Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: A700 Upgrade

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152

    A700 Upgrade

    There's been a forceful but good humoured (I hope) discussion concerning DOF on the POTD thread, but I thought I'd pursue it with a new thread.

    Purchased in November, the A700 has been my first foray into the DSLR world. Previous experience being limited to 35mm Film (mostly) and Fuji Digital "Bridge" cameras, I have to say it's generally been a positive experience, not without it's difficulties along the way but a great way of geting "into it" whilst being able to make use of my rather extensive collection of legacy Minolta lenses acquired over the years. The two big issues I have are...

    1. Less DOF (Depth of Field) than I'm used to due to the small sensor "crop factor" and
    2. My Minolta (non DT) lenses don't behave in the way they were designed, leaving the dreaded gap at the Wide Angle end.

    Those are the main reasons why I'm aspiring to the A900, although I don't feel the need for all those extra pixels.
    A sensor with 12-15MP would be fine and the correspondingly lower receptor density would increase the sensitivity of the receptors and may bring an improved noise performance at higher ISO. Perhaps Sony will produce an "in between" FF Camera that would suit my needs.
    A downgraded A900 with the smaller sensor and a smaller price tag would be just the ticket because it would have the larger Viewfinder and I don't really need Live View or video.

    Am I just dreaming, does it make sense, am I in a minority? Any comment will be appreciated and if there is a consensus, maybe, just maybe, Sony will take notice.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Cool Holding your horses, until the new body shows up.

    You would have a lot of friends in the chorus over at Dyxum. They conducted a poll, early last year or so, when the Full Frame was discussed ... and the predominantly chosen size was 16MP. No one even saw the 24.6MP coming, until it was announced just prior to the opening show.

    So, judging by that along with some of the discussions, you are in the ballpark. This is what prompted the idea behind the A800/A850 fantasy for PMA. There probably is something in the works, of course, but SONY just will not offer the "unwashed" a look at it. Too many competing wolves, one might guess.

    You know, for all this secrecy, I haven't seen anything that the other two main manufacturers have adopted for the better. Personally, it seems a waste of everyone's time and a nasty PR campaign. I would appreciate a much more scheduled approach to my future plans in photography ... not chasing after the crappy scraps that seem to just fall short of the desired product.

    The A700 is a tremendous accomplishment, for SONY. It set the real bar for the industry and rumbled the foundations of the other two big boys ... and it is still holding its own in the face of all the competition. Do people want additional aspects ... of course, but they have to admit, they have a good piece of what they need.

    I understand your appreciation of the APS-C sensor's shortcoming on the wide-side. You need a 17 mm lens to get your 28mm shot. Answer ... yep, a new lens. That's a cheaper "hold over" than having to pony up $2000 more for the A900, just to use your traditional older glass.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 03-06-2009 at 08:50 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    A new A700 (800 850) with 14MP would be great, 16mp. would be really cool. But I'm easy all I want is 14mp a bit bigger viewfinder, better noise reduction say um 25% better another MR setting space, and another 1.5 or even 1 more frame per second I think would make me a very happy Sony shooter. want want want LOL
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    it's only money..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    ....... I understand your appreciation of the APS-C sensor's shortcoming on the wide-side. You need a 17 mm lens to get your 28mm shot. Answer ... yep, a new lens. That's a cheaper "hold over" than having to pony up $2000 more for the A900, just to use your traditional older glass.
    If it were just the Wide Angle I guess I might agree. I have a KM 17-35mm f2.8 so a 11-18mm f4.5 would plug the hole whilst setting me back 425 ($600) but that still means the smallest prime is a 30mm equivelent.

    The main thing though, is that it doesn't deal with the DOF issue. That leaves me with an upgrade to the A900 which is going to cost me an eye watering 1200 ($1700), even allowing for the fact that I then don't need the 11-18mm it's still a spend of 775 ($1100).

    So if there was that "inbetween" 12/15MP FF Camera it would be much less painful.

    Quote Originally Posted by SONYNUT View Post
    it's only money..
    Yeah, mine!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    If it were just the Wide Angle I guess I might agree. I have a KM 17-35mm f2.8 so a 11-18mm f4.5 would plug the hole whilst setting me back 425 ($600) but that still means the smallest prime is a 30mm equivelent.

    The main thing though, is that it doesn't deal with the DOF issue. That leaves me with an upgrade to the A900 which is going to cost me an eye watering 1200 ($1700), even allowing for the fact that I then don't need the 11-18mm it's still a spend of 775 ($1100).

    So if there was that "inbetween" 12/15MP FF Camera it would be much less painful.
    Thats why a 5D, selling used/refurb in good condition for around $1300 is so tempting.

    I expect we won't see any lower MP cameras going forward. I would far prefer to see cameras stay around 12-16 and the high ISO pictures get better, but with the 5D Mk II, D3X, and A900 being the three most recently released full-frame cameras, I don't know if things are going to go that way.

    It's funny though, because one would expect that those of us hanging out in photo forums, and listening to photog podcasts are the main buyers of the high end cameras, and it seems almost positive that most of us (TWIP, here, POTN, etc) want better high iso and don't care about high MP, but the camera makers keep going in that direction. It makes me wonder if they sell more high end cameras to people with too much money and too little photographic knowledge than they do to photogs that are more interested in it.

    Of course high MP sells to grandma going into best buy to buy a cheap P & S, but on these high end DSLR's, it doesn't make sense.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Marketing and maximising profits, possibly. It may be that they would make less out of the spec proposed here, I don't know. It also probable that they listen more to the marketing people than the Consumer.

    If enough people have their say here maybe we can draw Sony's attention to it and get something done. Be too late for us, though.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    it has been nice having full frame again..a900 and lovin it

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by SONYNUT View Post
    it has been nice having full frame again..a900 and lovin it
    Nothing against the A900, I'd take an A900 and appropriate matching glass in a heartbeat. But $3000 + 1600 + 1600 + 1600 for an A900 and 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 is a lot pricier (and heavier) than $1300 + 700 + 1000 + 1600 for a 5D + 17-40 + 24-70 + 70-200.

    Thats all I'm saying. But in truth, I'm not currently in the market to spend even as much as the Canon system would cost.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    The Canon 5D is no SONY A900 ... that's the wrong camera to try and compare.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •