A900 crop vs. A700

Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby harvey » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:27 am

Does anyone have comparisons of A900 cropped compared to A700 for same image view with the same lens (between 200mm and 450mm)?

Lonnie Utah
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby Lonnie Utah » Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:29 pm

Sonolta wrote:For me personally it would not be a 3K investment...it would be more like an 8K investment.


That's about right.....

rush2112
Initiate
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:41 am

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby rush2112 » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:07 pm

Sonolta wrote:I presented this very same request to Carl G. (AlphaMountWorld) on a thread here yesterday using the Beercan fully extended between f8 and F11....He decided rather than posting the comparison he would instead admit the a700 would win the day.
rush2112 wrote:...so the A700 at that focal length would win out.

Steve then repeated my request and Winston chimed in with this...
Winston wrote:The A700 wins because its sensor has a higher pixel density. The A350 is even denser.

You should be aware that VERY FEW of these a900 users want to present an image comparison where the a700 beats it out or equals it. But it is a photography fact....you shoot with the lenses that you own and for many folks it is also a fact that they will need to spend some serious cabbage on new lenses to make the a900 a worthwhile upgrade for them. For me personally it would not be a 3K investment...it would be more like an 8K investment.

-Sonolta


Again, you are looking at this rather pointless debate from an APS-C advantage viewpoint only Don.

There are many advantages to full frame and there are many advantages to APS-C.

Debating the matter is pointless! They are both great for their pros, and lack in the cons dept. Just like anything else.


That is precisely why I asked you "Why?" when you asked me to be your test pigeon for you and go run an errand.

Anyone who touts FF is better than APS-C or that APS-C is better than full frame are obviously only looking at one side of the argument. Period.

C

harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby harvey » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:42 pm

I will explain why I asked the question.

I have an A900 mainly because I had a set of lenses that made sense with a FF sensor and I was more interested in wide-angles.

I'm interested to know the tradeoffs at the telephoto end of the range. Long and fast lenses are expensive so you could add an APS-C camera to your kit rather than get another lens or TC. But you need to consider the option of cropping the A900 image.

I also expect the A700 to come out "better" in a comparison but this is just gut feeling based on no evidence.

Harvey

rush2112
Initiate
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:41 am

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby rush2112 » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:01 pm

harvey wrote:I will explain why I asked the question.

I have an A900 mainly because I had a set of lenses that made sense with a FF sensor and I was more interested in wide-angles.

I'm interested to know the tradeoffs at the telephoto end of the range. Long and fast lenses are expensive so you could add an APS-C camera to your kit rather than get another lens or TC. But you need to consider the option of cropping the A900 image.

I also expect the A700 to come out "better" in a comparison but this is just gut feeling based on no evidence.

Harvey


Ahh I see, that makes sense when you are comparing the pros and cons to your current lens lineup Harvey.

What you have to consider as well is the wide angle you gain on full frame unless wide angle isn't something that interests you of course.

APS-C has that advantage on the long end of course because of the crop factor associated with such.

The A700 will have an edge in detail but the A900 will still do very well with an APS-C crop. "Well" is of subjective, and strictly in the eye of the beholder.

Carl

stevecim
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Australia

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby stevecim » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:40 pm

Now was that so hard?

Thanks Harvey for posting the question, still would be nice if someone could post links to some full res images. :)

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3689
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:43 am

The only problem with digital FF is price, about it.

I would happily give up APS-C for FF, any day of the week. Not sure about needing ultra high end optics, do we not hear about many happy 28-75mm f2.8 users? Not a pricey lens at all.

Really not convinced about the "tele shooters" argument either. Sounds more like Olympus 4/3 uses on a rant, than anyone else ;-)

APS-C is affordable, that's why it's popular, few would stick to it in preference to FF

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:59 am

All well argued Don. I agree. I would not use my A900 for wildlife or sports, the A700 has higher true resolution - but I would very much like micro AF tuning to improve it with some lenses!

One thing we are omitting to say is that the A700 and A900 make an amazingly good team, they are so similar in most ways to handle. But if the truth is told, the old D7D and the A900 have much in common and every time I go into the studio and use the D7D I am reminded just how far ahead of its time it was despite being released in 2004 (it was designed for release in 2002 but never got there). I also think the A900 is or was ahead of its time, and simultaneously 'behind the times' - I doubt that any camera will again be made with the same richness of control interface access the A900 possesses.

It's far too financially tempting to stick it all into menus...

David

stevecim
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Australia

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby stevecim » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:37 am

bfitzgerald wrote:The only problem with digital FF is price, about it.

I would happily give up APS-C for FF, any day of the week. Not sure about needing ultra high end optics, do we not hear about many happy 28-75mm f2.8 users? Not a pricey lens at all.

Really not convinced about the "tele shooters" argument either. Sounds more like Olympus 4/3 uses on a rant, than anyone else ;-)

APS-C is affordable, that's why it's popular, few would stick to it in preference to FF



Going from 35mm film where I used to use a 170-500mm sigma lenses 60% of the time, hand held, to a Pana FZ10 4MP, now using the a350. I'm now happy with the 18"-20" I get from the a350. was never happy with the FZ10, I was not even happy with 6x4 prints from the FZ10. , had to get rid of the sigma 170-500 it did not work well with the a350. I'm using a tam 70-300mm , which gives me 450mm on APC if i was on FF I'll be really missing the 500mm :)

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby bakubo » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:16 am

rush2112 wrote:What you have to consider as well is the wide angle you gain on full frame unless wide angle isn't something that interests you of course.


