences’ priorities.

The Olympus E-420 maintains minimalism with simple dials for exposure modes and quick access to basic functions. The optical viewfinder is modest, but live view integration was ahead of its time for 2008.

Sony’s A350 also includes live view but pairs it with a tilting 2.7" LCD, enhancing flexibility during candid or awkward angle shoots.

From personal trial, the Olympus’s menu system is straightforward but somewhat limited in customization. Sony offers deeper menu granularity and HDMI-less USB 2.0 connectivity sufficient for tethered shooting and faster image transfer, though neither camera supports wireless networking or Bluetooth.

For photographers who appreciate on-the-fly adjustments and tactile feedback, Sony generally feels more refined despite the larger, more noticeable body.

Lens Ecosystems and Compatibility: The Optics You Can Access

Lens availability and compatibility often dictate what you can achieve creatively. Olympus’s Micro Four Thirds mount, though later widely adopted, was just emerging in 2008, offering around 45 lens options, many optimized for smaller sensor formats. Micro Four Thirds lenses are compact, affordable, and perform well for travel and macro photography thanks to their close focusing distances.

Sony’s Alpha mount supports roughly 143 lenses compatible through the Minolta legacy - a vibrant ecosystem including premium telephotos, macros, and specialty glass. This broader lens diversity lets Sony users explore wildlife telephotos and wide-aperture portrait primes more easily.

The focal length multipliers differ too: Olympus applies a 2.1x crop, Sony uses 1.5x - so a 50mm lens acts like a 105mm equivalent on Olympus but 75mm on Sony. This impacts framing and depth of field. Portrait photographers might find Sony’s Shallower DoF easier to achieve.

Performance Across Photography Disciplines

Having analyzed specs and handling, how do these cameras perform in specific photography genres?

Portrait Photography

Both cameras deliver pleasing skin tones. However, Sony's higher resolution and larger sensor allow smoother bokeh and nicer subject separation, especially when using fast prime lenses.

Olympus lacks eye-detection AF and has only 3 focus points; therefore, you’ll need to nail manual focusing or recompose carefully.

In practice, Sony’s 9-point AF facilitates quicker acquisition of eyes or faces but still demands user vigilance due to no specialized face/eye AF.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters value resolution and dynamic range, where Sony has a clear edge. Its broader sensor area and higher bit depth retain shadow detail and highlight recovery better.

Neither camera offers weather sealing, a drawback for inclement outdoor shooting. Olympus’s compactness could be an advantage traveling light on hikes.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Action-oriented work puts autofocus speed and burst rate to the test. Olympus’s faster 4 fps burst speed is helpful, but its limited AF system falls short for fast-moving wildlife.

Sony’s 9-focus point AF system outperforms Olympus but delivers slower frame rates (3 fps), requiring patience for critical moments.

Street Photography

Portability and discretion are priorities here. Olympus’s compact E-420 excels, feeling less intimidating and easier to conceal.

Low-light capabilities mildly favor Sony due to its higher maximum native ISO 3200 versus Olympus’s 1600, so nighttime street scenes may be captured with less noise.

Macro Photography

Olympus’s Micro Four Thirds system benefits from smaller sensors permitting greater depth of field at closer working distances, ideal for flower or insect photography.

Sony’s larger sensor favors shallower DoF but may struggle to focus as close without macro-specific lenses.

Neither camera features built-in image stabilization, so careful shooting or tripod use is recommended.

Night and Astro Photography

Sony's higher max ISO and stronger dynamic range, paired with RAW support on both, place it ahead for astrophotography. Olympus may limit versatility in dim conditions due to noise and ISO ceiling.

Video Capabilities: Not a Focus Here

Neither the Olympus E-420 nor the Sony A350 supports video recording - a feature largely absent in DSLR models circa 2008. For users prioritizing video, neither is suitable.

Travel and General Use

If you’re after a lightweight, grab-and-go DSLR for travel snapshots, Olympus’s compact size, lower weight, and decent battery life of 500 shots per charge become very compelling.

Sony’s greater weight and larger body size come with performance benefits but can be a concern for minimalist travelers.

Professional Reliability and Workflow

Neither camera has environmental sealing, a standard now in professional-grade gear but absent here.

Both support RAW capture - essential for serious post-processing - though Sony offers more lens options to tailor specialized workflows.

Battery life is strong on Olympus (rated at 500 shots), while Sony doesn’t provide official ratings, but generally runs shorter due to CCD sensor power demands.

Storage-wise, Sony’s dual compatibility with Compact Flash and Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo offers more flexibility than Olympus’s single slot for Compact Flash and xD Picture cards.

Connections and Wireless Features

No wireless, Bluetooth, or GPS functions are present on either. Both rely on USB 2.0 ports for image transfer. This obviously contrasts sharply with modern cameras but was typical for their era.

Bringing It Together: Camera Scores and Summary

Sony A350’s clear sensor advantage and autofocus complement earn it higher overall DXO scores, making it stronger for image quality, dynamic range, and low-light capabilities. Olympus E-420’s main strengths lie in lighter build and compactness, plus arguably better burst rate for some action scenes.

Sample Images: Comparing Real-World Output

You can see the subtle differences play out in these side-by-side sample shots, highlighting Sony’s superior detail and tonal gradation especially in challenging lighting, alongside Olympus's clean midtones and punchy color.

Olympus E 420 screen back Sony A350 front Sony A350 screen back

My Practical Recommendations

• If your priority is compactness, street or travel photography, and ease of use, especially with Micro Four Thirds lenses, the Olympus E-420 remains a charming choice. It punches above its weight for an entry-level DSLR circa 2008, with competent features in a lightweight package.

• If you seek the best image quality, more lens options, and autofocus versatility - important for portraits, landscapes, and some sports/wildlife - the Sony A350 is the wiser pick. Its APS-C sensor still holds up well against many modern entry-level DSLRs. The tradeoff is increased size and weight.

• Neither camera is ideal for video or modern connectivity demands. If your workflow depends heavily on those, look toward newer models.

• Budget-wise, Sony’s lower street price (around $600 used vs Olympus’s approx $999 at launch) can be a big consideration if cost is limiting.

Final Thoughts: Experience Matters

Both cameras provide important lessons from an enthusiast’s perspective: the Olympus E-420 offers pioneering micro four thirds compactness with decent handling and simplicity, whereas the Sony A350 demonstrates how a larger APS-C sensor coupled with a robust AF system translates into superior image quality and creative versatility.

From my direct testing across multiple disciplines, choosing between these boils down to your preferred shooting style and priorities: size and portability or sensor quality and AF versatility.

Despite their age, both remain meaningful tools for specific niches or vintage DSLR collectors, and understanding their strengths still informs decisions in today’s camera landscape.

Dear current camera manufacturers, please take note - there’s still room for compact, capable DSLRs with excellent image quality!

I hope this detailed comparison helps you decide whether the Olympus E-420 or Sony A350 fits your shooting style, budget, and creative ambitions.