Why don't more A700 users upgrade to FF?

[Nordstjernen]

When the A900 and later the A850 was launched, I expected that a lot more A700/APS-C high end photographers would move to full frame.

I think the A900/A850 are as important for building a FF user base as the hords of low end cameras are for building a broad A mount user base (with an upgrade path to FF).

From observing this and other forums, which should represent the core users for higher end Sony cameras, I don't think this has happened, at lest not yet.

I don't know the sales figures for the Sony FF cameras, or if the sale is lower than stipulated from Sony. I just have a feeling that FF has not sold as well as expected. So, if I am correct:

Why doesn't more A700/APS-C users step up to FF? Lack of attractive FF lenses? Is a FF system too expensive for most advanced amateurs? Or ... ?

Thoughts?

 

[beakydave]

I would love to make full use of my lenses, but in reality I don't need to do so that often. I can't therefore justify the outlay for that reason alone whilst I have a perfectly good camera (better in many ways) in the A700. If and when my A700 dies then I will consider what is available - if there happens to be a new FF model then I would probably go FF at that point.

 

[garykohs]

Ninety percent of my shots are high school sports, wherein I need great AF, high speed burst, and low noise at high ISOs. The A900 doesn't offer any advantages here compared to the A700. So, as much as I'd like to have an A900 for other types of shots, it just doesn't make sense for me.
--
Gary

 

[ianimal]

To big, to heavy, to expensive.
And I don't need 24 MP.

But maybe later if the right price, size and features.
And a FF NEX could be interesting if possible and the price is around $1500
or less.

 

[Ron Co]

For me there is no point - I bought the A700 to work with the 500mm mirror lens for bird photography -if I went full frame the lens drops its reach by 50% (or is it one third?) anyway the 500 mm reverts to 500 mm instead of the effective 750 mm on the A700 .

I know in theory the extra pixels would compensate but I like to use what I get when possible and it makes no sense to pay for pixels I won't use

OK perhaps if I get bigger birds? Or if I can get closer?? ---hmmmm
--
Ron Co
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ron-alenka/
http://www.redbubble.com/people/alenkaco2/writing

 

[matknu]

ISO
--
Mats

 

[digitalshooter]

--
Thanks,

Digitalshooter

 

[Henrik 1881]

I am totally unaware of the advantages of the FF models except shallower depth of field. When I become a better photographer I might be interested in FF.
--
Amateur photographer from Stockholm, the capital of Scandinavia, Europe.

 

[IKB]

Not everyone has the cash needed to justify spending £1500+ on a device that will slightly improve their images. Most people have many other demands on their income in these financially straitened times

--
Malcy

 

[007peter]

Full frame isn't end all be all. For wild life, birds in flight, sports shooters, full frame have zero advantages. For wedding and portrait shooters, full frame produce ultra-shallow DOF that no APC-C camera can compete. There is also the factor of overall cost, the APS-C camera are way cheaper by comparison.

Anyhow this phenomenon is also true over at the canon side. Most people elect to upgrade their entry level camera to Canon 7D rather than a fullframe 5d MK2. Canon 5D also doesn't have a build in flash, that sort of annoy me since I believe Nikon D700 has a build in flash.

 

[clayven4]

I see far more pictures with too little depth of field than I do with too much. A700 works fine for me.

 

[Marti58]

D700 has build in flash
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

 

[paul_kew]

My A700 still works , why would I want to replace it?

Not interested in latest/shiniest ,get the newest because mine's obsolete mindset pervading modern society (how many perfetly good, still working mobile phones replaced every year because a new model's come out?). I'm what manufacturers hate

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

All of the above plus:

1) Faster computer required due to much larger files & needed processing power.
2) To date, I've seen very little that FF has over APS-C when shooting wildlife.

None the less, I may move to FF some day. Currently, I would only loose one lens - my SAL 18-250mm.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

 

[arthurb2]

When the A900 and later the A850 was launched, I expected that a lot more A700/APS-C high end photographers would move to full frame.

I think the A900/A850 are as important for building a FF user base as the hords of low end cameras are for building a broad A mount user base (with an upgrade path to FF).

From observing this and other forums, which should represent the core users for higher end Sony cameras, I don't think this has happened, at lest not yet.

I don't know the sales figures for the Sony FF cameras, or if the sale is lower than stipulated from Sony. I just have a feeling that FF has not sold as well as expected. So, if I am correct:

Why doesn't more A700/APS-C users step up to FF? Lack of attractive FF lenses? Is a FF system too expensive for most advanced amateurs? Or ... ?

Thoughts?

The major reason is the huge cost involved. Because only one lens could be retained, I would be looking at an outlay of around £2500-3000 even if I could get an A850 body for less than £1500; the A850 is less attractive to me than the A900, but the A900 appears to be dead. For that money, and the disruption involved, it would be no more difficult, nor much more expensive, to switch to a different brand of APS-C camera.

The other, perhaps less important reason is the size and weight of a FF. For personal reasons, those factors make a FF much less attractive to me than an aps-c format DSLR.

So, I have not bought anything for my A700 since late last year, and will not until at least one A7xx model has been on the market for a few months, plus, preferably, some enhancements to the functionality of the A5xx range (video does not interest me, live-view only a little, faster and more accurate AF interests me greatly).

 

[neo_nights]

I said this yesterday on another topic here.

My guess is that many people would like to go FF someday and Sony did the right thing releasing 'cheap' models to encourage those people. But their mistake was to think that everyone wanted a megapixel hungry camera, to think that dSLR users are like P&Ss who go for the biggest mp count.

If the A850 was, let's say, 18mp and had high ISO capabilities at least as good as the Canon 7D, then more people would have gone FF, I believe.

--
I'm lazy to post my pics here. So you can look at them here:
http://www.zenfolio.com/neonights

 

[jeremiah_rubix]

have a700 plus 16-80cz, ff requires 24-70 or the like, in oztralia that is much $.

 

[tom55604]

I am not that interested in wide angle photography, and I only print up to 11x14 inches (very rarely) and 8x10-inches.

I do like the FF cameras for the nice VF and user installable screens, but the compromises in the subject aren't worth it.

The A850 at B&H is $2000. And I haven't found it cheaper at local stores including Sony Style. The A700 new was significantly lower than that (about a good used lens lower). Add to that I'd have to spend about another $150 (plus or minus) for a wireless controller.

tom

 

[Gavin 11]

“Breaking news”, I’m working class and with the recession cannot afford such a lovely camera. :-0

 

[Marti58]

for web use you did not see the difference between APS C and FF, or at least the difference was not that big.

so for what most people do today it wont justify the cost.

as an event shooter in all kind of conditions i cleary can see the benefits from my D700 over my D300s in certain conditions.

as for Sony maybe the differences are to small compared lets say to the A700 or A500/550.
--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/