A850 your advice would be appreciated

[OLDMAN BJ]

Hello everyone,

I'm a newbie here but plan on being around for a while. At the moment I'm using an Sony DSC-R1,( a great lens by the way ) and as I'm semi retired and would like to get back into my photography more seriously (mostly landscape) I plan on buying into the Sony system with a DSLR.
My next purchase is going to have to do me for quite a few years, and I was actually thinking of buying a A700 with some lenses. However, since Sony announced the A850 I must admit I'm really keen.
However I need your advice. I really only print out to a maximum of A3 in size and I can't afford a larger printer, so given this restraint, would I see a difference in quality between the A850 and the A700 all other things being equal? ie, assuming good quality lenses used on both cameras. I'm talking here mainly for landscape work, but I also like to photograph my grandchildren.

Also, if anyone has experience of using the Sony 20mm 2.8 prime on say the A900/850 are they a good match for quality output?
I'm sure if you wanted to pixel peep on your screen you could tell the difference between the A700 and A850, but I'm more concerned with print out quality.

Anyway, thanks in advance for any feedback.

John

[bakubo]

Welcome to the forum!

A3 is 297mm × 420mm or 11.7 inches × 16.5 inches so assuming no cropping I think the A700 would be fine for you. I am sure David or someone else with both the A700 and A900 can tell you better though. You might check this very good article by David too:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/.../2008/ ... alpha-900/

[KevinBarrett]

The a700 opens up a larger selection of lenses with which to work. By far, the best lenses are made for full-frame, but one can't always afford full-frame lenses, and an APS-C camera can still use them if you've got them. As someone who shoots an a700, I'll tell you that the a850 has me interested just for the amazing viewfinder. I don't want or need as many pixels as it offers, but what justifies the 2x price difference between the a700 and the slower a850, is the viewfinder. The viewfinder fitted to the Sony a850 is beat only by the $2700 Sony a900 and the $6400 Canon 1Ds MkIII.

Nikon D700 - 95%, 0.72x
Canon 5D mkII - 98%, 0.71x
Nikon D3/D3x - 100%, 0.7x
Sony a850 - 98%, 0.74x
Sony a900 - 100%, 0.74x
Canon 1Ds MkIII - 100%, 0.76x

[01af]

While at A3 print size the A850/A900 won't be able to unfold its full potential, you'll still be able to see a difference in favour of the larger format. However the difference would be subtle and noticable only upon careful inspection with a knowing eye---similar to the difference between A3 prints from carefully processed 35-mm film and medium-format film---so I'd say it's not really worth the outlay.

Still, the A850/A900 have qualities that go beyond sheer image quality. In particular the gorgeous viewfinder really transforms the act of taking photographs, compared to an APS-C-format DSLR. That's nothing you really need in order to take great images ... but it's nice, it's helpful, and it's fun. Of course, it's still a lot of money to pay just for that. Anyway, since I bought my A900 a few months ago, I am shooting more than twice as many frames per month as ever before (my previous camera was the Dynax 7D ... two of them actually).

Finally, the A850/A900 has AF micro-adjustment which I believe is an essential feature sine qua non for any DSLR camera. I will NEVER buy a DSLR camera again without it. And lack of it is my most significant reservation against the A700---which is just a great camera otherwise. Not all lenses need it, but some really turn from good to excellent with one or two notches of fine-adjustment. Lenses are too expensive to use them mis-focused all the time. If you happen to get a copy of the A700 which is spot-on with all your lenses then you won't miss AF micro-adjustment. But if not then you'll curse the day you bought it.

If you want to buy an APS-C-format camera then I'd wait for the A700 replacement ... and hope it's going to have AF micro-adjustment. However this one most likely won't show up before Spring 2010 or so. If you don't want to wait this long then I have to recommend the A850---not so much for 24 MP but for the viewfinder and the AF micro-adjustment.

