Opinion: At $850 ... the α700 is a great deal

[DonSchap]

With the price reduction of the α700 ... as a DSLR, I have to opine that it offers the best value of any camera in the sport. A more complete DSLR (non-video/non-LV) simply would be hard to find.

I'm sure there are lower prices and I would recommend that anyone looking for a "Christmas bargain", especially beginning in digital photography, could not do much better that this.

[Thriller]

Might be under my tree..........

[jekostas]

With the price reduction of the α700 ... as a DSLR, I have to opine that it offers the best value of any camera in the sport. A more complete DSLR (non-video/non-LV) simply would be hard to find.

Interesting that you would add that odd CAVEAT Don, otherwise the D90 and E-30 are right in the same price range. So, really, if you're not willing compare the A700 to the direct competition, OF COURSE THERE'S NO DIRECT COMPETITION.

I'm sure there are lower prices and I would recommend that anyone looking for a "Christmas bargain", especially beginning in digital photography, could not do much better that this.

Yeah, of course if you're willing to completely discount current and useful technology, sure!

God Don, what a load of double talk this is...

[David Metsky]

I'm looking at a DSLR right now and the lack of HD video has pretty much ruled out any Sony's from the competition. It's a serious obstacle to considering the Sony line.

[jr_rodriguez]

I'm looking at a DSLR right now and the lack of HD video has pretty much ruled out any Sony's from the competition. It's a serious obstacle to considering the Sony line.

Really? None of the DSLRs with HD video do it right -- there are so many limitations that I don't think it's worth it (AF, etc), unless you are a "soccer mom" taking 3 minute clips. What Sony has said is that they won't put video in DSLRs until they can get it right. And Sony knows a thing or two about video...more than ANY OTHER CAMERA MANUFACTURER, including Canon. I commend them for holding off.

[jekostas]

Really? None of the DSLRs with HD video do it right -- there are so many limitations that I don't think it's worth it (AF, etc), unless you are a "soccer mom" taking 3 minute clips. What Sony has said is that they won't put video in DSLRs until they can get it right. And Sony knows a thing or two about video...more than ANY OTHER CAMERA MANUFACTURER, including Canon. I commend them for holding off.

Alright, well, take out the video requirement, and Don still says that A700 is better than any other camera in it's segment that doesn't have live view... which is, at last count NONE.

On the other hand, you add Live View back in, suddenly the Canon 40d, Nikon D90 and Olympus E-30 are thrown back in to the mix.

So really, Don is comparing the A700 to... well, nothing. Yay, it's the best! Of course, by definition, with no competition it's also the worst.

[jr_rodriguez]

Alright, well, take out the video requirement, and Don still says that A700 is better than any other camera in it's segment that doesn't have live view... which is, at last count NONE.

On the other hand, you add Live View back in, suddenly the Canon 40d, Nikon D90 and Olympus E-30 are thrown back in to the mix.

So really, Don is comparing the A700 to... well, nothing. Yay, it's the best! Of course, by definition, with no competition it's also the worst.

Please read his post -- he didn't say it was the best.
Seems to me you will never be a Sony shooter. So, unless you work for another camera manufacturer, you really shouldn't care what other people use. The A700, which I do not own, is still a great camera on its own, regardless of the features other cameras may or may not have. Remember, this is photography, not religion or beliefs.

[Paradox]

The A700, which I do not own, is still a great camera on its own, regardless of the features other cameras may or may not have. Remember, this is photography, not religion or beliefs.

To me its pretty much irrelevant if it's a good camera in its own right. I want the best one I can get for my money, not one that is good on its own but worse than the competition.

[jekostas]

Please read his post -- he didn't say it was the best.
Seems to me you will never be a Sony shooter. So, unless you work for another camera manufacturer, you really shouldn't care what other people use. The A700, which I do not own, is still a great camera on its own, regardless of the features other cameras may or may not have. Remember, this is photography, not religion or beliefs.

What in the bloody hell are you talking about? Don SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WAS THE BEST. In fact, I'll quote it for you:

I'm sure there are lower prices and I would recommend that anyone looking for a "Christmas bargain", especially beginning in digital photography, could not do much better that this.

Or are you going to play a game of semantics and say "could not do better" does not equal "this is the best"?

I'm not saying the A700 isn't a good camera, but saying it's the best only if you can't compare it to any of the A700's price competition because they have features that Sony doesn't (including Live View, which Sony really trumpeted and was available on many other cameras at that point) is garbage.

Double talk, indeed.

[David Metsky]

What Sony has said is that they won't put video in DSLRs until they can get it right. And Sony knows a thing or two about video...more than ANY OTHER CAMERA MANUFACTURER, including Canon. I commend them for holding off.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't really fly. Video from the current crop of even entry level DSLRs is very good. It's certainly good enough for my needs and it's better than the video I get from my ultrazoom, which is already pretty good.

I don't care what Sony as a company knows, they don't offer video then they're out of the running. Let them wait, I'll buy from someone else.