OldClicker
Senior Member
That make no sense since the FF Sony can always give at least the same image.
18MP cropped sensor - now there is a waste of money.
TF
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why don't more A700 users upgrade to FF?
- Thread starter Nordstjernen
- Start date
OldClicker
Senior Member
Actually, a perfect caricature of a bio professor which I believe he actually is/was. - TF
zackiedawg
Forum Pro
For me, it's just a matter of what fits for me, not wanting any less of a camera than I need to shoot what I need to shoot, but no more than I really need to get the job done and make all involved happy. That goes for resolution, image quality, size, weight, control...you name it.
I personally find the APS-C sized DSLRs to be absolutely my baby bear - just right. I like the size - substantial, good grip, weighty, but not too much so. I like the image quality - very good, very croppable, great high ISO, plenty of resolution, but not too much, files not larger than needed. I like the crop factor, in that I tend to shoot more at the longer end of the scale and the built in crop factor makes focusing and shooting with telephoto easier and faster, without the post-processing crops later...while I can still find wide angle lenses to get me down to 15mm or so if needed. I like the price - I'm willing to go around $1,000 or so for a nice body...maybe a bit more...with that, I can usually pick up a decent advanced entry or moderate enthusiast camera body with good speed and performance.
I'm not against full frame, just that they never caught my interest or tempted me to trade up, as the compromises involved to get its advantages just don't weigh out for me.
--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
I personally find the APS-C sized DSLRs to be absolutely my baby bear - just right. I like the size - substantial, good grip, weighty, but not too much so. I like the image quality - very good, very croppable, great high ISO, plenty of resolution, but not too much, files not larger than needed. I like the crop factor, in that I tend to shoot more at the longer end of the scale and the built in crop factor makes focusing and shooting with telephoto easier and faster, without the post-processing crops later...while I can still find wide angle lenses to get me down to 15mm or so if needed. I like the price - I'm willing to go around $1,000 or so for a nice body...maybe a bit more...with that, I can usually pick up a decent advanced entry or moderate enthusiast camera body with good speed and performance.
I'm not against full frame, just that they never caught my interest or tempted me to trade up, as the compromises involved to get its advantages just don't weigh out for me.
--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
Kenneth B
Senior Member
A900 AF is slightly better but it no longer has eyestart AF so that's a big negative IMO. He would need to upgrade his workflow to support the 25MP image files.
5 fps is not all that fast when you consider 7 - 8 fps offered by Canon & Nikon. But also consider that most pro sports shooters don't use motor drive. They work in single shot mode.
The AF Tracking on the Canon 1D and Nikon D3 do a much better job of following you subject. Especially when that official crosses between you and your subject. The other thing about he 900 is the AF is all in the center of the view finder so it doesn't do as good of a job tracking. I went to my 700 to shoots my son's soccer team last year.
--
Kenneth Berntsen
That is an interesting question to which we obviously don't know the answer. However, If Sony had a FF camera in the 12-16 MP range that provided great high ISO performance (similar to the D3/D700, or better the D3S), I likely would have bought one to add to my A900 and A700, and if it shot at a high fps rate might not use any APS-C cameras (assuming a camera about the same size and weight as the A850/900). Such a camera for my event work would be quite useful. But, I see no reason to get an A850 as it provides no benefits to me.
I think the clamor among Nikon shooters for a D700X type of camera (essentially, Nikon's version of the A850/900) to supplement their use of a D3/D3S/D700 suggests that their is a market for both high MP and lower MP/lower noise cameras, that serve very different purposes.
Is there enough of a market for two such cameras among Sony shooters? Maybe not right now based on the size of its customer base, but if it could be priced at or near the price of the A850, it might see a lot of interest. The ability to have a high MP and lower MP/lower noise cameras for the price of a D3S, or with a CZ lens or two for the price of a D3X could be quite attractive to some.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
Richard B.
Veteran Member
Great thread, I am hoping Sony reads these threads and uses them for input on camera development.
The phrasing of the question isn't quite right though. There is nothing magical about 35mm vs. any other format. 35mm appears to be presented as logical "upgrade" path for APS-C users, but the real question is if a particular camera is suited to a photographers needs. I think some of the answers in the thread reflect this.
For myself, I have considered the A850. There are a number of factors why I don't think switching the A850 would provide me with much benefit.
The above is obviously a very personal list, and I am sure other photographers will look at different factors and/or reach different valid conclusions.
--
Richard B.
http://www.pbase.com/richard_b
The phrasing of the question isn't quite right though. There is nothing magical about 35mm vs. any other format. 35mm appears to be presented as logical "upgrade" path for APS-C users, but the real question is if a particular camera is suited to a photographers needs. I think some of the answers in the thread reflect this.
For myself, I have considered the A850. There are a number of factors why I don't think switching the A850 would provide me with much benefit.
- 1 weight
- 2 24MP
- 3 Loss of zoom
- 4 Loss of DOF
- 5 Shutter noise
- 6 Dynamic range
The above is obviously a very personal list, and I am sure other photographers will look at different factors and/or reach different valid conclusions.
--
Richard B.
http://www.pbase.com/richard_b
Sort of, but his response said the A900 did not offer any advantages, which it actually does in terms of slight AF and noise improvements, two areas that he said were important. I guess he meant not sufficient advantages.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
According to whom? That is a ridiculous statement, as evidenced by the furor over the poor AF tracking in the 1D Mk III by sports shooters. If sports shooters shot in single shot mode, why are their cameras made to shoot with very high fps?
The question is not how the A900 might compare to a Canon or Nikon "sports shooters" camera, but the A900 vs. the A700. There is no doubt the 1D or D3 are much superior sports shooting cameras. But the A700 vs the A900 is not such an easy call, and the post to which I was responding said the A900 did not offer any AF or noise advantages over the A700, when it actually does, though they may only be slight advantages.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
dlkeller
Veteran Member
I thinki you pretty well summed it up. Don't need a bigger, heavier, slower processing system when the current A700 gives great results--and has bonys of built in flash and crop factor.
I consider APS-C the modern equivalent of 35mm in quality and Full Frame more in line with the 2 1/4 square formats of the film era. This may not be a totally correct analogy, but it's how I view it in terms of current technology.
I consider APS-C the modern equivalent of 35mm in quality and Full Frame more in line with the 2 1/4 square formats of the film era. This may not be a totally correct analogy, but it's how I view it in terms of current technology.
digitalshooter
Forum Pro
--
Thanks,
Digitalshooter
Thanks,
Digitalshooter
digitalshooter
Forum Pro
5 fps is no good coupled with this focus system
--
Thanks,
Digitalshooter
PeteGanzel
Senior Member
..couldn't stand half frame in a DSLR and skipped the A700 altogether.
..first time I looked in the mirror box of my KM 7D, I said to myself: "wow, where is the rest of it?"
But I'm forward looking... got a half frame camera last week..A NEX 5, which is more appropriate for the format.
Pete
--
http://www.pbase.com/pganzel
..first time I looked in the mirror box of my KM 7D, I said to myself: "wow, where is the rest of it?"
But I'm forward looking... got a half frame camera last week..A NEX 5, which is more appropriate for the format.
Pete
--
http://www.pbase.com/pganzel
Kenneth B
Senior Member
I have both bodies and there is no reason to upgrade from the A700 to the A900 for sports. Its a great camera for portrait shooting but the A700 does a better job for shooting sports. The AF points cover a larger area of the VF, you have Eye Start AF which means your camera is focused and locked by the time you've got it to your face and you're working with smaller files if you choose to shoot in burst mode.Sort of, but his response said the A900 did not offer any advantages, which it actually does in terms of slight AF and noise improvements, two areas that he said were important. I guess he meant not sufficient advantages.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
--
Kenneth Berntsen
Kenneth B
Senior Member
According to a sports illustrated photog. Yes the 1D Mk III had problems tracking the subject but put your 700 or 900 in release priority and start firing away and tell me how many shots you have out of focus.
And again the A900 is at a disadvantage on both noise and AF to the A700. See my previous post about Eyestart and the coverage of the AF points.
--
Kenneth Berntsen
Brant01
Member
1) a700 works.
2) a700 more than meets my needs.
3) I'd rather spend $2000 on new lenses or a trip to take pictures than a body.
4) If there's uncertainty about Sony's commitment to the a700 class, then I'm not going to buy in a higher 'class'.
5) Size
6) Waiting to see 2nd generation FF and a700
2) a700 more than meets my needs.
3) I'd rather spend $2000 on new lenses or a trip to take pictures than a body.
4) If there's uncertainty about Sony's commitment to the a700 class, then I'm not going to buy in a higher 'class'.
5) Size
6) Waiting to see 2nd generation FF and a700
Look, I am the first person to criticize the AF system in the A700 and A900, as anyone who is familiar with my posts over the years can attest, but that is not the point of the comments that I addressed. That was that the A900 has no advantages over the A700 for high school sports in the area of AF, high speed burst and low noise at high ISOs. The A900 has a modified AF system from what is in the A700 (different AF sensor alignment and focus assist points) that results in slightly improved AF performance, and has better high ISO noise performance. FPS shooting is equal.
Whether or not the AF system in the A700 or A900 can keep up with 5 fps depends on the subject matter, its speed of movement, direction of movement, distance from the camera (the greater the distance the smaller, and easier, the focus adjustments required), light levels and probably some other factors. For some sports the AF system may be "good enough" while it is seriously deficient for some others. Like many things in life, it depends.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
I don't disagree that for most people there is no reason to upgrade from an A700 to an A900 for sports, but not so much for the reasons you suggest. Yes, the AF sensors in the A700 cover a somewhat larger portion of the viewfinder, but in sports you "usually" have the subject in or near the center of the frame (but not always) and don't want the camera to focus on something else in the frame (such as the background) when in wide area focus mode (if one uses that mode for sports shooting). The extent to which the AF sensor alignment is better or worse for a particular subject will depend on the subject and how the photographer approaches it.I have both bodies and there is no reason to upgrade from the A700 to the A900 for sports. Its a great camera for portrait shooting but the A700 does a better job for shooting sports. The AF points cover a larger area of the VF, you have Eye Start AF which means your camera is focused and locked by the time you've got it to your face and you're working with smaller files if you choose to shoot in burst mode.Sort of, but his response said the A900 did not offer any advantages, which it actually does in terms of slight AF and noise improvements, two areas that he said were important. I guess he meant not sufficient advantages.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
Eye start is not exactly a useful feature for sports, assuming you are shooting sports seriously, which means you are following the action with the camera to your eye, then releasing the shutter when the right action occurs or you get the composition you are looking for (i.e., being prepared for what may happen when you don't know exactly when it will happen). It is not generally done by bringing your camera to your eye and immediately snapping away, though some quick "grab shots" of non moving subjects might occasionally occur that way. I have both the A700 and A900 and find the eye start feature makes little difference in how quickly the camera is ready to go when I bring it up to my eye.
The higher buffer for burst mode shooting of the A700 is an advantage, but as I recall the difference between the two, at least when shooting in RAW mode, is not huge. I would note that this was not an "advantage" of the A700 noted by the commenter to whom I was responding.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
One SI photographer? Shooting what sport(s)? I suggest you go to a site like sportsshooter.com and ask/see what the pros do. No doubt there are certain times that single shot may be appropriate, but its not what most sport shooters use for most sports.
I am not here to defend the A700/900 AF system, which I have criticized many times in the past. For the most part, neither camera tracks focus well in my experience, particularly subjects moving towards the camera.
I have responded to your prior post about eye start and AF sensor coverage. As to noise, the A900 is superior to the A700 if you are talking about final image size, and not on a per pixel level, for which the two cameras are pretty similar. For example, the A900 has a much better rating at DXO Mark for high ISO shooting than the A700.
--
Mark Van Bergh
http://www.markvanbergh.com
Gil Knutson
Senior Member
There are three reasons I have not considered the A900...
1. I like the 1.5 magnification factor... great for telephoto shots.
2. I am not convinced that the High ISO noise level is as good as the A700...
3. The Little Woman would hang me out to dry if I spent that much on a camera!!
I have a hard enough time justifying my present expenses. I still haven't told her I bought the A700... and that will be 2 years ago this November...
--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada
1. I like the 1.5 magnification factor... great for telephoto shots.
2. I am not convinced that the High ISO noise level is as good as the A700...
3. The Little Woman would hang me out to dry if I spent that much on a camera!!
I have a hard enough time justifying my present expenses. I still haven't told her I bought the A700... and that will be 2 years ago this November...
--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum