A700 owners, happy with its performance? ( a poll )

Very happy!!!

Yes, i'm happy

I have one in repair right now, but I'm still very happy with the A700's.

--
Jem

The artist formerly known as IdiotStic

Absolutely Yes

... back-focusing issue. well, no cam is perfect

--
http://web.mac.com/kencheong/Site/Welcome.html

Happy YES and still learning the camera.

BUT: Bought 700 in Dec. 2007 not knowing there was a 350 with LIVE VIEW coming in Feb/Mar

Would not have purchased 700 if I knew of 350 first.

But have them both and certainly don't need both but thats okay for now. Also several new lenses and vert grip for 350.

jhatha

keepers that my hard drive space and my limited time for PP can't keep up. Also too addicting that it competes with my wife : ). Now using it only every other day, lol.
cheers,
gil
--
**************
The Image Warrior
Still 100% jpg and hand held,
No baits, calls and tricks but will use luck with the A700

-Luvvit!
David

Yes: all the things already mentioned in thread

Yes: truly amazing flash performance

No: shockingly bad AWB indoors in low light compared to K-M 5D (although custom WB can rectify to a certain extent)

No: my A700 had total button failure tonight (see my recent post)
--
Andrew (Brit expat in Taipei, Taiwan for 22 years now)

Great job, Sony, except for:

noise issues - overly dense sensor and lack of user-defeatable NR

no MLU on wireless remote (makes the thing useless for me - I'd rather not have paid for it)

worst exposure bracketing in the industry

--
Rich

http://philosurfer.zenfolio.com/

Yes, very happy with the a700. Any picture taking problems are of my own making. A fine tool.

I got my a700 in late Nov '07. As a former K/M 5D and 7D user, I found it significantly faster and more responsive. AF was much snappier and more accurate. It's got a great screen, superb build quality, image stabilisation that really works, and much more. Yet for all its many good points, there's one thing I've never really liked - the colour. This is especially so with portraits. I have always had mixed feelings about the skin tones this camera produces. For me, the colour lacks vibrancy and brilliance. It's neither truthful and unexaggerated, nor 'wrong' but flattering or impressive. To my eyes, it gives a 'flat' washed-out look that lacks punch. Increase saturation or contrast, and the result tends to look garish. In connection with this, I sometimes find the mid-tones too dark. If you photograph a caucasian wearing white clothes, the skin can look very dull/dark. Initially, I didn't think too much of this, reasoning that, with such a highly customisable camera, it must be possible to get whatever result is wanted. But, even shooting RAW and processing via the supplied Sony software, I find it hard to get completely satisfying results. To me there's a sort of flatness/blandness that's very hard to correct. By the way, I find this with all my lenses - various Minolta (and one or two Sigma) primes, and zooms. Although images from my old K/M 7D were not as clean and crisp as those from the a700, I think it gave better truer nicer colour. I also have an a100, and on the whole prefer the saturated results this produces compared to the a700 - though as a camera, there's no way the a100 compares to its more expensive sibling. For me, the a100 is an example of a camera that's 'wrong' but impressive. As a consequence I've used my a700 much less than I thought I would. I have a number of other DSLRs that I think produce better results (RAW or out of the camera) - the Fuji S5Pro, Leica Digilux 3, Canon 40D to name just three - though as a camera per se the a700 holds its own with anything I've ever used. I just wished I liked the end result more!
J M Hughes

James

I understand exactly what you're saying and admire your courage ), everything about it has improved accept the end-result.

I remember when shooting with my 7D I hated its slow inaccurate AF also its metering was very poor and if over exposed slightly the face would be washed out but with all these issues it still produced images that were perfect. Sony has improved much on every thing but has fallen back on the only thing that was great about the 7D.......now how ironic is that
--
You're welcome to visit my latest Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/bangkok_april_2008
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/chiang_mai_2008__songkran

On the contrary I find A700 colors dream come true, colors and contrast - punchy bold, while realistic.

I have no mixed feelings at all - A700 is light years ahead of 5D/7D, specially in colorspace treatment.

The cherry on the the cake is the DRO, people often don't realize the full potential (I guess with other cherrys - Fn jostick, SSS (AS), Zeiss 16-80...)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogic

Yes, the a700 is my second dslr after the a100 and I love it. Here are a couple of pictures from a couple of weeks ago.





--
Capturing small moments of the beauty God has created,
Daniel H.

--
Photo eye

RichV said:

Great job, Sony, except for:

noise issues - overly dense sensor and lack of user-defeatable NR

no MLU on wireless remote (makes the thing useless for me - I'd
rather not have paid for it)

Click to expand...

And MLU for group pictures would be probematic because the AF stops and people move.. remote was for that use mostly. Get a $10 wired remote or $30 wireless off ebay and you will have both options.

RichV said:

worst exposure bracketing in the industry

Click to expand...

I think the D40/D40x/D60 get that title

RichV said:

--
Rich

http://philosurfer.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Oh yeah. You can have my A700 when you pry it out of my cold, dead....

Get the picture?

Mike

aarif said:

James

I understand exactly what you're saying and admire your courage ),
everything about it has improved accept the end-result.

Click to expand...

Aarif, that's exactly it! I really like the a700 - it's a great camera in many many ways. Despite my misgivings, I've never once thought of selling it. Each time I take it out I tell myself I'm imagining the 'problem' - and try to convince myself the camera's fine. But when I view the images, I'm often disappointed. I think what my a700 pictures lack is luminosity. I'm not saying every picture is a total dud, but (somehow) the end result often seems to be less than the sum of the parts. I'm sure plenty of satisfied a700 users disagree - and possibly have pictures to back up what they say. The number of positive threads in this posting is proof of that. General pictures look fine; it's portraits (skin tone) I don't like. Anyone out there use an a700 to shoot portraits or weddings? And if so, what settings do you use? I've tried Vivid and Portrait, and tweaked saturation and contrast, only to come back to Standard with everything set at zero. Going though these options in RAW, I can't seem to find a combination that works - any suggestions?

By the way, I looked through your gallery, Aarif, and my immediate thought was - great pics; nothing wrong with the colour. Because this is the Sony forum and this thread is about the a700, I blithely assumed your pictures were taken on an a700 - then saw that most were shot with a Canon 1D...

By the way, before getting the a700, I had (and still have) Sony's 828 and R1 bridge cameras, and liked both for colour. Indeed, colour was something I thought Sony did very well. The R1 in particular produces gorgeous results - maybe not 100% neutral/accurate, but vivid and vibrant without being garish. I only wish my a700 was as good!
Best wishes, J M Hughes

James M Hughes said:

aarif said:

James

I understand exactly what you're saying and admire your courage ),
everything about it has improved accept the end-result.

Click to expand...

Aarif, that's exactly it! I really like the a700 - it's a great
camera in many many ways. Despite my misgivings, I've never once
thought of selling it. Each time I take it out I tell myself I'm
imagining the 'problem' - and try to convince myself the camera's
fine. But when I view the images, I'm often disappointed. I think
what my a700 pictures lack is luminosity. I'm not saying every
picture is a total dud, but (somehow) the end result often seems to
be less than the sum of the parts. I'm sure plenty of satisfied a700
users disagree - and possibly have pictures to back up what they say.
The number of positive threads in this posting is proof of that.
General pictures look fine; it's portraits (skin tone) I don't like.
Anyone out there use an a700 to shoot portraits or weddings? And if
so, what settings do you use? I've tried Vivid and Portrait, and
tweaked saturation and contrast, only to come back to Standard with
everything set at zero. Going though these options in RAW, I can't
seem to find a combination that works - any suggestions?
By the way, I looked through your gallery, Aarif, and my immediate
thought was - great pics; nothing wrong with the colour. Because this
is the Sony forum and this thread is about the a700, I blithely
assumed your pictures were taken on an a700 - then saw that most were
shot with a Canon 1D...
By the way, before getting the a700, I had (and still have) Sony's
828 and R1 bridge cameras, and liked both for colour. Indeed, colour
was something I thought Sony did very well. The R1 in particular
produces gorgeous results - maybe not 100% neutral/accurate, but
vivid and vibrant without being garish. I only wish my a700 was as
good!
Best wishes, J M Hughes

Click to expand...

Color is not locked.. if you shot raw.. what are you doing in your processing if you shoot jpg what creatifve settings do you have..

DIWA labs has tested the A700 as have more accuracte color rendition than the Canon 40D or Nikon D300.. so maybe you need to figure the workflow that goes from accurate to "pop" for you.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com