Sonolta wrote:rush2112 wrote:Don, you sure are a tornado of replies. Look, one thing at a time. My goodness man calm and easy.
You are trying to compare an aps advantage to an ff advantage, and they are like I said - oil and water.
I have been saying this from the beginning!
You act like im trying to talk you into the A900 or something. I said to keep your A700 for what you do and that it is probably the best solution for what you do, so what gives?
No..I am 'educating' posters that think the a900 is the end all for all photographers..IE: 24MP is everything.
Bottom line they cannot be cross compared without equal lenses with the exact same FOV because such lenses do not exist for APS and FF, because they are designed differently for APS than they are for FF obviously.
No, for my needs they are properly compared using the same lenses as those are the lenses that I already own. I just proved the a700 NEEDS plenty of $$$ in expensive glass to match the a700's performance in many areas that I shoot. You stated earlier that expensive glass was not needed. With the beercan I just showed you that I could get a better or equal result with the a700....if we went into available light macro shooting I would be able to pick on the a900 for a while because of the diminished DOF.
The A900 has more resolution at a given FOV, that is my point.
My point has been that the a900 does not automagically produce better images or more resolution. It is not always easier to obtain hand held long focal length shots with, and it is not easier to shoot hand held ambient light macros with. I could go on but I will leave it here for now.
The only FOV I see is what I see through the dozen plus A-Mount lenses that I own. If you want more resolution at the equivalent FOV then many here will need to spend HIGH DOLLARS on some new long lenses, new mid range primes, and new general purpose zooms. I shoot my 80-200 2.8 at 200 almost exclusively...how much will that 120-300 2.8 zoom cost me? The 200 2.8? The 115-315 f4? The Bigma? The new Minolta G's? You see, I get almost no performance increase in many areas of my photography without dropping 5K or more on new lenses and 3K on the body.
Then I will still need more memory, more storage, more powerful computers, more backups, a large monitor, more processing time, heavier gear, massive tripods, a flash just to control wireless, no eye-start AF, less DOF, and at times I will need to stop down more, etc. etc. etc.
Don, where in my replies to you did I say the A900 was an end all camera? There is not such thing. In fact, I started off by saying that what the A900 was designed for, it mostly does excellently. That is full frame digital still photography, not aps-c photography, not Don available lenses photography, or any of that.
Perhaps you were replying to others and not what I said? In that case, lets keep our convo between what you and I say its much less confusing that way.
So basically we have come to the conclusion that the A900 does FF well and the A700 does APS-C well.
But we knew that already, so this was really just a big waste of time