douglas_ferling

Wait a few more weeks. A couple of more cameras below the Sony A700 are allegedly gonna be announced. The A200 is just the beginning.

Good points, Richard.

Aaron's right. Pixel peeping is the only way to see subtle differences in these cameras.

By the way, go here to look at all of the Sony Alpha stuff coming out soon:

 

http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/08/09/sonys-future-alpha-lenses-and-cameras/

I'm at my day job right now, so I don't have much access to anything to show you, and my gallery uses a lot of different cameras. I promise you that there isn't much of an IQ difference with any of these cameras. Give a great photographer a toy camera, and the image will be beautiful. At this point, it's the camera features, system, and feel that should be your reference point for shopping. This is the only pic I have laying around my work computer (test shot with my girlfriend.)<div></div>

I am saying that both cameras are good, and I chose Sony for my above reasons. IMO the current cameras are rated Nikon D300 > Sony A700 > Canon 40D. This is reflected in their price, so you need to decide what features are most important to you, because you won't have trouble finding the lenses you want with any of the companies. For me, in-body stabilization and the Zeiss AF lenses kept me from getting the more expensive Nikon D300. My Zeiss 85mm 1.4 with stabilization for the A700 is incredible. These three cameras are all so similar that I would recommend handling these cameras in person to decide which you like.

The in-body stabilization returns to default after every use, and, even if, for some VERY unlikely reason, the IS dies, the camera should still be usable. The problem with IS lenses is that people keep lenses for 20 years, but they only keep bodies for a few, so having the IS in your lens die is MUCH more likely (it has happened to many that I know.)

 

The 40D and A700 are both great cameras, and their IQ and performance is very similar. I went A700 because:

1) in body stabilization

2) you can use every AF Minolta SLR lens

3) much better LCD

4) best ergonomics of any camera I've used (especially with optional vertical grip,) and better weather sealing

5) only camera with Zeiss AF lenses (and much, much more coming.)

 

Sony has had a hand in creating everything from 3.5" computer disks to CD and DVD, so always associating them with betamax is laughable, although someone working on the Sony lot like Aaron should know that Sony is far and away number one in the professional movie/video/broadcasting industry (where beta is used.) Unless you have very unusual requirements for your DSLR, I'm sure that you'll find the Sony line has what you'll need.

 

Get the 40D if you think live view is the most important feature in a camera, or if you think the label on your clothes is very important.

http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/08/09/sonys-future-alpha-lenses-and-cameras/

I'm not arguing that the Sony does or doesn't have NR on RAW. It looks to be the case.

What I'm wondering is where it happens in the signal path, and no one is sure yet. I agree

with you that pixel peeping is important in the development of cameras, but not necessarily

in the pictures themselves. Granted, I do not take pictures for scientific value, but I do post-

process, and I haven't had any problems yet.

I apologize for the plasticky comment. I was under the impression that it referred to both RAW and jpeg.

 

As far as the rest. Canon and Nikon both have NR on the chip. We haven't determined whether the Sony NR is hardware (on the chip) as well as software. If the Sony NR issues are just on the chip, I don't think much can be done. If they are software issues, then a firmware update can fix it. So, my point is that I HOPE it's software, not just an implementation of analog NR on the chip, but I'm afraid it's not. Doesn't matter too much to me, because I rarely shoot over ISO 800, and the A700 has the most low ISO resolution of these cameras, but it is interesting. Ultimately, this is such a pixel peeping thing that I don't know how I got wrapped up in this? :)

 

p.s. here is a Sony shooter that manages to do OK with the astrophotography. http://www.astroweb.no/

Yeah, the Nikon version of this new SSM lens is around $1800, and I would imagine that the new Sony will be in the same ballpark. Get the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for a cheaper alternative.

(4b) It is in the manual, he just missed it. I've owned the A700 since September, and I've known this the whole time. Nikon's D300 is base ISO 200 also. (5b) Noise Reduction is inherent in CMOS design. This is why Canon was attacked for "plastic looking" images a few years back. So the question is, is the NR on the sensor like the other cameras, but just not as pleasing to the eye, or is it actually being added in processing? This is the debate, and I hope it's added in processing, so it can be turned off with firmware. Either way, it really only makes a difference at ISO 3200+. The lower ISOs are unaffected.

 

There's a nice little swift-boating campaign going on with the A700 right now. Pretty interesting.

Here is the other link: http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/08/09/sonys-future-alpha-

lenses-and-cameras/

Bill, here I am to the rescue!! :) This lens has just surfaced, and is expected to be

released in the next month or two.

http://www.fotografer.net/isi/forum/topik.php?id=3193669166

 

It is a Carl Zeiss 24-70mm 2.8 and will make everyone except medium format shooters

green with envy. Sony also has a wider zoom, some say 16-35mm 2.8, on it's way as

well. Below is a link to an article about the upcoming Sony lenses. The pic in the article is

an official pic from Sony, and the author gives a rundown on what the lenses will probably

be. Autofocus Zeiss lenses in combination with body stabilization (dpreview's SSS

assesment was a joke) is something no other system has. I have the Zeiss 85mm prime,

and it is unparalleled.

Cool, will you review the Sony when the Full frame model comes out, along with a bunch of new lenses, over the coming months?

 

I came from medium format film, and the Zeiss lenses bring that special something that I think has been missing in DSLRs. The Zeiss AF lenses are the main reason I chose Sony (along with SSS,) and there are more coming soon. Then again, I only shoot with 8-12 lenses, so lens selection isn't a problem for me. I would imagine that someone that needs 30+ lenses would currently have a problem with Sony.

There are a LOT of flaming posts in the forums on dpreview right now because of this review. Many of the results of his test are not mirrored by any of the other review sites. The high ISO difference has been shown many times as negligible between these cameras, and the 1-1.5 stops for stabilization is a joke. He even wrote that the whole body of the camera was plastic (which I believe may have been edited at this point,) and gave the camera an 8 for build quality, which is half a point less than the Canon Rebel! Overall, while it was a thorough review, it is hard to be unbiased with Canikon colored glasses on. If one wants real, technical stats, then this is the place to go: http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result.epl

 

 

p.s. 1.5 stops stabilization! Yeah right! :)

I agree with Barry's assessment, with the possible addition of a gridded light on the background, unless that's just spill from the others.

Agreed. SSM/USM are for silence, not for speed.

I agree, Ilkka. I had a 11mp back for my Hasselblad V's, and I sold that while I could still get good money for it. Right now I'm in an interim mode trying to figure what I'll do next year. A lot of Sony "sources," granted I don't know their worth, are saying around 20MP and $4000. So, it'll be IQ performance similar to the 1Ds III, but in a more economical body. That would solve everything for me, but I know some are looking for less megapixels and better noise performance. ie. the Nikon D3. The new 21MP 1Ds III is competing ok against the 30+ MP backs, so I'll be happy with 20MP and Zeiss lenses on the Sony.

I agree with everything you're saying, Steve...accept one thing.

 

These fullframe sensors have a dynamic range that hands down will beat an APS-C sensor, and dynamic range is the best friend all of wedding photographers (lotta blacks and whites in the clothes.) That's why so many use the Fuji DSLRs. In fact, the one thing that I miss about the inconvenience of my hasselblad and digital back was the DR. Phenomenal.

 

So, even if you don't need the resolution, you may be tempted by the DR. Hopefully, in order to save your pocketbook (and mine too!,) you won't be :)

Well, if the new FF camera ends up being something like 20MP (it will probably be in the same class as the next Canon 5D,) which many are speculating, it would still provide a big image in crop mode, so all the APS-C lenses will still be useable.

 

I believe that Sony has shown their commitment to photography. They've previewed a bunch of new lenses without specs, and they have a lens path that will bring around twenty lenses over the next couple of years. Plus, they've already promised this flagship "A900." All of this after a little over a year in the market.

 

When Sony jumped into the professional video world, they soon became the #1 player in that field. They may or may not be #1 in still photo for a while, but I think they're gonna make a go of it.

Ah, I use my C button for AF area mode.

Hmm... my post earlier didn't show up. So here goes again:

 

D.W., the A700 is better than the 7D in nearly every way. Much faster AF, better build, better IQ, more FPS, bigger screen, better flash system. You name it!

 

As far as the next camera. It will be Full frame, and it will hopefully have a crop mode like the Nikon D3 that allows APS-C lenses as well. Most are guessing a price of $3000-$4000, so better start saving :) If not, the A700 is a great buy. It will become my backup when the A900 comes.

I agree, not having flash exposure comp readily available is the only quip I have with handling, although all you have to do is hit EV button, then joystick down one click, then use scroll wheel to adjust. So, it's not TOO bad.

I would imagine that you just have a bad adapter. I keep a couple of those things around as backup just in case, but I haven't had a problem yet. Send it back.