I don't understand this statement. The Sony 11-18mm, Tamron 11-18mm, Sigma 10-20mm, and Tamron 10-24mm provide wide angle on the A700. I have the Sony 11-18mm for the A700 and the Sigma 10-20mm in Canon mount. The 11-18mm has a 16.5-27mm fov. Some people have the Sigma and on Sony that has a 15-30mm fov.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby bakubo » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:34 am

Of course, the A900 is fantastic, but I decided I wouldn’t get one. The main thing for me is the increased size and weight for the A900 + lenses + no built-in flash for a quick pop of fill flash and, of course, the quite large additional cost in total to go for one. At the moment for the kinds of stuff I photograph I find the A700 and APS-C to be quite good. The future, who knows?
Last edited by bakubo on Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby bakubo » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:07 am

Sonolta wrote:Henry, Carl is talking about the few extra mm and the resolution you pick up at the wide/ultra-wide end. For instance the Siggy 12-24 on FF provides a 12mm FOV and the Siggy 10-20 on APS-C only provides a 15mm FOV.


Okay, that may be what he was talking about. The phrase "unless wide angle isn't something that interests you" made it seem that he had a more general meaning. Almost anyone would consider 15mm or 16.5mm to be an ultrawide angle view. In my 35mm days 20mm was considered ultrawide, especially back in the early 1990s. Until the Sigma 12-24mm came out there really wasn't anything easily available at an affordable price that gave such a wide view -- except for circular fisheye lenses. Is Carl saying that 15mm is not wide angle and that you have to go less than 15mm to get into wide angle territory? Maybe so, but I disagree.
Last edited by bakubo on Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

PhotoTraveler
Grand Caliph
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:07 am

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby PhotoTraveler » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:21 am

I think it's a discussion that's swinging in the weeds.

The comparison asked is basically asking to see a sony 10MP CMOS image verses a 12MP CMOS image. I'm sure there are some difference, and they might be surprising. But they are probably differences in the extremes where it simply doesn't matter. So no reason to concern ones self with it. If as Don implies (If I read it right), the A700 does better at high ISO than the A900. Then it's just something to crush the "less megapixel" folks, as it will just imply if Sony makes a 30MP FF Body (scale IMX021 to FF) it will have better high ISO performance than the A900.

Further, as has been mention, both FF and APS can have advantage, but it's mainly an equation based on Cost.

But as much as an A900 might require better glass than can handle corners better and so forth. A High res APS body is demanding too. And APS requires high quality uber wides, which don't exist aside from the nikon 2.8/14-24, and that gives up most benefits of APS as it's not APS. Trying to get the perfect setup with both is hard. Sony has no 4/16-80G DT, no 2.8/16-60G DT (or ZA's if you like), They have no 4/12-24G DT either. They only have the 16-80ZA. At the same time they have no 4/24-105G for FF. It's not easy to make an ideal go for either.

I personally prefer a body that is less challenging on the lens design, so FF is a better path (especially if you are wide shooter) as a kick but 24mm lens is way easier than a kick but 16mm.

More than anything, Sony just needs to make the best camera for both formats. 100% view finders in both. New items like GPS support.

I can make either work, as long as it has the whole package put together. It's not a FF verses APS debate, it's which one gets the package right and that package right with the rest of the system. The one that is on top of it could bounce between new models from FF to APS over and over.

The sensor is one of the least important parts in the camera to me. All sensors in current DSLRs are very good. If everyone in the "class" was getting graded, the lowest score in the class would be like a 97%, no reason to think that student/sensor is bad.

It's everything around the sensor that matters to me anymore.

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3689
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:06 am

In response to Don.

Different shooters do different things. I am a WA to short tele shooter (mostly), I have little interest in the long end (at this time)

FF means, lenses like the 17-35mm are real UWA again, the 20mm is a real UWA prime, 24mm is just that..wide angle! Also none of those lenses are ultra expensive either. Even the 50mm, which is far more useful for general shooting..as a real 50mm.
APS is fine, it's a compromise to some of us, acceptable.

What we need now is a less heavy price tag for FF, to get it down to semi pro APS prices (at some point) 24mp is overkill for most. If sony bashed out a new FF, with 16mp and a nice price, they would get a lot of fans for doing that. What we lack is a proper "non daft price" portrait lens 85mm f1.8, a non G silly price 35mm prime (which is useful on APS AND FF) Sony also need a few UWA zooms, non zeiss. Then it's pretty much sorted.

It will be a while before we get FF down in price, but when it gets there..APS will probably be at the low end or mid point, everything else will be FF, and that's great by me. Landscape/Portrait shooters ain't that interested in long tele lenses.
BTW I managed to shoot equestrian low light shots with a 50mm prime, so what's wrong with a 70-200mm f2.8 (tamron or sigma)??? on FF or APS??

Lonnie Utah
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread postby Lonnie Utah » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:47 pm

I dunno, I can't seem to figure it out. I think I need a little help, like more examples similar to the last one... ;)


Return to “Alpha A-mount System”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests