I Concede! Sony's F707 Is the Winner!

[Bill E.55030]

We see many comparisons between the Canon G2 and the Sony DSC F707.
And Canon supporters including myself attempt to come up with reasons
why the G2 is the better choice. But after studying the reviews here and at
Imaging Resource, I believe the Sony F707 is the better camera and a bigger
bang for the buck. While it is true that comparing these cameras is like
comparing apples and oranges, the bottom line is indeed the bottom line
and Sony provides much more value for an additional $100. This is not
to say that the Canon doesn't have some very strong points. I think the G2
wins in portability, storage( MicroDrive), color control, Raw format, and
software (Remote Capture). And the F707 has some serious flaws:
Memory Stick, no Raw format, lack of color saturation control, and an awkward
shape. But it does win in the all important categories of low noise and image
resolution. Imaging Resource favorably compares the Sony F707's resolution
to the Nikon Dx1, a $6200 camera, and I believe this says it all: For $1000
you get a camera that is amazingly close to a $6200 camera in the all
important category of resolution. But all is not lost. Sony's introduction
of the DSC F707 is a tremendous challenge to Nikon and Canon, both of
whom are very comfortable making SLR's. The Sony DSC F707 may
provide the kick in the butt they both need to provide us with an affordable
(meaning less than $1500) SLR using interchangeable lenses. If this is the
case, then we should all applaud Sony's release of the magnificent DSC F707.

 

[Tom Davenport]

Enjoy your F707 for the next month or so (after it arrives). I'll be more than happy to remind you of the great "deal" you got on your $1000 camera (not to mention the extra $100-200 paid on MS) when the Pro9x or Cx100 comes out with twice the zoom (and image stabilized) for roughly the same price (inflated MS cost considered). Don't worry, I won't feel the need to go into the Sony forum an whoop it up either, LOL!

BTW, resoultion is not the only reason the Dx1 costs $6200+

We see many comparisons between the Canon G2 and the Sony DSC F707.
And Canon supporters including myself attempt to come up with reasons
why the G2 is the better choice. But after studying the reviews
here and at
Imaging Resource, I believe the Sony F707 is the better camera and
a bigger
bang for the buck. While it is true that comparing these cameras
is like
comparing apples and oranges, the bottom line is indeed the bottom
line
and Sony provides much more value for an additional $100. This is not
to say that the Canon doesn't have some very strong points. I
think the G2
wins in portability, storage( MicroDrive), color control, Raw
format, and
software (Remote Capture). And the F707 has some serious flaws:
Memory Stick, no Raw format, lack of color saturation control, and
an awkward
shape. But it does win in the all important categories of low
noise and image
resolution. Imaging Resource favorably compares the Sony F707's
resolution
to the Nikon Dx1, a $6200 camera, and I believe this says it all:
For $1000
you get a camera that is amazingly close to a $6200 camera in the all
important category of resolution. But all is not lost. Sony's
introduction
of the DSC F707 is a tremendous challenge to Nikon and Canon, both of
whom are very comfortable making SLR's. The Sony DSC F707 may
provide the kick in the butt they both need to provide us with an
affordable
(meaning less than $1500) SLR using interchangeable lenses. If
this is the
case, then we should all applaud Sony's release of the magnificent
DSC F707.

 

[Bill E.55030]

Enjoy your F707 for the next month or so (after it arrives). I'll
be more than happy to remind you of the great "deal" you got on
your $1000 camera (not to mention the extra $100-200 paid on MS)
when the Pro9x or Cx100 comes out with twice the zoom (and image
stabilized) for roughly the same price (inflated MS cost
considered). Don't worry, I won't feel the need to go into the
Sony forum an whoop it up either, LOL!

BTW, resoultion is not the only reason the Dx1 costs $6200+

I agree with everything you say, but I believe you missed my
point: While the Sony DSC F707 is a truly great camera, I don't
plan to buy it. I'm hoping it provides the necessary "kick in the
butt" for Nikon and Canon to release the affordable digital SLR's
that almost everyone on these forums seems to be waiting for.

