Why don't more A700 users upgrade to FF?

I simply don't want 24 Megapixels and, in my opinion, the FF models did not give me enough additional value over my A700 (no live-view, no electronic levels etc.). If there is a 14-16 MP FF camera priced around the A850, I will probably upgrade to it instead of the APS-C A700 successor.

....

• better details definition
• great cropping possibilitiy ( less need for too long zooms )
• micro AF adjustment
• quite larger image on OVF

worthwhile trade-offs:

• weight and cost of body and lenses

... Lucas

--
Always having fun with photography ...

Starting a new gallery: http://lucaspix.smugmug.com/

1. Too much money. I like my photography but it's just not important enough to justify the kind of prices being asked for Sony FF. Yes at £1500 an A850 might be cheaper than FF from Canikon but really, it's still many hundreds of £'s more than a 7D or D300s and double (or more) the price of a 50D or D90.

2. Too few lenses. Of my 5 A mount lenses 3 were for APS-C only. Sony's catalogue of FF lenses (at the wider end) is extremely small and almost without exception extremely expensive. The only good (and cheap) FF lens they had was the 24-105 and they discontinued it. The 28-75/2.8 which essentially replaced it was a different lens completely - and twice the price so not really a replacement at all.

3. Size and weight. Nice and sturdy build but the size and weight of the body made it too bulky and heavy for regular use - for me. Add in the size and weight of the lenses and the problem only gets worse.

4. Resolution. I don't need 24MP and I have no wish to be trying to store and work with files of that size.

5. Crop factor. I prefer the focal lengths on APS-C. When I was out with my 70-300G I had a very good lens. I would need something going to 450 to get the same on FF. Such a lens would cost a huge amount more than the 70-300G and be a huge amount bigger too. Yes I can crop to the APS-C level of view but for that I'd need a really high res camera (say 24MP for eg) in which case I refer you to point 4.

Money seems to be the #1 reply, and no one esle seems to have done any shooting with the 900, or they would realize what a difference that 100% OVF makes when composing and shooting. Many seem concerned about the need for new glass, and I agree that the best does cost. All I can say is the results speak for themselves.
--
davidsdigitalphotography.com

Once I bought the A700, there was no more money for FF. Then I went into lens buying mode--again leaving no money for FF. However, with the exception of the sigma 17-70, all the lenses I bought are FF ready.

I'm not sure which way to go on my next camera purchase. Having bought a GF1, I realize I want a larger sensor--not smaller. If Sony's next FF is as far out into 2011/2012 as some predict, I will upgrade to the A7xx (unless it is some pellicle thing--and then I will not be a first adopter).

Personally, I hope that Sony releases FF before the A7xx, because once I buy the latter, there will again be no money for FF. I would dearly love a low MP FF aimed at high ISO performance. Being able to use ISO 3200 without worrying about noise would be very helpful for everything except landscapes.

Whether it's FF or APS, if I can buy a camera that performs better than the A700, it will be a success.
--
Steve W
weather photos: http://home.comcast.net/~scwest/atmo/

--
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/thailand_2010

While I would love to upgrade to full frame, I own several Sony DT lenses
Working with the huge files would tax my computer and slow things down
Cost,weight,and size

This is pretty much why I have not gone full frame
--



In god we trust, all others are suspects

When I saw the title of Nordstjernan’s post I thought it was a rhetorical question because he answered it himself a week or more ago when he reported that even experienced photographers find it difficult to distinguish between prints taken from the two types of camera. (OK, taken with high quality lenses). Unless one prints to a large size, say A2 and above, and very, very, very few do, there is little to be gained on going from the A700 to FF. The main advantage of FF for me would be the ability to crop heavily and still retain good image quality. The downside is the bulk and mass of a FF outfit compared to the equivalent A700 outfit.

For some people, price is not the main criterion. What is important is justification for the change – and it doesn’t stack up for me. I’ve got too old to lug around a FF outfit any more for the limited advantage it offers.

APS-C is simply "good enough". Not for everyone, but certainly for me. I've considered FF and will again I'm sure, but I have no interest in spending a lot on it when I'm not going to benefit much from it. Meanwhile, the camera is bigger and it messes up my lens lineup.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Last December, I bought my A700 body for $800. Today I can buy an A850 body for $2000. Is an A850 two and a half times better than the A700?
--
Gary in PA

Michael W00d said:

When I saw the title of Nordstjernan’s post I thought it was a rhetorical question because he answered it himself a week or more ago when he reported that even experienced photographers find it difficult to distinguish between prints taken from the two types of camera.

Click to expand...

That tread was personal comments on my findings. I am still ambigious about FF, but this should not affect other photographers too much when it comes to their choise of format; 4/3, APS-C, FF og larger.

As you figured out, this post has nothing to do with my previous post. I am just curious why so few actually have moved to FF when this seems to be obvious for many Minoltians (me included) wo were used to the crop and DOF of 35 mm film/FF sensors.

I might be wrong that few photographers actually have upgraded to FF, but this is my impresion after reading this and other forums since long before the first Sony FF camera was launched.

Because the bank bought it for me, when they returned their extortionate charges.

I also wanted the detail it captures.

John

Just add the cost of FF glass and you will end up with an expensive system that is 1.27 x better than the A700

I went from KM Dynax 5D straight to a900. I missed the experience I was used to on film - large and bright viewfinder, 50mm as standard all-around lens, ability to go wide for landscape easily and cheap with older Minolta (KM) lenses. While I had to upgrade my computer so I can work quickly with 24mpix RAWs, I really enjoy the detail resolution, cropping possibilities mainly in sport photography (for framing, not better "magnification" purposes) and beautiful (but expensive prints on A2 and A1 sizes. I never want to go back to the cropped world.

The other post describes my personal point of view after testing APS-C vs FF in real life conditions. The conclution does not support the view that FF is superiour to APS-C.

Actually, I think many on forums like this one are just day dreaming when they talk about FF. I doupt the FF sales would have raised much if Sony introdused a 12-18 Mp FF camera with better high ISO performance.

The FF looked tempting but it does not fit my needs, I would be willing to pay nearly as much for the A7xx as for the A850 just for the fast AF

Expensive camera and lenses. Large and heavy cameras/lenses....

I bought my first fullframe dSLR when a norwegian photo store (japanphoto.no) sold Sony A850 at a very reasonable price. I bought FF because of the large and bright viewfinder. At that time the price difference between CaNikon FF and Sony FF was 1000+USD. An easy choice for me.

There are two Sony FF dSLR's on the norwegian used market right now. They don't sell easily. A850 + 50/1,4 = 2000USD and A900 = 1840USD. Good prices, but people prefer CaNikon FF :-(

FF store prices inn Norway:
A850: 2500USD
A900: discontinued, was 3200USD.

Canon 5DII: 2830USD
Nikon D700: 3000USD

--
http://kelu.smugmug.com/

neo_nights said:

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

Click to expand...

I believe it would have needed to be at least 5fps as well
--
Sony a700 with HVL56AM
Sony a550 ( Wife )
Sigma 10-20mm
Minolta 50mm F1.4
Minolta 28-75 F2.8 Japan
Sony 18-55 ( Kit )
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 Di
Tamron 28-105 F2.8
Tamron 28-200 3.5-5.6
Tamron 200-500 5-6.3 Di

Nordstjernen said:

As you figured out, this post has nothing to do with my previous post. I am just curious why so few actually have moved to FF when this seems to be obvious for many Minoltians (me included) wo were used to the crop and DOF of 35 mm film/FF sensors.

Click to expand...

You are 99% correct with that statement - at least as far as I am concerned. If a FF model had been released at the same time as the A700 then, when replacing my KM7D - which itself 'replaced' my 700si (though I still have both) I, and I am sure many others, would probably have gone straight for the FF. But there was no FF option at the time. And so, having invested in a perfectly good camera in the A700, there is no need at this stage to 'upgrade' just for the sake of it. The marginal benefit, coupled with the loss of other features, simply does not justify the additional outlay.

Well firstly, the A700 does a great job anyway. Secondly, to find the additional funds to warrant the purchase and thirdly, if you already have cropped lenses, the selling/buying of FF optics is another cost and consideration, let alone things like vertical grip etc.

I'm a keen amateur, so I can't justify the added expense, and am more than happy with my A700 and expect to be for many years to come. Some people want to have the latest hardware, but that alone doesn't make you a decent 'tog' does it?

With the improvement to Sony's IDC, RAW images look far better if you're using it prior to transferring to CS for example. Shame they didn't improve the noise handling better than they did in firmware V4, which begs the question "how is it that Nikon has a superior noise algorithm with the same sensor that Sony supplies them with"? Shame that we (A700 owners) have to do it in pp. A700's in the UK are now £400.00 used which is £600.00 less than the original new price.
--
Pirate!