Sony A700 worth the $$$$ ?

[craig_sager]

Im looking to buy a DSLR Camera and getting back into the digital world i have

been away from 35 mm for quit some time. I have been reading reviews on all the

brands of cameras and that just confuses me more. I went to my local camera

shop and it seams every time i go in i get a differnt veiw of which camera

would soot my needs. They sell canon, nikon, pentax, olympus, sony. i looked

and held them all and the two cameras that felt really good to hold was the

pentax k10d and the sony a700. My wife and i want to open a Old Time Photo Shop

(if we can find all the cloths for it), plus we want to be able to take it out

in the field for wildlife and macro shots. The only thing i need help with

making a decision is the sony pictures it produses worth the extra $700.00 i

would have to pay? I have also heard that the sony accessories are lacking and

expensive. Hope you guys can help. Thanks for your time. CRAIG

[craig_gillette]

I'd suggest checking on some of the review sites, dpreview, Imaging Resource, and a couple of others and looking at their test images, to see how you feel about them. The different makers have different approaches to how they internally process the images but I kind of doubt that would impact what you are trying to do in the Old time studio. Especially if you are converting them to a B&W or sepia type image and aren't going to really large prints.

 

The Sony (nee KM) system is pretty comprehensive although maybe not item for item comparable to Nikon or Canon. Are you looking to use on camera flash or off camera studio lighting?

[craig_sager]

Craig i plan to use instudio lighting and would you happen to know a nice lens that won't brake my pocket book for that kind of full body portrait?

[al_boid]

The accessories are the problem with Sony. There are only 4 compatible flashes for Sony Digital cameras unless you install an external mount trigger to a program flash system. I bought mine a few months back and wish I would have done more research. You need to know also that Sony just released news on their 35mm 24mp sensor. There is rumor of a A900 in the works. Back to lenses. There are very few lenses available new on the market unless you buy Tamron or Sigma and I am not a fan of either. Primarily because of the horror stories I have read about reliability and service. I have a Tamron lens on my desk that something came loose in and it doesn't zoom but it makes a nice baby rattle. Tamron will charge about 60%of new to fix. Minolta lenses are available on the used market and there is some nice Minolta AF mount lenses. However, the used market has a lot of competition for the good ones. You will pay $600 for a good studio lens on EBAY. I have been using my old Minolta glass, the MD stuff with an adapter using the camera in manual mode with excellent results. There is a guy that modifies the 50mm Minolta f 1:1.2 for use with the Alfa cameras with out an adapter. The three digital cameras that I researched, Sony, Nikon and Canon all have their advantages and disadvantages. I went with Minolta because of my investment in glass which may have not been prudent. If you go with a Nikon D40, the Nikon AF lenses don't work. If you buy the D50, they do. I don't know about the D200. Flash sync is an issue with the Nikon as well. I believe the D50 will sync through all the ranges but the D40 and the D200s will not. Canon lenses are not interchangeable because of the difference in sensor size between the professional series and the semiprofessional. Have to be careful there. I do not know how well the Canon works with old glass. Remember that most new digital cameras come with plastic optics so you are better off getting just the body and searching for a lens. I could have saved $100 by following that advice. I have a lens that I can not and will not use because of noise and color mutilation.

 

I think if I had it to do over again I would have purchased the Nikon D50 or D200 just because of the number of lenses available.

 

I hope this helps

 

Al

[michael_hohner]

There are two Sony flashes, their Minolta counterparts, one announced flash, one macro twin flash, the Minolta counterpart, plus a Minolta ring flash and another fully compatible smaller Minolta flash. This means that there is a total of 9 compatible flashes. How many more does one need?

<p>

Sony currently offers 24 lenses and 2 TCs, and 6 more are announced. One should first check which lenses are available and which are needed before recommending a different brand, based only on the number of lenses. If someone wants an AF 500mm mirror, a 135/1.8 or a 35/1.4 it doesn't help recommending Nikon, even if they have more lenses.

[scott_lewis3]

If you look at what there is available from Sony and then add all that stuff you can use from Minolta, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Sunpac, Metz, and other 3rd party products then the choice is more that you will ever need (plus all at announced stuff that is in development from Sony). Nikon and Canon my have a larger lineup at the moment but how much of that can a normal person afford any way. I'm very happy that I can get lots of great Minolta Glass very cheap on E-bay for exampla the other day I picked up a Dynax 7000 with a flash a 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7 and a 70-210mm f4 for under 100 euro (all in mint condition). Tell me where I can find a 50mm lens or a constant aperture zoom for Canon or Nikon that cheap. I then re sold the camera flash and 28mm and gave the 50mm to a friend.

