A700 owners...

[beakydave]

WHat about high-ISO performance? (Same according to beakyd).

Erm - no. I said there was little difference, I did not say they were the same. Go and take an English lesson.

And some maths while you're at it

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=33253206

That idiotic statement is what you are going to be remebered for for some time to come

 

[randazzo]

I used to work with Canon but sold everything and switched.

So I don't understand your point. Just using my eyes. Opinions of others don't mean much to me. Facts do. I've got the impression your judgement is solely based on opinions.

--
Today's oppressed become tomorrow's oppressors...

 

[Amirk]

Ken

I assume you know another A700 FUDBOY... who loves that review also.

Are you claiming that you know more about the review than the person (Phil Askey) who wrote it?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/page17.asp

"Overall the DSLR-A700's performance trails both the Nikon D300 and Canon EOS 40D although does seem better than the Olympus E-3. What's clear is that Sony are using a fair amount of luminance noise reduction (too much) when we'd prefer it to concentrate on chroma NR and leave some 'texture' in the shots."

As for poor jpeg engine, isn't that just one more reason to avoid A700? Why would I buy a camera with poor jpeg engine?

 

[Amirk]

beaky

Erm - no. I said there was little difference, I did not say they were the same. Go
and take an English lesson.

Yawn ... Post something substantial, beakyd. Your 4-year old quibblings got boring a long time ago.

 

[beakydave]

Erm - no. I said there was little difference, I did not say they were the same. Go
and take an English lesson.

Yawn ... Post something substantial, beakyd. Your 4-year old quibblings got boring a long time ago.

Well how about you posting somethiing that is accurate? At least this '4 year-old' understands ISO steps. Unlike someone not too far from here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=33253206

 

[Mike CH]

By the way, go ahead buy A700. You are free to waste your money anyway you want, but you are not free to demand that only certain posters post in threads here.

That's a rare one, even from you, since you have been doing exactly that, yourself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Regards,
Mike
--
I'd prefer my DSLR without video, thank you.

 

[Mike CH]

I'm thinking about getting an A700 sometime soon. I was trying to decide between it and the 550, but after holding the 700 and looking through the VF, I pretty much made up my mind. However, one thing that niggles at me is the one major area where the 550 beats the 700 - IQ at high ISO. I know that both cameras have superior performance to my A200, but maximum IQ is always important.

So, to you A700 users out there, I ask you: what is the highest ISO you comfortably use? For example, the highest I normally go with my A200 is ISO 400 - I very, very rarely go to 800+. So, what's your limit?

3200





(these had quite a bit of chroma in RAW, but the export and downsizing to JPG took care of most of it)

1600



800



But i normally use a tripod and stay at 200.

EDIT: Oh, I use Lightroom.

Regards,
Mike
--
I'd prefer my DSLR without video, thank you.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

I try to stick with ISO 4000 or lower whenever possible.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

 

[Amirk]

Mike

(these had quite a bit of chroma in RAW, but the export and downsizing to JPG
took care of most of it)

Exactly. If we are goiing to reduce the size for web, then even a p&s photo would look good enough.

The question is whether A700 high ISO is better than A200, and according to beakyd, they are EXACTLY EQUAL.

Here is p&s SX10 ISO 1600

 

[Ken_5D]

I assume you know another A700 FUDBOY... who loves that review also.

Are you claiming that you know more about the review than the person (Phil Askey) who wrote it?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/page17.asp

"Overall the DSLR-A700's performance trails both the Nikon D300 and Canon EOS 40D although does seem better than the Olympus E-3. What's clear is that Sony are using a fair amount of luminance noise reduction (too much) when we'd prefer it to concentrate on chroma NR and leave some 'texture' in the shots."

As for poor jpeg engine, isn't that just one more reason to avoid A700? Why would I buy a camera with poor jpeg engine?

You shouldn't buy it ... Lightroom or any RAW tool is way to hard for someone like you to fugure out. stick with printing your jpgs at the Wallgreens..

--
---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Mike CH]

(these had quite a bit of chroma in RAW, but the export and downsizing to JPG
took care of most of it)

Exactly. If we are goiing to reduce the size for web, then even a p&s photo would look good enough.

Yes. And?

The question is whether A700 high ISO is better than A200, and according to beakyd, they are EXACTLY EQUAL.

Are we getting close to Thanksgiving?

Regards,
Mike
--
I'd prefer my DSLR without video, thank you.

 

[domk275]

Questions

Since All cameras will give you simluar results at low ISO.. high ISO has become the review whipping horse.

How often do you shoot over ISO 1600?

I think I have around twenty decent photos out of a couple thousand at > 1600. But, this isn't because I never need high ISO. It's because I'm scared to go beyond 400 due to the effects on IQ.

How large do you print your high ISO shots and what are they for?

I don't print too much, but I'm gonna try to start doing it more, once I've got some decent paper for my printer and set up some colour profiles. In terms of size, most of my prints will be 6x4, though I'll probably do a few larger. All my prints are just for personal use.

Thanks for the help

 

[Wirralpix]

I've shot a couple of weddings with the A700 without flash and the highest ISO that I'm comfortable with in the church is 800. I'm sure there will be many who regularly use higher and are satisfied.

George

 

[Amirk]

Ken_5D

You shouldn't buy it ... Lightroom or any RAW tool is way to hard for someone
like you to fugure out. stick with printing your jpgs at the Wallgreens..

I see, so if I buy a $1000 camera, I must never use jpeg and be forced to ONLY use RAW since jpeg engine of A700 sucks? Thanks a lot, dude. That really makes me go out and buy A700 (NOT!).

And we have been over jpeg vs RAW threads
( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm )

There are many benefits of shooting jpegs (time, speed, space), but I must give that up after I buy $1000 A700?

Thanks, but no thanks

 

[domk275]

Exactly. If we are goiing to reduce the size for web, then even a p&s photo would look good enough.

I disagree. That photo has tons of ugly chroma blotches. They're subtle, yes, but visible, and distracting, nonetheless.

 

[Amirk]

domk275

I disagree. That photo has tons of ugly chroma blotches. They're subtle, yes, > but visible, and distracting, nonetheless.

Keep in mind that was ISO 1600 by SX10 (not known as among the best high ISO p&s). ISO 1600 is a real stretch for any p&s and even then reduced size is still usable for web. The point being, everything looks good when you reduce the size. That doesn't answer the question whether A700's high ISO is better than A200 (they are equal, according to beakyd and jullien).

 

[domk275]

I disagree. That photo has tons of ugly chroma blotches. They're subtle, yes, > but visible, and distracting, nonetheless.

Keep in mind that was ISO 1600 by SX10 (not known as among the best high ISO p&s). ISO 1600 is a real stretch for any p&s and even then reduced size is still usable for web. The point being, everything looks good when you reduce the size. That doesn't answer the question whether A700's high ISO is better than A200 (they are equal, according to beakyd and jullien).

yes, I know. And while the photo is usable, I wouldn't say it's particularly good.

 

[domk275]

This thread has gotten completely sidetracked. I ask all posters to forget our various arguments with Amirk, and concentrate on the original purpose of this thread. It's far too easy to get into long-winded arguments with the likes of Amirk, but I'd greatly appreciate it if everyone just forgot about it and got back to the matter at hand.

Thanks.

--

I'd love to engage in a battle of the wits with you, but it you appear to be unarmed.

 

[beakydave]

The question is whether A700 high ISO is better than A200, and according to beakyd, they are EXACTLY EQUAL.

Throw insults around if you want but stop making stuff up in an attempt to win an argument. Post a link to where I said that. Go on - give us another laugh.

 

[domk275]

I try to stick with ISO 4000 or lower whenever possible.

And do you find the IQ at ISO 4000 good, or only just usuable?

Thanks again.