40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

Started Sep 5, 2007 | Discussions
lcmacedo Veteran Member • Posts: 3,425
40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

...

After a rough Photoshop work, here are them side by side, aproximately at same scale.

... Lucas
--
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix
Always having fun with photography ...

ck3
ck3 Senior Member • Posts: 2,925
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

Thanks, let me guess, you used the LCD-size to scale the images

Carsten

joel avery
joel avery Senior Member • Posts: 1,703
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

Hmm, the Canon looks more in focus, smoother, less pixelly..... I think I'll by that one instead.

joel*

 joel avery's gear list:joel avery's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a7R II +8 more
mezman Contributing Member • Posts: 963
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

Good work.

That A700 looks kinda boxy in comparison doesn't it. And it didn't occur to me until looking at that, but it's the only midrange cam to not have a top LCD. But I suppose the 40D and D300 both need another place to read off settings while in live view and the A700 doesn't. Maybe that can be a source of cost savings?
--
Good luck and good light.
http://www.kennedyphotography.net

dkloi Senior Member • Posts: 1,952
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

After a rough Photoshop work, here are them side by side,
aproximately at same scale.

The Canon should be larger to match the screen's size with the Sony. The Nikon LCD is not the same apsect ratio of the Sony either, strangely.

The Alpha 700 dimensions
141.7x104.8x79.7mm, 690g w/o battery, 768g with battery

Canon 40D
146 x 108 x 74 mm, 822g with battery

Nikon D300
147 x 114 x 74 mm, 826g without battery

KM 7D
150 x 106 x 78 mm, 760g without battery

Apart from depth (presumably due to the grip), the Alpha 700 is the most svelte of the bunch.

Cheers,
Daniel.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 dkloi's gear list:dkloi's gear list
Sony RX100 II Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony a5100 Sony a7 III Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +22 more
OP lcmacedo Veteran Member • Posts: 3,425
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

dkloi wrote:

After a rough Photoshop work, here are them side by side,
aproximately at same scale.

The Canon should be larger to match the screen's size with the Sony.
The Nikon LCD is not the same apsect ratio of the Sony either,
strangely.

The Alpha 700 dimensions
141.7x104.8x79.7mm, 690g w/o battery, 768g with battery

Canon 40D
146 x 108 x 74 mm, 822g with battery

Nikon D300
147 x 114 x 74 mm, 826g without battery

KM 7D
150 x 106 x 78 mm, 760g without battery

............................................................

As per the site
http://www.virusphoto.com/13911-sony-a700-enfin.html

the A700 measurements are:

142 x105 x 80 mm, 690g w/o battery

It seems the smaller of the three...

... Lucas

-- hide signature --

You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix
Always having fun with photography ...

OP lcmacedo Veteran Member • Posts: 3,425
Sorry, I had problems with the image host ...

...
please look at :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=24701063

... Lucas
--
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix
Always having fun with photography ...

dkloi Senior Member • Posts: 1,952
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

After a rough Photoshop work, here are them side by side,
aproximately at same scale.

The Canon should be larger to match the screen's size with the Sony.
The Nikon LCD is not the same apsect ratio of the Sony either,
strangely.

The Alpha 700 dimensions
141.7x104.8x79.7mm, 690g w/o battery, 768g with battery

Canon 40D
146 x 108 x 74 mm, 822g with battery

Nikon D300
147 x 114 x 74 mm, 826g without battery

KM 7D
150 x 106 x 78 mm, 760g without battery

As per the site
http://www.virusphoto.com/13911-sony-a700-enfin.html

the A700 measurements are:
142 x105 x 80 mm, 690g w/o battery
It seems the smaller of the three...

Yes, that was what I was getting at. You need to rescale the 40D in your comparison so that it bigger, the screen in your current picture is too small. the A700 has a screen 256x197px, the 40D 244x185px, hence you need to rescale your 40D pic 5% to match the 3" LCD screen sizes. The Nikon screen is 248x189px so the D300 should be rescaled 3%.

The Alpha 700 is quite trim compared to the other two it seems. I was hoping for something smaller than the 7D, easier to pack.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 dkloi's gear list:dkloi's gear list
Sony RX100 II Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony a5100 Sony a7 III Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +22 more
Mark K
Mark K Veteran Member • Posts: 6,568
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

Kinda disappointed.......after comparing
1. fps
2. live view feature
3.weather proof feature
4. storage options.........I want SD slot and I want MS duo slots

etc etc
--
Mark K
http://forev.net/markk

 Mark K's gear list:Mark K's gear list
Nikon D800 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony a6000 Nikon D500 Sony a99 II +71 more
dkloi Senior Member • Posts: 1,952
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

Kinda disappointed.......after comparing
1. fps

Do you need more than 5fps?

2. live view feature

Is this crucial?

3.weather proof feature

It has sealing.

4. storage options.........I want SD slot and I want MS duo slots

It has a MS Duo slot. Get an SD-CF converter if you must.

etc etc

I assume you're trying to be funny.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 dkloi's gear list:dkloi's gear list
Sony RX100 II Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony a5100 Sony a7 III Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +22 more
Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 19,797
thanks for dimensions/weight comparison

dkloi wrote:

The Canon should be larger to match the screen's size with the Sony.
The Nikon LCD is not the same apsect ratio of the Sony either,
strangely.

The Alpha 700 dimensions
141.7x104.8x79.7mm, 690g w/o battery, 768g with battery

Canon 40D
146 x 108 x 74 mm, 822g with battery

Nikon D300
147 x 114 x 74 mm, 826g without battery

KM 7D
150 x 106 x 78 mm, 760g without battery

Apart from depth (presumably due to the grip), the Alpha 700 is the
most svelte of the bunch.

Thanks for researching this! I'm glad to see these dimensions and weight. I was worried it would be as big and heavy as the 40D or D300. For backpack travel smaller and lighter is better. At other times I don't mind the 40D/D300 size.

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Mark K
Mark K Veteran Member • Posts: 6,568
expectations

Daniel
I am getting one anyway but my expectations were raised by other cameras

1. fps will be very useful for shooting sport and animals. I have to see the AF system. Nikon has made tremendous effort in improving their AF system one camera after the other. If there is NO professional fast shooter for sport and wildlife camera, A700 will be the one.

2. Live view: will be nice if shooting under water for me. Have just started my new world exploring the possibility of doing some diving. All other accessories are extremely expensive including underwater housing, strobes, flash, etc etc.

3. Sorry for having missed this point. I understand that both are available in 40D and D300. This is not a crucial point. We had one experience of getting a bug in the viewfinder of D200.

4. CF remained expensive, at point of 8Gb or above. I thought SD and MS duo offer better read/write speed as well. Adapters tend to compromise performance as well.

Other nice feature I love to have is

1. HDMI output
2. GPS integration
3. Better flash system
4. Much improved AF speed and accuracy
5. Upgrade roadmap including cameras and glass

dkloi wrote:

Kinda disappointed.......after comparing
1. fps

Do you need more than 5fps?

2. live view feature

Is this crucial?

3.weather proof feature

It has sealing.

4. storage options.........I want SD slot and I want MS duo slots

It has a MS Duo slot. Get an SD-CF converter if you must.

etc etc

I assume you're trying to be funny.

Cheers,
Daniel.

-- hide signature --
 Mark K's gear list:Mark K's gear list
Nikon D800 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony a6000 Nikon D500 Sony a99 II +71 more
mark victor Contributing Member • Posts: 983
Re: 40D, D300 & A700 side by side ( 2342x1661 pix )

dkloi wrote:

Kinda disappointed.......after comparing
1. fps

Do you need more than 5fps?

The more the better if you shoot fast unpredictable action sport.

2. live view feature

Is this crucial?

A dream feature to many SONY prosumer DC users (F-series, R-series).

3.weather proof feature

It has sealing.

That depends on the price level. If the price level is high enough to match the D300, I would love to have it.

4. storage options.........I want SD slot and I want MS duo slots

It has a MS Duo slot. Get an SD-CF converter if you must.

People upgrade from DCs (especially those from other brands) may want to use their existing SD cards. Many HDTVs and Laptops has media drive that takes SD only. SD-CF converter increases the possiblitiy of contact failure.

etc etc

I assume you're trying to be funny.

Not neccessarily

Cheers,
Daniel.

-- hide signature --

Mark
EOS 5D + 30D + BG-E4
EF 70-200/2.8L IS
EF 17-40/4L
EF-S17-55/2.8 IS
EF 50/1.4 USM
580 EX II Speedlight
EF 85/1.2 L II

Coming: 40D
Later: 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS
Waiting 24-70/2.8 L IS

KM 5D, 7D+grip, 70-200/2.8 G SSM, 17-35/3.5 G, 28-70/2.8G 300/2.8 G HS, 80-200/2.8 G HS, 1.4 APO II, 2.0 APOII, Beercan, Big Beercan, KM28-75/2.8, KM17-35, KM 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.7, 35/2, sigma 10-20, sigma 17-35...

dkloi Senior Member • Posts: 1,952
Re: expectations

I am getting one anyway but my expectations were raised by other cameras

Didn't know where you were coming from. The problem is, we evaluate things by what we want, not what we really need.

2. Live view: will be nice if shooting under water for me. Have just
started my new world exploring the possibility of doing some diving.
All other accessories are extremely expensive including underwater
housing, strobes, flash, etc etc.

Then you may have to go to the system that works for this application. Considering the expense of everything else, a D300 and 105mm VR would be a drop in the ocean :-).

4. CF remained expensive, at point of 8Gb or above. I thought SD and
MS duo offer better read/write speed as well. Adapters tend to
compromise performance as well.

Just checked, £77 for CF 8GB Extreme III, about as much as I paid for 4GB Extreme II a year ago. A 16GB CF is less than twice as expensive. Can you get SD higher than 8GB? As for write speeds, looking at the Sandisk website, fastest CF is about twice as fast as fastest SD or MS.

Other nice feature I love to have is

1. HDMI output

It has HDMI output, though it's that useful for me.

2. GPS integration

Doesn't work underwater :-).

3. Better flash system

Amen

4. Much improved AF speed and accuracy

If reports are to be believed, speed is up to Dynax 7 speeds. If so, then I'd be ecstatic.

5. Upgrade roadmap including cameras and glass

Nikon and Canon don't. Sony have announced a higher spec camera, and we have a slew of lenses to come. Exact specs may not be available but you can make educated guesses.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 dkloi's gear list:dkloi's gear list
Sony RX100 II Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony a5100 Sony a7 III Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +22 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads