Why don't more A700 users upgrade to FF?

[Ralf B]

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

 

[Ralf B]

FF itself is no advantage for my shooting.

as it secures the supply of FF lenses. W/O A-Mount FF bodies, no more new FF lens releases, no "sweet spot" advantages any more if then consequently forced to use cropped image circle lenses.... but all hypothetical as FF is here to stay.

Good for you - and all around here. Almost like Disneyland.
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

 

[WaltKnapp]

The a700 crowd is jealous of full frame.

Why should I be jealous of Crippled A Mode and no built in flash?

Walt

 

[Olles]

ok, I am a casual shooter and the A850 is definitely an overkill for me - I know.

But like with everything - once you get used to it you don't want to go back - is like changing from a good mid-size car to a good large car.

The smaller case has in many instances advantages, but nevertheless most of the people prefer the bigger one...

When my beloved Minolta 7D finally died I had to choose A700 or A850, waiting for the A700 replacement was no option.

I opted for later one although I knew it would faster clog up my harddrive, and I was buying a 64 GB card - so quite a bit of additional hardware.

But I have nice Minolta glass from my 800si times (200 apo G, 85G, 50, 28-135 etc.) and I wanted to use the full potiental of these and boy they are worth it!

What I like most is the excellent cropping option - While you have the same object size with the same lens on aps-c with FF you can afterward decide what to crop - an option you don't have with an aps-c.

I never ever used the onboard flash in my live (hate it), don't shoot video, and love a large optical viewfinder - so the A850 waas definitely the way to go.

And believe me, once you have it, you never look back! It's like you enter the big car and wonder how you ever have managed to drive with a small one ;-) Ask the other FF step-up owners, they'll agree...

Werner

 

[Ralf B]

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

 

[3sgilbert]

have a700 plus 16-80cz, ff requires 24-70 or the like, in oztralia that is much $.

To get the equivalent to the 16-80, you would have to have a 24-120. As a full size Zeiss lens, it would be big and expensive.

This statement is only true if you always want an image from your full frame Sony A900 that measures its maximum size of 6048 pixels x 4032 pixels. However, it needs to be remembered that the image size of the Sony A700 is only 4272 pixels x 2848 pixels. So the image size of the A900 is a HUGE 41.6% larger than that of the A700.

Therefore, to make a "fairer" comparison of the A900 with the A700, you could crop an image from the A900 so that it provides the same field of view as you would get from the A700. When you do this, the cropped A900 image will have image dimensions of approx. 3960 pixels x 2640 pixels, as explained here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-s700-s900.html

The reason that the image from the A700 is about 8% larger than the equivalent cropped image from the A900, is because the A700 has a pixel density that is 8% greater than that of the A900.

The general principle is that, when a full sized image from a full frame camera is cropped so that it produces the same field of view as a full sized image from an APS-C camera, provided that the pixel densities of both cameras are the same, the full sized image from the APS-C camera will be the same size as the cropped image from the full frame camera. This principle is demonstrated in more detail here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage.html

In practical terms, if you use, for example, the same 70mm lens on both the A900 and the A700, you can get a cropped image from the A900 that has the same field of view as you get from the A700, and which has an image width of 3960 pixels, in comparison with the image width of 4272 pixels from the A700.

With regard to capturing wider angle images, the A700 is at a considerable disadvantage in comparison with the A900, because it can’t take full advantage of the 70mm lens. With a 70mm lens, the widest focal length that can be captured by the A700 is about 105mm, but the A900 can get a “true” 70mm.

Regards
Rob

How would those numbers skew up with 18mp ala Canon 7D and ITS pixel density vs 24mp a850? I hoping Sony replicates the 7d but with a better sensor and some of the sony traits ive grown accustomed to.
--
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

 

[WaltKnapp]

I broke free of film long ago and am not going back or limiting my digital shooting to film style shooting.

Like in insisting on shooting jpeg as like shooting slide film with the ultimate need to get it right in camera? That sounded limited to old film style when you last discussed it.

Like adapting to using DRO+ in my shooting.

Did you at least try RAW for once in the meantime?
If it did not meet your needs, fine then.

Tried, did not meet my needs. Happy now?

Enjoy clutching at history, I'm moving forward.

Like in insisting on OVF and rejecting mirrorless interchangeable lenses cameras - at least in their current incarnations? What if there will be a 2MP Full HD OLED EVF with 60FPS update rate and DOF preview and MF zoom for macro and and and...?

I reject those cameras on their feature sets and what they can and cannot do. And I don't focus on just one part of the camera and ignore the rest.

These are realistic possibilities like indicated by what Sony - and others - are doing now .

They are imaginings not facts.

Could that change your appreciation of the future possibilities - maybe?

I use new possibilities when they are useful, and don't cripple other necessary features.

Walt

 

[Ralf B]

Did you at least try RAW for once in the meantime?
If it did not meet your needs, fine then.

Tried, did not meet my needs. Happy now?

Indeed. RAW and JPEG are Horses for courses - and as long as it is clear that there are a lot of different courses there is no need to diss any of the two.
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

 

[Steve West]

If Sony introduce both an A7xx and a new (non crippled) FF camera at the same time, for this next purchase, I would probably buy the FF. Yeah it's more sensor than I probably need, but I would buy it nonetheless.

However, if the A7xx precedes the next FF by almost a year, then I will likely buy the A7xx as I will have a hard time waiting. Then there will not be money for a FF purchase (and the cycle repeats just like it did for my A700 purchase).

I won't buy either an A850 or A900 at this point, but a new FF I would be strongly interested in so long as it comes out when the A7xx does or shortly thereafter. I don't care if it has video or not.

In fact, I don't see how you put video on a sensor without compromising it's high ISO performance (just due to heat alone).

If Sony doesn't explain when the next FF will be available for sale shortly after introduction of the A7xx, then I will assume it be a long time and I will buy the A7xx.

But if the A7xx or the next FF have a pellicle, I will not buy that camera until I see enough user feedback to make the decision.

--
Steve W
weather photos: http://home.comcast.net/~scwest/atmo/

 

[garykohs]

I would like my comments to be interpreted in light of the original question. When the A900 came out I considered upgrading but didn't for the reasons I specified.

Would I rather have an A900 than an A700? Absolutely. I think it's better overall. I would miss eye start AF, which I like a lot (although I'd like it better if I could push one button to switch it off and on).

I would like to say that the A700 is not a bad sports camera at all. Given that it's three years old I think it's pretty impressive.
--
Gary

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

Crippled A mode is a minuscule petty reason and pro level bodies do not need a built in flash.

Built in flash is a sometimes nice feature but not a requirement.

--
Run for your lives.

 

[Nordstjernen]

After using the A900 since it was launched I have no problems using the A550, and I think a really good A700 replacement (very fast and accurate AF, MF live view) easily could have replaced my A900.

 

[tom55604]

ok, I am a casual shooter and the A850 is definitely an overkill for me - I know.

But like with everything - once you get used to it you don't want to go back - is like changing from a good mid-size car to a good large car.

The smaller case has in many instances advantages, but nevertheless most of the people prefer the bigger one...

Nope, I wish my A700 was smaller - the size and weight of my Maxxum 7.

But I have nice Minolta glass from my 800si times (200 apo G, 85G, 50, 28-135 etc.) and I wanted to use the full potiental of these and boy they are worth it!

That's a good reason. Although I prefer the non-vignetting I can get with the 28-135 with a hood on the A700 (I realize I am losing the 28mm field of view, but have an other lens that gives me that). The 28-135 w/o flare is a beautiful thing.

What I like most is the excellent cropping option - While you have the same object size with the same lens on aps-c with FF you can afterward decide what to crop - an option you don't have with an aps-c.

I prefer to crop in camera. If I only (or usually) used primes, I would have more use for post exposure cropping, but with zooms, I prefer in camera.

I never ever used the onboard flash in my live (hate it), don't shoot video, and love a large optical viewfinder - so the A850 waas definitely the way to go.

I very rarely use the built in flash for lighting the subject. Sometimes I will use it for casual sunny day fill flash (when I don't want to lug a separate flash around all day), but I usually use it for wireless flash control when I may be carrying 1 or 2 flashes and don't want to or need to carry around a third controlling flash. I wish Sony had at least added a built in wireless flash controller if they didn't want to "downgrade" a pro camera with a useful feature.

And believe me, once you have it, you never look back! It's like you enter the big car and wonder how you ever have managed to drive with a small one ;-) Ask the other FF step-up owners, they'll agree...

It depends on the small car.

tom

 

[WaltKnapp]

Crippled A mode is a minuscule petty reason and pro level bodies do not need a built in flash.

Built in flash is a sometimes nice feature but not a requirement.

For you, maybe, but there are plenty of people for which these are issues that rule out the camera regardless of what size sensor.

Crippled A mode is fixed in the NEX, obviously it's useful to having a fully functional A Mode in NEX.

Walt

 

[OldClicker]

The a700 crowd is jealous of full frame.

Why should I be jealous of Crippled A Mode and no built in flash?

Walt

[WaltFont ]

When you get past your P&S mode of photography, you will see that the built in flash really isn't needed. Advanced photographers have a real flash that can be used both on and off the hot shoe.

I have spent years with (D)SLR cameras and have learned how to take photos without the crutch of Aperture Priority Mode. If you practice, you may get there.

I speak for all advanced photographers when I say that we demand a functional DSLR, not something like the A700 with the crippled S/A/C/MF Focus mode Lever and Multi/Center/Spot Metering Mode Lever. Sony needs to wake up and make these usable features as well as return to the standard hot shoe mount and get rid of that Minolta 'floppy mount'. Do you see Canons and Nikons with floppy mounts?

The Word

[/WaltFont ]

Sorry, all. I just can't pull off that condescending tone like the Master.

TF

 

[goetz48]

I came from film-SLRs via KM A2 and A100 to A700. For me SSS and high ISO are important, and so I am glad with it. If A500/550 would get an improvement I would upgrade in this direction. See some "impossible" shots in my gallery.

 

[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 ... ?

You know trying to lay some kind of guilt trip on a700 users is a poor way to get them to do something.

It's quite clear there are quite a few that don't consider FF a step up, but a step down.

FF lenses work fine on APS cameras and may very well suit those not stuck on 35mm views better by offering alternative framing choices, which can be just as valid as the older overused ones.

Not worth enough for what it costs, FF is an alternative of no more value than APS. Charging more for it is hardly justified.

Walt

 

[Robsphoto]

have a700 plus 16-80cz, ff requires 24-70 or the like, in oztralia that is much $.

To get the equivalent to the 16-80, you would have to have a 24-120. As a full size Zeiss lens, it would be big and expensive.

This statement is only true if you always want an image from your full frame Sony A900 that measures its maximum size of 6048 pixels x 4032 pixels. However, it needs to be remembered that the image size of the Sony A700 is only 4272 pixels x 2848 pixels. So the image size of the A900 is a HUGE 41.6% larger than that of the A700.

Therefore, to make a "fairer" comparison of the A900 with the A700, you could crop an image from the A900 so that it provides the same field of view as you would get from the A700. When you do this, the cropped A900 image will have image dimensions of approx. 3960 pixels x 2640 pixels, as explained here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-s700-s900.html

The reason that the image from the A700 is about 8% larger than the equivalent cropped image from the A900, is because the A700 has a pixel density that is 8% greater than that of the A900.

The general principle is that, when a full sized image from a full frame camera is cropped so that it produces the same field of view as a full sized image from an APS-C camera, provided that the pixel densities of both cameras are the same, the full sized image from the APS-C camera will be the same size as the cropped image from the full frame camera. This principle is demonstrated in more detail here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage.html

In practical terms, if you use, for example, the same 70mm lens on both the A900 and the A700, you can get a cropped image from the A900 that has the same field of view as you get from the A700, and which has an image width of 3960 pixels, in comparison with the image width of 4272 pixels from the A700.

With regard to capturing wider angle images, the A700 is at a considerable disadvantage in comparison with the A900, because it can’t take full advantage of the 70mm lens. With a 70mm lens, the widest focal length that can be captured by the A700 is about 105mm, but the A900 can get a “true” 70mm.

Regards
Rob

How would those numbers skew up with 18mp ala Canon 7D and ITS pixel density vs 24mp a850? I hoping Sony replicates the 7d but with a better sensor and some of the sony traits ive grown accustomed to.

I have made a comparison of the 18mp APS-C Canon 7D with the 21mp full frame Canon 5D Mark II:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-7D-5DII.html

But, from what I can gather reading the Canon forums, people still seem to prefer the larger pixels and better image quality of the 5DII.

Regards
Rob

 

[Richard B.]

er, whatever is wrong with Aperture priority?? I been happy with it for 30+ years, but then I probably never did make it to advanced.

I have spent years with (D)SLR cameras and have learned how to take photos without the crutch of Aperture Priority Mode. If you practice, you may get there.

--
Richard B.
http://www.pbase.com/richard_b

 

[Robsphoto]

To get the equivalent to the 16-80, you would have to have a 24-120. As a full size Zeiss lens, it would be big and expensive.

This statement is only true if you always want an image from your full frame Sony A900 that measures its maximum size of 6048 pixels x 4032 pixels.

I obviously was not clear... I was meaning that it would be a FF lens as well, because we were talking about equivalencies for the A900... or so I thought. Sorry for any confusion.

I think that people who are considering buying the new A7xx will need to think carefully about their lens purchases. I would be inclined to buy only full frame compatible lenses, as this would give you the most flexibility if you later decide to buy FF, or if you already own FF.

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/crop-factor-advantage-s700-s900.html
Analysis of the small pixel density advantage of the A700 compared with the A900