 

[Frank C.]

Enjoy your F707 for the next month or so (after it arrives). I'll
be more than happy to remind you of the great "deal" you got on
your $1000 camera (not to mention the extra $100-200 paid on MS)
when the Pro9x or Cx100 comes out with twice the zoom (and image
stabilized) for roughly the same price (inflated MS cost
considered). Don't worry, I won't feel the need to go into the
Sony forum an whoop it up either, LOL!

Agreed. It would be unwise to buy the 707 until at least
the spec sheet of the Pro9x is made public domain. This
camera could really rock the boat and upset things quite
a bit ( in the Nikon, Oly and Sony camps of course ).

BTW, resoultion is not the only reason the Dx1 costs $6200+

We see many comparisons between the Canon G2 and the Sony DSC F707.
And Canon supporters including myself attempt to come up with reasons
why the G2 is the better choice. But after studying the reviews
here and at
Imaging Resource, I believe the Sony F707 is the better camera and
a bigger
bang for the buck. While it is true that comparing these cameras
is like
comparing apples and oranges, the bottom line is indeed the bottom
line
and Sony provides much more value for an additional $100. This is not
to say that the Canon doesn't have some very strong points. I
think the G2
wins in portability, storage( MicroDrive), color control, Raw
format, and
software (Remote Capture). And the F707 has some serious flaws:
Memory Stick, no Raw format, lack of color saturation control, and
an awkward
shape. But it does win in the all important categories of low
noise and image
resolution. Imaging Resource favorably compares the Sony F707's
resolution
to the Nikon Dx1, a $6200 camera, and I believe this says it all:
For $1000
you get a camera that is amazingly close to a $6200 camera in the all
important category of resolution. But all is not lost. Sony's
introduction
of the DSC F707 is a tremendous challenge to Nikon and Canon, both of
whom are very comfortable making SLR's. The Sony DSC F707 may
provide the kick in the butt they both need to provide us with an
affordable
(meaning less than $1500) SLR using interchangeable lenses. If
this is the
case, then we should all applaud Sony's release of the magnificent
DSC F707.

 

[probepro]

The F707 is clearly a better value than the G2. And if Sony can tone down the colors (the G2 pics look better so far), it's the only camera on my short list right now (I want a long lens with an EVF). I actually prefer the design of the F707 over the Pro90, and I stopped whining about the memory stick some time ago.

BTW, resoultion is not the only reason the Dx1 costs $6200+

We see many comparisons between the Canon G2 and the Sony DSC F707.
And Canon supporters including myself attempt to come up with reasons
why the G2 is the better choice. But after studying the reviews
here and at
Imaging Resource, I believe the Sony F707 is the better camera and
a bigger
bang for the buck. While it is true that comparing these cameras
is like
comparing apples and oranges, the bottom line is indeed the bottom
line
and Sony provides much more value for an additional $100. This is not
to say that the Canon doesn't have some very strong points. I
think the G2
wins in portability, storage( MicroDrive), color control, Raw
format, and
software (Remote Capture). And the F707 has some serious flaws:
Memory Stick, no Raw format, lack of color saturation control, and
an awkward
shape. But it does win in the all important categories of low
noise and image
resolution. Imaging Resource favorably compares the Sony F707's
resolution
to the Nikon Dx1, a $6200 camera, and I believe this says it all:
For $1000
you get a camera that is amazingly close to a $6200 camera in the all
important category of resolution. But all is not lost. Sony's
introduction
of the DSC F707 is a tremendous challenge to Nikon and Canon, both of
whom are very comfortable making SLR's. The Sony DSC F707 may
provide the kick in the butt they both need to provide us with an
affordable
(meaning less than $1500) SLR using interchangeable lenses. If
this is the
case, then we should all applaud Sony's release of the magnificent
DSC F707.

 

[softtower]

As I see it, you're picking 707 over Canon just because of resolution? Hm... 1600x1200 was more than enough for me (6x4" prints), I suppose you are going to make lots of 8x11" prints.