-- Olaf

[Philip]

Firstly, welcome to the forum John! I have both an A700 and an A900. Since getting the A900 last October I have only used the A700 a couple of times - specifically for the 1.5x advantage it gives on lenses (useful at the telephoto end and for some macro work). One reason for this is as others have already said the great viewfinder, secondly much of my photograghy is at the sub 20mm end of the range, where ultra wide angles remain ultra wide on th A900. I have never had a problem with back or front focus on my A700 (or indeed the A900) so haven't needed micro AF adjustment (my lenses include old Minolta glass as well as new Sony glass) - others perhaps have. I've printed many, many pictures at upto A3+ from both cameras, and the A700 will certainly not let you down in if you're looking to print to this size - yes there is a difference, but as Olaf said you would need very cafeful examination to see it.

Hope that this helps.

Philip

[HFnotts]

I think there is a myth about print size and sensor size which sensible practice shows not to be the case.
You do not need to have a very large sensor size to produce A3 prints and I can prove this from some of the prints I have made from my wife's 5 MP Canon Ixus which cannot be faulted on quality of the image. One doesn't need to print at 300 dpi either for top quality exhibition work.
Basic technique is what is required and, so long as this is sound, then whether there is a massive quality difference between 12 MP and 24 MP must be debatable.
Having said this, I am sure that full frame has benefits in, probably, the subtlety of really fine detail, however, having used a Canon 5D for over a year a little while ago, I cannot find enough difference in the print quality to justify the extra cost of camera and lenses over a decent APS-C camera. To get the very best out of full-frame it is essential to have appropriate lenses and, apart from cost, there is the weight factor to bear in mind. This, from my experience, is something to seriously consider as age creeps up.
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the viewfinder image, the 700 is excellent, and the value of AF micro-adjustment has to be debatable and I remain to be convinced that it is worth the extra cost.
I am sure that this will bring down a storm of protest and different views upon my head but I hope it adds to the debate and consideration of the issues.
The bottom line must be the budget, weight and end use.

[David Kilpatrick]

At A3 size, the biggest advantage of the A850 is that you can crop. With the A700, excellent prints can be made, but they look best if you are using the entire frame. With the A850, you can crop to correct horizons or make panoramic or square shapes beyond A3 more readily.

Where the A850 will begin to show an advantage clearly is at A2 or 20 x 16 bleed print size. The A700 still makes perfectly good prints (I've had excellent results from the A100 for that matter at this size - only the earlier 6 megapixel KM models begin to look a little soft at 16 x 24" output).

The 20mm is OK with the A850. Wide open, it is fairly soft in the extreme corners but it also is soft on film (for those who notice it). Stopped down to around f/8 is very sharp corner to corner. It's a also a really great focal length to use on full frame, and provides a very bright and fast accurate focusing image.

David

[OLDMAN BJ]

Hi Guys,
Thanks very much for your feedback.Much appreciated. And thanks for the link to the article by David. I went around about 6 or 7 shops here in Auckland but was not able to look at the A700 because it has been discontinued but I can get one from out of town from left over stock. I was able to look at an A900 and yes the viewfinder is really nice. In my last days before going digital, I had a Nikon F100 and it reminded me of that viewfinder. Mind you pre APC size days all full frame film cameras had pretty good finders. Not taking anything away from the A900, but I think its because of the norm we have been dished up in digital finders that the A900 looks soooo good. From reading your posts I think that the A700 would give me the quality I want, and especially for say panoramic shots if I stitched several images together. At least with Sony, if I buy the fullframe glass then I have the option in the future to upgrade if I wish. Many years ago I decided I liked still photography and not "Movies". And I still feel the same way. Thats why the A850 appeals to me. It is a no frills tool with the right specs where it counts. I would be very happy if the A700 replacement was basically the same with the A900 finder added on, but I don't think that will happen. Interestingly, of the 6 or 7 shops I visited, all stocked Sony, Nikon, and Canon and a few had Olympus. Not one had any Pentax gear.

Anyway, many thanks again.

John

[NevHi]

OldMan BJ, I asume Auckland NZ?
I can't help with your questions but if you are from NZ this may help.

Take a look at phototronic.co.nz/ Phototronic are the actual repair people for all Minolta/Konica Minolta/ and now SONY, (Camera's, lenses, flashes etc etc) and have been for 35 years. Excellent people to deal with. There are of course other good stores, but this will at least give you further info.

[destrianlives]

on the one hand... GO A700 cause your max print size is A3. On the other you said it must last for a few years so go A850. Now, truth is, if you go A850 you'll really want that CZ 24-70mm F2.8 and will break the bank to get it or you'll get smart and spring for the new Sony 28-75mm F2.8. If you go with the A700 you can save a super load and buy a tamron 18-50mm F2.8 and get the same range for much less. As for quality as long as your not doing massive crops the A700 will work out best. Besides, I'm going for a new computer since working on massive 79mb A900 files!!!

[bakubo]

On the other you said it must last for a few years so go A850.

Are you saying that the A700 will die and won't last a few years? Maybe it will, but we don't know for sure yet. Also, it is not clear yet how many years an A850 will continue to work.

[Dusty]

I don't want to speak for him, but I took it to mean that, since the A700 is already deprecated, and the A850 new, you'll get support for the 850 a bit longer.

Dusty

[robsphotography]

Hello John, I’m also from New Zealand, and also have a Sony R1. I went through the same purchase evaluation that you are now, and I settled on the Sony A900. I have my own hobby photographic web site which you can see here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-A900.html

You will see from the selection of pictures on my A900 page, that the ability to substantially crop an image and still get a quality A3 sized print from a relatively small portion of an image, is an important advantage of an A850 or A900! The price of an A900 in NZ is astronomical, but if you shop around, you can still get one for thousands of dollars less than the full retail price.

Overall, it’s a difficult decision because both APS-C and FF cameras have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages, and both types give excellent results. I guess with any DSLR, much depends on the quality of the lenses that you purchase, so if you consider you will buy a FF camera at some point, then investing in the best quality glass is very worthwhile.

Regards
Rob

[redsim74]

John,

I'm an A700 user based in Auckland.

If you're looking for a good deal on an A900, the Sony Outlet Store has a refurb unit for significantly less than retail.

Might be worth checking out...

Cheers!

[UrsaMajor]

However I need your advice. I really only print out to a maximum of A3 in size and I can't afford a larger printer, so given this restraint, would I see a difference in quality between the A850 and the A700 all other things being equal? ie, assuming good quality lenses used on both cameras. I'm talking here mainly for landscape work, but I also like to photograph my grandchildren.

IMO, the most important factor for you in making such a choice is to look at the focal length(s) that you use for the vast majority of your pictures and the lenses that you already have. Since you mention that - like most of us - you must operate on a budget, you should probably attempt to maximize the utilization of your existing lenses.

The A850 gives you the advantage of being able to crop more than the A700, but if you frequently use your long lenses at maximum focal length, you may find that the A700 is a better choice for the way you shoot. Conversely, if you are frequently shooting at the minimum focal length you have, the crop factor of the A700 would penalize it when compared to the A850.

Personally, like you I shoot primarily landscapes and pictures of my grandkids - plus candids of our events for the newsletter of a car club to which I belong. Using my A700, I find that I am almost always using the Minolta 28-75mm f:2.8 lens or - less frequently - a longer lens such as my Minolta 135mm f:2.8 or my 70-210mm f:4.0 lens. I very, very rarely use my Minolta 17-35mm f:2.8-4.0 lens. If I were using an A850, most of my pictures would be taken at focal lengths between 42mm and 315mm, with rare exceptions at less than 42mm. (I also use my prime lenses, but those are in the same range of focal lengths that I listed previously.)

Accordingly, for my personal "style" of photography the major advantage of the A850 would be the better capability to crop pictures where physical limitations on the location from which I could shoot prevented the composition that I really wanted. In most respects, the A700 is a better choice for me. If your personal "style" of photography is different from mine, you might be using shorter lenses much more frequently and might find that the A850 would be a better choice than the A700.

With best wishes,
- Tom -