 

But on the topic of the Alpha 700 its an amazing camera I would recommend going tio a good camera shop near you and tryinf a few different cameras out. Buy the camera the is the most comfortable to use and has a menu system thet is easy to use, as that will play a major roll in your camera use in the future I personally are very very happy with my 700

 

here are a few examples if you want to see a few shots

[scott_lewis3]

ooops sorry wrong link (that was to all my flickr photos : ))

here is the Just alpha 700 stuff

[vrankin]

Wonderful work, Craig! Thanks. That Dynax 7 isn't bad, either. Is it my imagination, or is

the Dynax work a little softer and the A700 a bit more edgy? I like both very much.

[craig_sager]

If i do get the A700 should i go with sony lenses if so which ones. or a third party lens? alot of people are telling me to get the Tamron 18-200 to cover a wide range. I love to do macro and will be doing wildlife.

[scott_lewis3]

If you want just one lens then I guess the 18-200 would serve you well. Personal I'm not a big fan of zooms that cover such a large range. You have to make compromises in f/, image quality and bokeh. I prefer to use prime lenses or zooms over a shorter range that have a fixed aperture (e.g f2.8 or f4), but I have to take a lot more stuff with me when I got out shooting

[douglas_ferling]

The K10D would be ok for the studio stuff, but the A700 has much faster auto focus and better low light ability, so I would get the A700 if you can swing it.

Lens wise, here are some common places to start:

1) for macro- the Sony or Minolta 100mm 2.8 is one of the best macros available. The 50mm 2.8 is good too

2) the Minolta 50mm 1.7 is a great lowlight and portrait lens.

3) Get the Sony or Tamron 18-250, rather than the 18-200. It is a much better performing lens (amazing, considering the range is bigger.) The Sony focuses faster than the Tamron, btw.

4) Konica Minolta or Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is a great all around zoom with lowlight capability.

[steve_c.5]

Actually, I think Al Boid above is a bit incorrect on flashes. I know of three Sony flashes available for the Sony platform, the last of which just came out, but isn't the largest one. Also, the A700 has a built-in PC connector on the side and does not require an external flash trigger for studio work.

 

If you have the bucks to spend, wait for the full frame A900. If you want something now, the A700 should work fine for you.

[james_frater]

Buying a quality lens, flash, etc on Canon and Nikon, will cost you the same or more than Sony in most cases.

 

And the fact is Sony is expanding and expanding rapidly. I have a 7D and will be staying on the band wagon. I bought amazing bargins that the old Konica Minolta users threw away when KM transfered there stuff over to Sony and people thought KM was dead.

[jos_roost]

@ Craig Sager regarding lenses:<br>

I noticed that you mentioned three subjects that you will be photographing:<br>

(1) studio full body portraits<br>

Lenses with a focal length of between 75mm and 135mm are traditionally considered for portrait lenses. But for full-length portraits I would not go longer than 75mm or 85mm. With the digital A700 you have a "magnification" factor of 1.5x, so using e.g. a <b>Minolta or Sony 50mm/f1.7 'standard lens'</b> will give you a field of view comparable to a 75mm lens on a full-frame/film camera, you will have a large aperture, and you should be able to find such a lens relatively cheap second-hand.<br>

(2) Macro<br>

Although many lenses are labeled with the term 'Macro', you should, if you are really serious about this, invest in a "real" macro lens. Possibilities are e.g. Minolta/Sony 100mm/f2.8, Tamron 90mm/f2.8, Sigma 70mm/f2.8 or 105mm/f2.8, but they don't come cheap.<br>

(3) Wildlife<br>

For photographing animals or birds from a distance you need a 'long' lens with at least 300mm focal length (450mm effective on A700), but preferably 400mm (600mm on A700).<br>

A 70/75/100mm-300mm APO zoom lens would be a good start and should be no problem to find.<br>

A 80/100/135mm-400mm APO zoom lens might be better, but will cost you a bit more.<br>

(4) Regarding the 18-200mm or 18-250mm zoom:<br>

It may be a good allround or travel lens, but will definitely not work as a wildlife lens, nor approach the quality of any of the dedicated macro lenses I mentioned above. Also the maximum aperture might be too limited for studio work ('dark' viewfinder).<br><br>

I hope this helps. Certainly, also the Sony/Minolta system gives you more than enough options to consider.

[steve_c.5]

I echo everything Jos Roost said. He's 100% correct.

[ricardovaste]

Well done Jos, glad someone put it straight :-)

[craig_gillette]

Jos has pretty well nailed it.

 

If you are using studio or off camera flash, there's the typical pc connector on the left side - the RRS site shows an L bracket that is relieved a bit to the top and opened up on the side to accomodate the pc connector. As others pointed out, for on camera flash, the Sony uses the Maxxum flash shoe, then again, most makers have different pin-outs so if not using a compatible/proprietary flash, the pc cable is the usual link anyways.

 

I haven't kept up with the recent developments in Minolta/Somy lenses. One thing that looks compelling is the suggestion that the autofocus is faster. I have the 28-70/2.8 G and 100-300 APO D lenses still from my 7D days. They weren't all that "fast" in action on the 7D. I don't know if that would be an issue in studio use, maybe in other situations, there would be some speed increases. I don't do a lot of people shots. The 50mm/1.7 I have is very nice, and you should be able to find one. I'm still undecided about selling my better lenses, my cousin may decide he wants to move up, I may finally get another Sony/Maxxum body at some point.

 

Besides the 50mm 1.7, I'd suggest you might want to consider the 28-75/2.8 either in the KM or, Sony or Tamron incarnation - all quite similar in performance. The 28-70/G may be hard to find used and probably still pretty pricey.

 

The 100-300 APO D is compact and optically a step up from many if not all of the 70/75-300 types. It may be a little hard to find.

 

I'd also agree that the single long zoom range lenses may be a convenient general purpose or travel lenses but they probably aren't the best choice for a portrait studio, besides the slow aperture for vision, you won't have the decreased depth of field that "faster" lenses can offer.

 

Another good source for info is at Dyxum, lots of Minolta and Sony users over there.

[photo-shows]

NO, the SONY A700 is NOT worth the money. Nor is any NIKON or CANON.

When I read that you had been confused by what you heard in the stores, you might be even more confused by the answers.

If you do not have older equipment and want to use it, stick with SONY, PENTAX or OLYMPUS.

Generally, it depends what you want to use the camera for. I would recommend a SONY A100 ( try to get a deal on one~ 500.00, the model is discontinued),or wait for the A350, which you will see in March in the stores - live view and the tilting screen are worth it. I recommend SONY, because the FF is ante portas, and we guys coming from MINOLTA and having lots of MINOLTA quality lenses just can't wait until it is available. If you are getting hooked, you most likely will end up with 2-3 cameras with different sensor size, which allows you to use the camera as a "Converter" with 1:1, 1:1.5 and 1:2 magnification. The good thing versus an optical converter is, that your lens "speed" stays, and optical performance as well.

If you just want to buy 1 quality DSLR, I'll recommend the PENTAX K10D, the best bang for the buck. If you want to build your own system, buy a SONY A100 if you get a deal, add a OLYMPUS E510 and later exchange the A100-200 with the A350 and add the SONY FF when it becomes affordable. I am working momentarily at a system to use one lens at 2-3 different DSLRs with different sensor sizes. Including FF ( I cover this with a 35mm Film MINOLTA)I have 7 different lenses with my "old" MF TAMRON 300mm 2.8 over 600mm 2.8 (E510) to 900mm 5.6 (A100 with MINOLTA 2x M/A Converter-Adapter)

More confused?? Don't worry, just get started, as the rule is in the digital world: Tomorrow everything is cheaper and better!

And as SONY is pretty pricey, you often find a smart way around like Michael Hohner lined out.

Volker Peter Schenk, alphalenses.com (beta)

You can read a preview here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013003sonyalpha1st.asp

The attached pic also is from them.

[steve_c.5]

Well, after reading Schenk's response above 2 or 3 times, I guess what he's saying is to go with the A100. I'd disagree with that, owning one myself. The A100 is much noisier at high ISO, the shutter clunk is loud and sluggish, the menu dial on the upper left is a pain in the butt, the display is hard to see in daylight and not that great, and it's a clunkier camera to use. The A700 is superior in every way. The shutter is fast and quiet, the controls are well-placed, the display is larger and higher resolution, the battery grip is a joy, high ISO performance is clearly better, and images just look better all around. Yeah, I'd say it's worth it.