To me, comparison looks like:

1. Lens: Sony (1:0)
2. Manual Focus: Sony (2:0)
3. LCD: Sony (3:0)
4. Storage: Canon (3:1)
5. Image quality: Canon (3:2)
6. Price: Canon (3:3)

By 'image quality' I mean everything (resolution, color, noise, etc). RAW format and control over in-camera algorithms beats sony's resolution advantage (in my eyes). So... these two great cameras seem even to me.

I personally go with Canon because I've got 128 CF card which I paid $100 for.

 

[HEpossum]

The F707 is strong, but it dosent completely par the G2, likewise the G2
dosent completely par the F707 in some respects.

I'm not sure what you're seeing with noise-free images, but the 5 megapixel CCD that is common to both the 707 and the Minolta Dimage7 seems to suffer alot of grainy noise in otherwise flat areas of value and color. And what is exactly up with Sony Color? With those deep tans being translated as Green? or the blown to heck red?

The G2 has better manual focusing, in my opinion, and the ISO-50 equivalency rating is a major functionality boost.

You loose a bit as well with the sucky chewing gum memory sticks in the Sony line, unless you happen to already be using that system. But.. it just has no honest expandability compared to the G2 toting around a 1 gb Microdrive.

What does it for me, is the flash. I also shoot film with the Canon EOS system, and have one of the wonderful 420EX flashes. With things like Highspeed synch, modeling strobe, autozooming head, and wireless E-TTL operation using a 550EX or other master unit. It's a $175-$200 unit and worth every cent. It's fully suppourted by the G2.

The Sony gives me:

The option to lay down $100+ on the overpriced HVL-F1000 flash (the L is for Loser) flash, with all the features of a $17 Vivitar bounce that I can buy at walmart. I don't even get a standard damn PC flash connector at the very least so I could just buy a $17 Vivitar.

But these cameras are aimed at two different users, almost. The Sony F707 will be purchased by amatuer weekendish photographers, the like who have $1k to just drop on a trendy digital camera. And they'll maybe buy an extra battery, and a walmart-special tripod, and some memory sticks, and that will be good enough for them.

The G2, will be bought by existing photographers - Canon system users, film or otherwise who want to try their hand at digital photography, at the least as a knock around body to stuff into the bag, with the benefit that it employs the same flash hardware as their bigger EOS guns. People who are a little bit more passionate about it.

The F707 might be the ultimate consumerist's camera in the sub $1000 category.

The G2 will be (barring something radical from Nikon) The ultimate photographer's digital camera in the sub $1000 category.

We see many comparisons between the Canon G2 and the Sony DSC F707.
And Canon supporters including myself attempt to come up with reasons
why the G2 is the better choice. But after studying the reviews
here and at
Imaging Resource, I believe the Sony F707 is the better camera and
a bigger
bang for the buck. While it is true that comparing these cameras
is like
comparing apples and oranges, the bottom line is indeed the bottom
line
and Sony provides much more value for an additional $100. This is not
to say that the Canon doesn't have some very strong points. I
think the G2
wins in portability, storage( MicroDrive), color control, Raw
format, and
software (Remote Capture). And the F707 has some serious flaws:
Memory Stick, no Raw format, lack of color saturation control, and
an awkward
shape. But it does win in the all important categories of low
noise and image
resolution. Imaging Resource favorably compares the Sony F707's
resolution
to the Nikon Dx1, a $6200 camera, and I believe this says it all:
For $1000
you get a camera that is amazingly close to a $6200 camera in the all
important category of resolution. But all is not lost. Sony's
introduction
of the DSC F707 is a tremendous challenge to Nikon and Canon, both of
whom are very comfortable making SLR's. The Sony DSC F707 may
provide the kick in the butt they both need to provide us with an
affordable
(meaning less than $1500) SLR using interchangeable lenses. If
this is the
case, then we should all applaud Sony's release of the magnificent
DSC F707.

 

[BJN]

I'm a Coolpix 990 owner and if I were buying right now, I'd be into the G2.

All the great work on the 707 is completely shot by the oversaturation that is beyond user control and the lack of a RAW format that would probably allow you to work around it. There's nothing to be done in Photoshop for reds that are so oversaturated that they're pushed into a single blown-out color.

Perhaps Sony will address this in a firmware fix, but as the camera sits it is tragically short-sheeted. The memory stick issue adds some significant cost to considering Sony for those who already have CF media and cardreaders.

Enjoy your F707 for the next month or so (after it arrives). I'll
be more than happy to remind you of the great "deal" you got on
your $1000 camera (not to mention the extra $100-200 paid on MS)
when the Pro9x or Cx100 comes out with twice the zoom (and image
stabilized) for roughly the same price (inflated MS cost
considered). Don't worry, I won't feel the need to go into the
Sony forum an whoop it up either, LOL!

BTW, resoultion is not the only reason the Dx1 costs $6200+

I agree with everything you say, but I believe you missed my
point: While the Sony DSC F707 is a truly great camera, I don't
plan to buy it. I'm hoping it provides the necessary "kick in the
butt" for Nikon and Canon to release the affordable digital SLR's
that almost everyone on these forums seems to be waiting for.

 

[BryanS]

The F707 might be the ultimate consumerist's camera in the sub
$1000 category.

The G2 will be (barring something radical from Nikon) The ultimate
photographer's digital camera in the sub $1000 category.

Excuse me? I own the G1, and all my other camera equipment is by Canon (and always has been). However, the above is obviously analysis by either a Sony-hater or a Canon-lemming.

There is nothing in either camera's design nor features that rates one as a "consumer-cam" and the other as a "photographer-cam," but go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.

Bryan

 

[Bob Williams]

I agree. This is the same babble people spouted about the
G-1 being a serious hobbiests camera just because it took
a serious hobbiest to get it to work. The Sony has problems,
but may be fixed. The G-2 looks good until you look for CA
and at the skys. The G-2 has one advantage over the 707,
and that is that it doesn't need memstick, and can not only use
the larger memory, but has raw to use it right.

The F707 might be the ultimate consumerist's camera in the sub
$1000 category.

The G2 will be (barring something radical from Nikon) The ultimate
photographer's digital camera in the sub $1000 category.

Excuse me? I own the G1, and all my other camera equipment is by
Canon (and always has been). However, the above is obviously
analysis by either a Sony-hater or a Canon-lemming.

There is nothing in either camera's design nor features that rates
one as a "consumer-cam" and the other as a "photographer-cam," but
go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.

Bryan

 

[softtower]

a serious hobbiest to get it to work. The Sony has problems,
but may be fixed. The G-2 looks good until you look for CA
and at the skys.

What is "CA" and what's wrong with the skys?
Thanks.

 

[Tom Davenport]

I'm wasn't necessarily whining about MS (though that would certainly be justified given Sony's track record), as much as I was pointing out you need to add $100-200 to the cost of the F707 to neutralize the storage cost differential. Also, the list price differentials on the F707 and G2 won't necessarily equate to street price differentials. I'll venture to guess the G2 pricies will have a lot more play than F707 prices.

As far as preferring the F707 design over the Pro90, are you referring to looks or functionality? If it's looks, BFD. If you're referring to functionality & ergonomics, the Pro90 wins hands down IMO.

I actually prefer the design of the F707 over the Pro90, and
I stopped whining about the memory stick some time ago.

 

[Bob Williams]

The G-2 skys are speckled with little red dots. The CA in the
707 shots shows pretty bad. I am calling it CA, but it may be
CCD blooming. The G-2 has some blue CA or blooming, but it
appears to be less than the G-1.

a serious hobbiest to get it to work. The Sony has problems,
but may be fixed. The G-2 looks good until you look for CA
and at the skys.

What is "CA" and what's wrong with the skys?
Thanks.

 

[softtower]

The G-2 skys are speckled with little red dots. The CA in the
707 shots shows pretty bad. I am calling it CA, but it may be
CCD blooming. The G-2 has some blue CA or blooming, but it
appears to be less than the G-1.

