Why don't more A700 users upgrade to FF?

[SchorschB]

Too big, too heavy, no flash.

If they could bring one that compares in size and weight to my old Maxxum 9000 I'd buy one.

--
Georg
-

Minolta 9000, 9xi, 5D, Sony A700. 17-35mm f2.8-4, 50mm f1.4, 24-105mm, 70-300mm G, 100-300mm APO, 500mm f8 Reflex. Metz 45CL-4 digital, Sony HVL-42

 

[NorthPentax]

Too big, too heavy, no flash .

Fullframe body with built-in flash smells like a consumer product

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

 

[3sgilbert]

Im still new to photography but let me answer it like this.......all the reasons for the question you ask can be answered by the Canon 7D and its success....simple as that....

Why did Canon feel the need to build this camera? Why did DPR give it almost a perfect score? Why is it successful in terms of performance, sales, and perception? Those answers are the reasons the absence of an enthusiast APS-C camera in the Sony lineup is harshly criticized and the reasons we didnt herd to FF ( although at 5fps the 850 would have been tempting ) we are waiting for our Canon 7d and it does 100% VF as well.

For me specifically its a lens and reach thing.... I mainly bird, wildlife, and this winter sports shoot but my taste are evolving as i learn more... an 18mp APS-C with low noise, high FPS, and fast AF ( more cross type too ) is my dream to replace my a700. Get this I would pay what the a850 is selling for to get it as well....because it fits MY needs......

I truly believe Sony thought the a700 users would flock to the a850 as their upgrade path ( indeed i might have tried it had the fps not been nuttered ).
--
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

 

[clarkt]

I'd like to have both cameras actually. Each one has its strengths. Some say you can't tell the difference in IQ for web pics. I disagree. FF images compared side by side to cropped sensor images of equal dimensions definitely have a more refined look to them. Something to be desired I'd say, if you can afford it.

But I have to upgrade my computer before I go to FF. First things first.

 

[3up1down]

Money! and my P4 computer would choke on those files. Not enough affordable primes. But I still want one!

 

[Wirralpix]

Too heavy, too big, too expensive, too many pixels, no flash, expensive lenses, waiting for the A7XX.

I'm getting good use out of the A700 but while I've been waiting for the A7XX to be released I've spent my money on better lenses instead. That decision alone has improved the image quality out of the A700 without upgrading to FF.

The only advantage that FF has over the A700 that I can think of is the better viewfinder and DOF which is not enough to tempt me to part with £1600 for the A850 but if a cheaper FF with a built in flash and fewer pixels were available I may buy in future.

George
http://www.wirralpix.com

 

[Cetonid]

My take:

• no built in flash. I can't do wireless without buying an additional controller with the 2 '36' flashes that I have.
• lower pixel density than I have in APS-C and I'm a crop happy macro/wildlife shooter. High ISO need not apply... just bring on more pixel density for more resolution. A 32 - 35MP FF would be interesting, but cost would most likely kill it for me.
• Cost. Why pay more for what I don't need? I don't make large prints, so I don't need to pay for the bigger components that I don't need.

Larger size of FF is OK. I don't rellish the thought of any more shrinkage of APS-C camera body sizes. Hopefully the tiny hands crowd goes with NEX. My lenses aren't getting smaller, so I don't need tiny cramped bodies.

--

 

[Dave_Anderson]

...or any APS-C camera, for that matter. When A-mount DSLRs first came out, they cost far more than I was willing or able to pay... think RD-175. Naturally, the price came down, but for me the fatal flaw was always the crop sensor. I never liked the way my trusty old lenses behaved on APS-C and I never liked the viewfinders. I picked up a decent P&S for my snapshot/web posting needs and bided my time, hoping for a FF sensor in A-mount.

I shot a lot less film over the years as I became involved in other hobbies, with the P&S serving for snapshots and the film cameras relegated to special occasions. When the a900 came out it was like a breath of fresh air, and it has re-ignited my decades-old passion for photography.

Two sides to every coin...

 

[Henry Richardson]

DK wrote a good article that covers many of the reasons:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/16/do-you-really-need-an-alpha-900/

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Malcolm Turner]

Nobody seems to have mentioned lens range?

My"standard" lens on the A700 is the CZ16-80 (24 - 120 in FF terms) AFAIK, there isn't a 24-120 lens available for the 850 or 900. So immediately I'd need to carry more lenses - more cost and weight. And as for the lack of flash - someone else has pointed out needing to buy a separate flash controller for FF - the pop-up flash controls my flashes fine thank you. And if I do my bit, and get the shot right, the A700 will do anything I need. If I was a wedding/portrait pro and might want to pull shots up to 3' x 2' then I would go FF. For the general photography I do, the A700 is pretty well perfect thank you.

 

[OldClicker]

The only valiid reason for me is cost and that's what is keeping me shooting cropped. $2k is still a lot of money for a camera body.

Two 'reasons' I really don't understand -

Cost of new lenses - The lenses you have will give you an image as good or better than they do now. Don't you like the current image???

Increased 'range' of the cropped image - Don't even go there. If I tape off another 1/2 the area of my A700 sensor will my 300mm lens then be a 675mm? Why stop there? I'm going to start selling 'sensor tape' on ebay for all those that think they get more 'reach' from a smaller sensor - maybe even some Zoom Tape!

TF

 

[gipper51]

I would have to disagree with the myth that you NEED the best glass for FF. True the best glass makes a difference, but that's the case on any system. After I switched to a Canon 1Ds I bought the old Canon 28-135IS for it and I was surprised at how good the lens was on FF. Wide open it was very sharp in the center for portraits, and stopped down it was crisp corner to corner. I would imagine many of the old Minolta lenses on a Sony FF would do better than most here believe. Even the dirt cheap ones like the 28-85, 100-200 and 35-105 would probably produce great results.

Yes we all want Zeiss glass to go with our FF bodies, but there's plenty of budget glass that will perform admirably. I've found FF requires more care in focusing to avoid issues like corner softness than APS-C did.
--
Newest galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/architectural

 

[NorthPentax]

Too heavy, too big, too expensive, too many pixels, no flash, expensive lenses

127gr. heavier than A700. Great size for a FF dSLR. Mine was cheap. Lots of pixels equals cropping possibilities. Hotshoe falsh is better. Sony lenses are expensive, but good Minolta lenses are not.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/

The only advantage that FF has over the A700 that I can think of is the better viewfinder and DOF

Yes, and...
-24,6MP FF and 11MP APS-C camera in one body.
-50mm has 50mm FoV.
-Wide angle photography-> CZ 16-35 or the a cheaper KM 17-35 / Tamron 17-35

Nobody seems to have mentioned lens range?

My"standard" lens on the A700 is the CZ16-80 (24 - 120 in FF terms) AFAIK, there isn't a 24-120 lens available for the 850 or 900.

You can use CZ16-80 on A900/850.

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

 

[WaltKnapp]

Why doesn't more A700/APS-C users step up to FF? Lack of attractive FF lenses? Is a FF system too expensive for most advanced amateurs? Or ... ?

For me it would be a step down, not up. I rejected the a900 for it's feature set when it first came out and that's not changed. The a850 is the same. And even if that lessor feature set were not a problem, FF itself is no advantage for my shooting.

Walt

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Hi,

in first place because the A700 is doing fine and going the FF-way costs more money than the body only. It's lenses it's computing and storing capacity...

I was seriously thinking about getting an A850 but your thoughts and your comparison made me reconsider. What would those MP be good for in my work? Working with and storing the A700's files is ok but how would this be with the huge A900/A850 files? The step up is not discarded definitely but first I'll wait what news Photokina and/or Sony bring in September. When there's an upgrade for the A700 perhaps this is the better way to go. But it will depend a lot of what Sony will launch. If the sucessor will come with LV, video and other features which I don't care for, besides a higher MP count and this means a price about or over the price of the A700 when it came out, the A850 as "photographer's tools" can be preferable again.

--
Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

 

[WaltKnapp]

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.

Your view is shared by many AA and even pro shooters.

That's why it was just a little surprising you starting this thread.

Walt

 

[WaltKnapp]

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

If you consider crippled A mode, no flash, extra weight, dwindling reach for wildlife shooting, less resolution in macro (where l/mm on the sensor does count) I'd say the FF cameras are half the quality of the a700.

They are most certainly the same generation of camera, and if the a700 is obsolete, then so are the a900 and a850. Why buy a obsolete camera at this point?

Walt

 

[Framer]

asgbaergbuo;erngerhng

 

[WaltKnapp]

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.

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.

More than 15 years ago I left SLR film for DSLR. And for the first ten years that was a three sensor camera with a multiplier of 2X. By the end of that time I was thoroughly at home with what my lenses did on that camera and 35mm frame with those lenses was a fading memory of little interest. In those days there were only what's misnamed FF lenses and that's what I used.

With the advent of the 7D I had to adapt to the 1.5x multiplier. Took a while to get at home with this loss of reach, but I'm now thoroughly at home with this multiplier. In fact I don't think of multiplier at all as what my lenses do on my a700s is what I know very well, not what they might do on 35mm film (or digital) as those are now over 15 years gone in the mists of my history. I don't hang on to film SLRs in spite of what some think, I'm one of the earliest adapters of DSLR and that's all of it.

Now as far as lenses, the majority of my lenses are so called FF. Though what I call them is high quality, which is why I bought them. I buy lenses based on what I need on the cameras I use. So don't even pay attention to the FF/DT designations, but to lens quality.

I think a lot of folks think that their talent as a photographer will be magically improved by buying a FF camera. It won't, if you are a poor photographer now, buying FF will just make you a poor photographer using FF. And if your technique and knowledge is good moving to FF won't make it better. In fact it will set you back some as you have to learn a new system. Good technique and knowledge come from shooting lots and studying what you get. Good equipment is necessary, but does not transform the photographer.

Walt

 

[goetz48]

I seldom shoot landscape but more architecture (most inside) and museums (objects often in terrible optical presentation). Additionally most of my lenses are APS-C only. Therefore I often shoot resolution reduced to 7 Mpixel. But that a lot (nearly 20 000 shots a year).