View Full Version : Which one - A700 or A100?

09-15-2007, 10:10 PM
Ok ... first off ... the A700 is everything the A100 should have been, two years ago.

That being said, for all the the A100 delivers and can deliver, it is probably the "bargain of DSLRs."

So, which one goes in the shopping basket?

Well ... if you are seriously going to use what you buy ... it has to be the A700.

If you aren't going to touch the camera except for routine family shots and what not ... it's the A100, without a doubt.

Remember that both models use the same lenses, electronic flashes, releases and what not. The A700 is designed around more external expandability than the A100 was and delivers a higher ISO, more resolution and an improved anti-shake feature.

Again ... buy the camera you are going to use ... the A700 is the A100-refined to just the right degree to be ... primo.

09-16-2007, 12:03 PM
Ummmm. the a-700 is sweet, but it's $1400 and the a-100 is $600. The a-100 is a still a fantastic camera and can be used for just about any dSLR needs. The a-700 is icing on the cake for the 'serious amateur'--but I would add the caveat 'serious amateur with money to spare'. :-)

09-17-2007, 09:27 PM
Here are some quick images of the ol' A700.





09-20-2007, 03:18 AM
I will buy the 700 but not just now. I will wait until the price drops, as it did for the a100. I'm very happy with the alpha and it does everything I want in a camera.

09-20-2007, 10:38 AM
The only major feature I wish it had is GPS encoding.

09-20-2007, 12:35 PM
The only major feature I wish it had is GPS encoding.

That may come along with the "Send to HD" transmitter feature. You never know where you are ... when you are taking images, do ya?

Although, there is still the Full Frame entry which has still to be released. Might already be there. :)

09-24-2007, 09:35 PM
I just received word, tonight, that my SONY A700 is on the way. Not only that, Calumet Photographic sent word my TAMRON SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD 1:1 MACRO is on its way, also.

:eek: Wow ... it'll be a first ... getting those two, together:

A fresh, new 12.2MP sensor coupled to one of the best MACROs made.

Just a blurb about the 180 from Shutterbug:

"Why would anyone opt for a 180mm (270mm equivalent in APS-C) macro lens instead of one in the 50-60mm or even the 90mm range? The two-word answer is “working distance,” that is, the distance from the front of the lens to the subject. At life-size (1:1) magnification, the working distance of Tamron’s 180mm macro is 25cm or about 10” (without hood), but it’s only 9cm (21/2”) with a 90mm macro and 5cm (2”) with a 50mm macro. This difference can be critical when it comes to spooking skittish subjects like insects or birds, and the shorter the working distance, the more difficult it becomes to illuminate close-up subjects by aiming lights in from the sides in between the lens and what you’re shooting. Being able to capture dramatic close-ups without having to get right up to the subject can also be very handy when shooting everything from flowering trees to small critters like squirrels and opossums. In short, a 180mm macro offers the advantages of a long telephoto lens and a macro lens rolled into one."

I mean, if you are out and about ... and need to swap your 18-250mm for the killer MACRO shot ... what better lens, eh?

Man ... GET THE SHOT! :D :p :rolleyes:

09-25-2007, 09:14 AM
let me know if you end up having the very soft jpegs that folks are reporting.
They are soft at all ISO settings apparently.

09-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Okay, judging from the first and ONLY shot I've taken ... it's a little tough to say. I suppose there maybe something to that ... but, the A700's sensor (CMOS) is entirely different from the original A100 (CCD) sensor.

Looking at the two shots I took, at lunch ... there is some difference, but then again, I was "smart sharpening" up the image I took with the A100 for presentation purposes, not an image quality comparison, so it really isn't fair. There is no sharpening on the image I took with the A700. It's was simply converted and resized.

When the new TAMRON 180mm MACRO lens shows up ... then we can do so image comparison ... to a gnat's a** ... uh, make that 'behind', there are children present. :o

09-25-2007, 05:41 PM
let me know if you end up having the very soft jpegs that folks are reporting.
They are soft at all ISO settings apparently.

Okay, there is another setting in Menu 1, under "Quality", called "extra fine". That may deliver the sharpness you seek ... I haven't played with it, but I'm already using it. It does use some media space, though. I have an 8GB Extreme CF card ... and I have this sneaky suspicion, I'm going to be very glad that I do.

09-25-2007, 08:05 PM
Okay ... no adjustment, in AUTO mode, same flash (external), 18-250mm lens

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

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.

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

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 ...

09-26-2007, 02:07 AM
Pics look really good.
I'd like to play with one but I dunno if best buy has them in yet.

09-26-2007, 07:43 AM
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. :p

Photographer ... pick your shot. :cool:

09-28-2007, 03:02 PM
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. :)

09-30-2007, 07:09 AM
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. :rolleyes:

10-02-2007, 09:05 AM
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.

10-02-2007, 10:21 AM
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!" :D

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? :eek:

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. :rolleyes:

10-03-2007, 08:48 PM
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?

10-03-2007, 09:46 PM
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. :cool:

10-05-2007, 04:15 AM
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.

10-05-2007, 10:52 AM
Well, personally ... I would like to know if this is the case, also. A lot of people are doing some in-depth review of the two cameras to justify the upgrade. I figure having both allows you to have a tremendously capable backup to your new A700.

It would be nice to be a little more sure that they take the same shot, with the same settings. If there is a serious difference, it needs to be examined and adjusted for ... either by the A100 or the vice versa. Those people NOT owning BOTH ... well, the issue is moot. :cool: