Would I be happier with an A700 or A65????

Hello,

First i want to say I' new to the forum, and digital photography also, as my son and I have been into the hobby for 5 months. Currently we both have a200's and enjoy using them. I want to upgrade to a different camera, something that I can grown into and enjoy using. I would to stay with a sony, as i want to break the nikon/canon grip. I'll explain what we shoot, gear we have and what i would like to get.

I am a railfan, and enjoy taking pictures of trains as my hobby. I also shoot my daughters pom pom parades and been playing around with macro shots of nature on the side. My desire is to work with black and white, so I do shoot color first, then work on converting. As I said, i do like my a200, which I shoot a majority of pics in Aperture mode. Ive been able to blow up my best pics to 20x30 with good results for hanging on the den wall.

My gear consists of the following items:

Minolta af 28-80 f3.5-5.6

af 28-100 f3.5-5.6

af 35-80 f4-5.6

af 70-210 f3.5-5.6

af 100-200 f4.5

af 100-300 f3.5-4.6

Seems like alot of overlap, but my son and I share the lenses on photo shoots. My favorites are the 100-200 and the 28-100, and my son enjoys the 70-210 the best.

Now knowing what I do, and I will definitely pass this to my son for photography classes in school no doubt in a few months with the same camera body, would I be happier with an a700 or an a65. Ive had the chance to play with an a65, but ive always wanted to go the 700 route. low light shooting is next to none, and with the 200, i dont go above iso 400. I want something that i wont out grow, plus make a great camera for my sons schooling. As a note, the a55 is ruled out, too toy like, and i dont like the feel of it. Or would i be better off with going the cookie cutter route of canon or nikon.

Thanks in advance for any input.

As much as I love my A700 I have to say the A65 has a several generations newer sensor, electronics, focusing and metering improvements which could generally lead to better pictures. I haven't used the A65 but would feel you would be giving up some ergonomics and, of course, the A700 very nice pentaprism optical viewfinder. Many here will argue the virtues of the EVF and this is a controversial issue with strong opinions on both sides
You might check on reviews on the two to see what features are lost with the A65. One I might be concerned about is the ability to use the front dial on the A700 for exposure compensation and the rear for program shift. I don't know if the A65 allows this or not or if it is important to you.

Also consider you definitely would be buying a used camera with the A700 and you still might find the A65 as a new camera in some sources. Previous use/abuse and warrantee issues would enter into this decision.

--
Dave

you're not too heavily invested in A mount lens.

From my perspective the A65 and A700 has trade off, if we're just comparing the 2, the A65 gets the 10 and the A700 gets an 8-9.

The issue is what are you shooting, and how do you go about it, the A65 has everything the A77 has, but it's got 2 issue.

the control of the A65 is the same as the A57/37, which is to say not that good.

it's also missing the micro focus adjustment from my understanding, and that's pretty valuable.

To me, these 2 issue is glaring, I personally will not pay 500 for an A65, i rather pay 800 for an A77.

If it was up to me, I would go with the A77, it's running about 800 right now for a really good copy (you can get it new from the military store for that much, or used from one of the big online store like B&H, Adorama, KEH), if it's from ebay or a forum member I would pay about 700-750 for one shipped and paypal included.

The A77 is a really really good camera, I would rank it one of the top crop sensor camera you can buy ATM, a little crappy with high ISO, but everything else is great. I would actually pick it over the D7000. I hate to say this, but Sony nailed it with the A77, high ISO aside, that is a pro camera with an APSC sensor.

I have an A57 and an A700, the A700 is collecting dust.

Aside from the issue of newer versus older sensors, build, etc., I think the electronic viewfinder versus optical viewfinder is the main thing to consider. I love the EVF on my A65; I think seeing what the results will be of adjustments you make on the fly is great, and the image in the OLED viewfinder is bright and clear and I like much better than the LCD ones like the A55, which is what I was comparing to at the time I bought.

But if you like an optical viewfinder better, I don't think I'd buy an A700 anyway; Sony has made it pretty clear that EVF is the way they are going. If you prefer an optical finder, I think you'd be better off switching to Nikon.

If you could get an A65 and either the 18-55 or 18-135 lens, it would also be a useful addition to your lens collection, as you don't seem to have anything close to as wide as 18mm. Of course the 16-50 would be even better, but I'm not sure your budget. Having a wider lens I think could be good for train pictures.

...why don't you get some primes? You lenses are slow. Sony has great, affordable primes: 85mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 3 50s (if you include the Minolta 1.7).

As for body, I've had the A700, A65, and now the A77. I would certainly recommend the latter; as another poster pointed out, they are affordable. Second choice would be the A65 (but really, really think the A77 is the better choice for features, long-term use, etc.). I would not buy an A700 - good camera for its time, but the technology is at least five years old. No way. And no video - can you honestly say that no one in your family is going to show some interest in video? Kids love seeing themselves on YouTube.

I don't know anything about the a65, however I have an a700. It's a beautiful piece of equipment that produces wonderful images. For your son's photography class, it might prove more practical than the a65. You can pick up some used copies with low image counts. There are always people who should buy point and shoots who pick up cameras like the a700. They find them too complicated to operate and end up leaving them in the closet. In addition to the a700, I also have an a77. I frequently take the a700 on shoots as I love the way the camera feels and handles. I also recommend finding a vertical grip for the a700. It gives you lots of reserve battery power and also gives the camera a nice feel and balance.

At a guess the lenses you have will be stretched a bit by the higher resolution A65 and will probably match better with the A700.

However - from a usability point of view my preference is for the EVF on the A65 together with its quieter operation (I have an A77 and A700). I prefer the exposure preview, focus peaking, and magnifier options that the EVF provides even though the A700 is a great piece of equipment.

So I would suggest that if you plan to upgrade to some new lenses if necessary then the A65 is the way to go. However if you're not planning to update any lenses for a year or two and don't have an overwhelming urge to have the EVF then the A700 is a viable option at the right price/condition - and you can reconsider your position later.

I have to agree with this analysis. If OVF is important enough to buy an older camera and you don't have a lot invested in A lenses a shift to Nikon would be a smart move.

The A700 has a very good view finder. The sensor is a little old in the tooth, but usable under ISO400 for sure, actually I don't know how the A700 system works, if it has ISO 640 that should be usable too, I think it gets noisy at 800 though.


It also has that joy stick for quick AF select.

It doesn't have the swing screen. this is a very good feature, you'll miss it if you have used some sort of moving screen before.

And it's a DSLR, the A65 is an SLT, there are quite a bit of difference in the 2 system, many have their preference, I own both type of cameras, and to me, they're just tools to make pictures, there are ways around everything if you really want to do it.

If you decide on larger lenses in the future, the all metal body of the 700 and stronger lens mount will do you better.

Since your lens investment isn't all that big! I vote for the A-700! Reason being there are many here who are not using theirs! The A-700 is a joy to shoot! If you like the A-200, you'll love the A-700! Don't be afraid to push the iso on it either! I'm not against the newer tech of the A-65, but some of us enjoy a good challenge! Oh and if you should happen on the A-900(my main machine for portrait and landscape shooting), don't pass it up! These DSLR's (A-700/ A-900/A-850/A-580) are Sony's previous jewels of photography! Should you decide you want a newer cam, you won't be out of much money! Good luck with your decision!

Hmm well if it were down to me, Id pick the a65 and not bat an eyelid, it's got the far superior sensor, and several other features the a700 hasn't got, plus it is newer.

That said its not about me, what will count is the features you value most. The a700 has some key things, an OVF, nice controls and microfocus adjust. To me those are the three main things, apart from that the a65 is better at most things, plus it has a very nice video mode thrown in for free!

I do agree with the suggestions about the a77. Where do you live if you don't mind me asking? Because in the UK you can pick up an a77 for only £590 from the sony outlet store, there was a better deal with it and the 16-50mm ssm but it looks like people gobbled it up.

Alternatively you could check out the a57 or a58, they both offer things that should satisfy you ie, relatively big body, same control layout as a65, and I suppose either one of those could suit you more depending on what features you want. Don't want to confuse you but considering both are cheaper, you might find the body you want and save some cash!

The a77 is by far the best Sony cropped sensor camera for normal light shooting. For a little extra, you get a lot more.

It doesn't have a swing screen because it doesn't have live view. It is usable at 800 but there is some noise. I shot a bunch accidently at 1600 and had pretty decent shots, but they definitely show a lot of noise.

As I've said, I would go with a newer camera due the improvement in sensors but might consider going with a Nikon to get a good viewfinder. While he does have a lot of lenses none of them is really a very high dollar lens and could all be replaced with about three new, higher quality lenses. In fact, I have several of these and my Tamron 18-270 PZD pretty much replaced all of them.

--
Dave

A700 does not have micro adjustment unless he is adventure some and wants to fool with the screws inside the camera.

Hello,

Thanks everyone for your input so far. To answer a previous post, i live on the east cost of the us.

I went to my local computer store today, and they had the a57, a65 and a d5100 on display. I started my venture by examining the a57. Nice feel, evf was ok, and the feature set was nice. Same goes for the a65, but the evf was much better. The d5100 reminded me of my a200. what i didnt like about the a57 or a65 was some of the cameras functions are buried down in the menu system, like macro and sunset settings. With the settings on the dial, it reminds me of a p&s camera. I dont care for panorama or 3d settings being a big deal on the knob. Navigating between movie mode and stills was a little bit of a pain. I also peaked at an a77, very nice, but the price blows me away, way out of y budget right now.

Now for the fun info.....

the a57 was $450 open box, camera and lens only.

the a65 was $550 box, lens and all but battery and charger.

the d5100 was $550 new, single lens.

the a77 was new, 18-55 f2.8 lens for 1500.00

also, if i would go with an a65, i would need fast memory cards and i guess better lenses to take advantage of the camera?????

now an a700 can be had for about $360 shipped fro keh, with battery and charger.

still tuff choice!!

-john

Oh it doesnt?

Well then I suppose it all comes down to how important the OVF, because apart from that and the extra control dial its all the a65.

csxfan said:

csxfan wrote:
Now knowing what I do, and I will definitely pass this to my son for photography classes in school no doubt in a few months with the same camera body, would I be happier with an a700 or an a65. Ive had the chance to play with an a65, but ive always wanted to go the 700 route. low light shooting is next to none, and with the 200, i dont go above iso 400. I want something that i wont out grow, plus make a great camera for my sons schooling. As a note, the a55 is ruled out, too toy like, and i dont like the feel of it. Or would i be better off with going the cookie cutter route of canon or nikon.

Click to expand...

If the photography classes are an important part of the decision I'd expect the classes lessons will fit with the a700 better. And it's a more advanced camera feature wise than the a65 as far as photography uses go. And true DSLR's like it are far more common and far more what the instructors are likely to base their lessons on using.

I use a700s. Macro and nature photography is a big part of what I do in photography and for that I have a big system of lenses and lighting for closeup and macro as well as a wide range of lenses for telephoto. The a700 has been excellent for me and Sony has nothing now in what they offer that suits me better, and plenty that's more limiting.

As far as not outgrowning the a700 has a huge variety of potential for still photography. I've been in photography for over 60 years and DSLR since the early 1990's and there is still more that I try using my a700s that's new photography for me. Even things the a700 is capable of that I've not yet tried.

Just get the body.