Which one - A700 or A100?

[DonSchap]

Okay ... no adjustment, in AUTO mode, same flash (external), 18-250mm lens

A100

sRGB - 60mm - f/5.6 - 1/100 sec. - ISO-400

A700

sRGB - 60mm - f/5.6 - 1/100 sec. - ISO-800

To be honest, I am a little confused by the camera's respective ISO setting, but it was "AUTO" and the camera's used their individual programming for the setting selection. The only real difference was the height and angle of incident light from the hot-shoe mounted flash. It's minor stuff, but each camera reacted in its own way.

Then I took the ISO and matched them up ... at 400 and slapped the new TAMRON 180 f/3.5 MACRO on the cameras.

A100

sRGB - 180mm - f/5.6 - 1/125 sec. - ISO-400

A700

sRGB - 180mm - f/5.6 - 1/125 sec. - ISO-400

I tell ya, the DOF of this lens is incredibly tight. 2 mm either side.

Personally, I do believe these two cameras will back each other up most excellently.

Enjoy ...

[TheObiJuan]

Pics look really good.
I'd like to play with one but I dunno if best buy has them in yet.

[DonSchap]

Well, they were talking about delivering them to the store shelves by October, so who knows?

With the rain gone, today, I'm hoping to see what sunlight looks like through this system. I need to get some serious close-ups and really get the 180mm to work. Just to keep myself honest, it's the only lens in the bag.

Photographer ... pick your shot.

[DonSchap]

Okay, I took the 18-250mm off the A100 and threw it in the bag, too.

Actually, tonight's "LAB NIGHT" ... meaning, open studio time (I hope). I have some shape and lighting shots to do, tonight, for sure ... it'll be a good shading experiment with B&W on the A700.

No one has done this, that I know of, yet ... so, new ground. I also want to shoot some PRIME lens stuff with the 28mm and the 50mm. I might even do the 28mm w/ the 0.45x T/C on the front. That always was good for a real wide look at things.

I should have something to review, later tonight.

[DonSchap]

Well, I wound up using just the TAMRON SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD MACRO and shot across the room with it, because the studio was nearly empty.

I used it for a series of shape shots to get the shading correct for my 2D drawing class. I will post a couple later ... for their entertainment value, if any. LOL

It's been a busy weekend, as my collection of Canon-zooms has been seriously depleted. They went as fast as I thought they might. B&H Photo has the SONY AF 70-200mm f/2.8 G for $1899 and I am torn between waiting for TAMRON to release their SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD and just going for the SONY. There is a $1000 price delta between the two ... so it is a tough justification call, although "Coldrain" may disagree.

I figured had my Canon-system was based around the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM ... perhaps, I should just go with the same idea with the SONY System. It seemed to work well. Heavy lens, though. 48 oz ... versus the 39.25 ounce TAMRON. Maybe I should just WEIGHT. Ar-ar ... sorry, I couldn't help it.

[cgl88]

Wait 6 months and the A700 will be cheaper. The A100 is the way to go because it costs so much less. You just have to learn about the quarks (the "weaknesses" of the A100 and you can take very good pictures with it. Besides, the A100 can be a backup to the A700 if you choose to pick that up later on.

Example: On the A100, shoot with the pop-up flash at 1/15 - 1/30sec with SSS on. Photos turn out nicely for posed shots.

[DonSchap]

Let's not confuse things ... the A700 is a substantial and feature rich improvement over the A100. The A100 is limited to ISO-1600 ... and that's all you are going to get. The A700 takes that to ISO-6400 and while slightly lackluster, you still will capture shots you simply cannot get with an A100.

Is it worth the extra cash? That's a judgement call. There are people who have spent thousands more for the same feature.

The A700 is also faster with burst/repetative shutter flaps @ 5 fps, where the A100 can, at best, offer only 3 fps. That can mean a lot at sporting events and other scenarios where you want to capture ... "the moments!"

The A700 also has better control over custom mode settings ... while still an exploration into your craft ... it does save some set up time when you switch lenses.

If you can pop for it ... the A700 ... otherwise, you will do quite well with the A100. Get all the camera you need ... it's your artwork, right? Right?

Shoot bravely and like there is no tomorrow ... because, you just never know. The contents in your camera could be your last testimony on this life.

[rawpaw18]

Hey Don,

What is up with the A700 and its darker photos? In the first set it kicked the ISO (auto) up to 800 yet still looks underexposed compared to the A100 at 400 ISO.

The second set where you kept the ISO the same it is still darker, have you found this to be the case in all your shooting with the A700 v. A100?

[DonSchap]

Hey Don,

What is up with the A700 and its darker photos? In the first set it kicked the ISO (auto) up to 800 yet still looks underexposed compared to the A100 at 400 ISO.

The second set where you kept the ISO the same it is still darker, have you found this to be the case in all your shooting with the A700 v. A100?

To be quite honest, yes ... but, then again ... I was using E-TTL pop-up flash and I've never been a big fan of how these cameras and flashes talk to one another. They want to calculate the lighting ... which is problematic. It'd be a much better test under hot lights or fixed strobes. So, don't put too much into the "flash" results.

Once this measurement is done under "fixed" lighting cinditions ... we will get a much clearer picture of where the set point is for similar EXIF data.

Sorry for the confusion ... believe me, the A700 is a hot shot, to be sure. Don't worry about this minor comparison. I'd guess there may be a 1/3 to 2/3 f/stop variation between the two. Also, the cameras do not use the same SENSOR. The A100 has a CCD sensor and the A700 has a CMOS sensor. Comparing them maybe ... in error. But, I had to see. I was more interested in the color comparison, than the exposure. The color shift is almost negligable.

[rawpaw18]

It was not so much that it is a problem, you know some camera models tend to overexpose a hair and the some the reverse, I was just curious.