I spent some time looking closely on Phil's samples taken with G2 and 707. And skys look pretty much the same: I haven't found any little red dots. G2's photos seem to have a stronger skys in general. Would you please give me some pics where this problem is clearly visible? Just curious.

However, all skys on all samples (regardless which camera was used) show some not-smooth kind of 'blue noise", when color isn't solid - looks like a mix of different blues.

Thanks.

 

[sparkyrwb]

After reading Bob's comment about read dots, I looked for them too. Didn't see any. But I did see some fine photos with beatiful blue skys.

The G-2 skys are speckled with little red dots. The CA in the
707 shots shows pretty bad. I am calling it CA, but it may be
CCD blooming. The G-2 has some blue CA or blooming, but it
appears to be less than the G-1.

I spent some time looking closely on Phil's samples taken with G2
and 707. And skys look pretty much the same: I haven't found any
little red dots. G2's photos seem to have a stronger skys in
general. Would you please give me some pics where this problem is
clearly visible? Just curious.

However, all skys on all samples (regardless which camera was used)
show some not-smooth kind of 'blue noise", when color isn't solid -
looks like a mix of different blues.

Thanks.

 

[probepro]

Tom, if you primarily use the LCD, then I agree that the Pro90 is more flexible. But I want to use the EVF, so the pivoting lens on the F707 works better for me. As for the cost, check out this link in the Sony forum.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&page=1&message=1463520

Best Buy and Circuit City will be selling the F707 for $899, and you can almost always beat their price. And MS’s will be getting more MP's and will be cheaper soon. Sony already has 25% of the flash memory market for consumer electronics, and gaining ground.

I'm wasn't necessarily whining about MS (though that would
certainly be justified given Sony's track record), as much as I was
pointing out you need to add $100-200 to the cost of the F707 to
neutralize the storage cost differential. Also, the list price
differentials on the F707 and G2 won't necessarily equate to street
price differentials. I'll venture to guess the G2 pricies will
have a lot more play than F707 prices.

As far as preferring the F707 design over the Pro90, are you
referring to looks or functionality? If it's looks, BFD. If
you're referring to functionality & ergonomics, the Pro90 wins
hands down IMO.

 

[David (r00t)]

There is a thread in Sony that states that Best Buy and Circuit City will have the 707 in 6 weeks at $899.

If they also get the G2, comparison should be fun....

 

[probepro]

The G2 takes very nice pics, but I want more than a range finder with a 3x zoom. The F707 has the functionality of an SLR, just the way god wanted it to be, and at a price that’s irresistible. I just hope they do something about the over saturated colors.

I'm not sure what you're seeing with noise-free images, but the 5
megapixel CCD that is common to both the 707 and the Minolta
Dimage7 seems to suffer alot of grainy noise in otherwise flat
areas of value and color. And what is exactly up with Sony
Color? With those deep tans being translated as Green? or the
blown to heck red?

The G2 has better manual focusing, in my opinion, and the ISO-50
equivalency rating is a major functionality boost.

You loose a bit as well with the sucky chewing gum memory sticks
in the Sony line, unless you happen to already be using that
system. But.. it just has no honest expandability compared to the
G2 toting around a 1 gb Microdrive.

What does it for me, is the flash. I also shoot film with the
Canon EOS system, and have one of the wonderful 420EX flashes.
With things like Highspeed synch, modeling strobe, autozooming
head, and wireless E-TTL operation using a 550EX or other master
unit. It's a $175-$200 unit and worth every cent. It's fully
suppourted by the G2.

The Sony gives me:

The option to lay down $100+ on the overpriced HVL-F1000 flash
(the L is for Loser) flash, with all the features of a $17 Vivitar
bounce that I can buy at walmart. I don't even get a standard damn
PC flash connector at the very least so I could just buy a $17
Vivitar.

But these cameras are aimed at two different users, almost. The
Sony F707 will be purchased by amatuer weekendish photographers,
the like who have $1k to just drop on a trendy digital camera. And
they'll maybe buy an extra battery, and a walmart-special tripod,
and some memory sticks, and that will be good enough for them.

The G2, will be bought by existing photographers - Canon system
users, film or otherwise who want to try their hand at digital
photography, at the least as a knock around body to stuff into the
bag, with the benefit that it employs the same flash hardware as
their bigger EOS guns. People who are a little bit more passionate
about it.

The F707 might be the ultimate consumerist's camera in the sub
$1000 category.

The G2 will be (barring something radical from Nikon) The ultimate
photographer's digital camera in the sub $1000 category.

We see many comparisons between the Canon G2 and the Sony DSC F707.
And Canon supporters including myself attempt to come up with reasons
why the G2 is the better choice. But after studying the reviews
here and at
Imaging Resource, I believe the Sony F707 is the better camera and
a bigger
bang for the buck. While it is true that comparing these cameras
is like
comparing apples and oranges, the bottom line is indeed the bottom
line
and Sony provides much more value for an additional $100. This is not
to say that the Canon doesn't have some very strong points. I
think the G2
wins in portability, storage( MicroDrive), color control, Raw
format, and
software (Remote Capture). And the F707 has some serious flaws:
Memory Stick, no Raw format, lack of color saturation control, and
an awkward
shape. But it does win in the all important categories of low
noise and image
resolution. Imaging Resource favorably compares the Sony F707's
resolution
to the Nikon Dx1, a $6200 camera, and I believe this says it all:
For $1000
you get a camera that is amazingly close to a $6200 camera in the all
important category of resolution. But all is not lost. Sony's
introduction
of the DSC F707 is a tremendous challenge to Nikon and Canon, both of
whom are very comfortable making SLR's. The Sony DSC F707 may
provide the kick in the butt they both need to provide us with an
affordable
(meaning less than $1500) SLR using interchangeable lenses. If
this is the
case, then we should all applaud Sony's release of the magnificent
DSC F707.

 

[Jonathan45562]

Best Buy and Circuit City will be selling the F707 for $899, and
you can almost always beat their price. And MS’s will be
getting more MP's and will be cheaper soon. Sony already has 25%
of the flash memory market for consumer electronics, and gaining
ground.

A lot of people are quoting that Sony has 25% of the flash memory market, and it's true if measured by absolute sales volume. When you account for the fact that Memory Stick costs twice CompactFlash, the statistic gets skewed.

Example: Two people buy CF cameras. One person buys a Memory Stick camera. Each person buys 128MB memory.

The two CF buyers each buy 128MB memory, for $60 each. Total sales volume for the CF market is $120.

The one MS buyer buys 128MB memory, for $120. Total sales volume for the Memory Stick market is $120.

In this scenario, Memory Stick has half the market share when measured by dollar sales, even though CF cameras may be outselling them 2-to-1.

In real life, CF memory originally cost 75% of MS memory. Memory stick prices dropped, but CF dropped more. Now CF costs a little over 50% of the MS price. Maybe memory stick really is gaining ground. However, I think Sony may be price gouging on the memory instead, and that's why their dollar sales are higher. Prices on the other types of memory are simply dropping faster.

jk

 

[dave37420]

I tend to think the G2 skies look a bit better. Check out the hi res house shot in the comparometer at imaging-resource.com. Click on the canon g2 in the top left and the Sony f707 in the top right. Not a lot of sky in this shot, but the color seems better. Plus look at how much better the brick looks on the G2!

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CH2FRMS.HTM

dave-the-rave

The G-2 skys are speckled with little red dots. The CA in the
707 shots shows pretty bad. I am calling it CA, but it may be
CCD blooming. The G-2 has some blue CA or blooming, but it
appears to be less than the G-1.

I spent some time looking closely on Phil's samples taken with G2
and 707. And skys look pretty much the same: I haven't found any
little red dots. G2's photos seem to have a stronger skys in
general. Would you please give me some pics where this problem is
clearly visible? Just curious.

However, all skys on all samples (regardless which camera was used)
show some not-smooth kind of 'blue noise", when color isn't solid -
looks like a mix of different blues.

Thanks.