Replacement A700 ... this year or forget it?

[bonneville]

As you will see from a recent post, I had a dilemma about whether to go for the 700 or perhaps the 550 or even wait for the 700 replacement.
After the most helpful remarks from others on this site I decided to make the plunge and am expecting delivery of the 700 today. It is still available in the UK and at a price which makes it almost a no-brainer.
I look forward to many happy exposures using it.

You have made a very wise choice IMHO fellow East Midlander. If you pop along to the Nottingham and Notts Photographic Society you'll get a warm welcome, but I am currently the only Sony user sadly.

You queried video in your later post in this thread. I listened to a podcast from Photography Monthly this weekend and a pro photographer said that many clients now ask for video clips for their websites so he has been drawn into it by demand rather than choice.

Personally, I have a state of the art Sony camcorder I inherited from my late FIL and I have never used it.

Brian

[Greg Beetham]

I used to think that putting video into a DSLR was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard of, after all the original design intention of an SLR was to be a very serious 'STILL' camera for people who took their photography seriously...BUT after seeing the results that are possible using a big sensor and SLR lenses there is a place for it after all...for those that want it or need it there is.
I don't need it myself, so I won't accept any compromises to the/my camera in being what it is supposed to be first and foremost, ie. a "STILL camera"....just too add a gimmick.
Becaise to me it is still just that, a gimmick, it's only a token gesture video in many respects despite the possible HQ, sound is joke, no fulltime auto AF, no power zoom lenses [that's a biggie], WB issues, rolling shutter smears while panning [another biggie], clutzy and clunky user interface, storage issues, power issues...by the time you actually option the thing up to the standard of a cine-cam you might as well have just went out and bought one in the first place...(a second hand one)
So Sony is welcome to add video and LV to one of their DSLR models, no problemo, just make sure there is a still camera available for me (and others I would say) that has a good OVF etc.
Greg

[HFnotts]

I remain unconvinced about video in still cameras.
However, I do acept that what I don't want others might find useful and, for me, autofocus is a boon. Mind you, I am knocking on a bit and the peepers don't work quite as well as they did, say, 50 years ago!
I would, however, think that Sony, being a well regarded manufacturer of video equipment, would prefer not to have video in their still cameras for fear it would take sales away from its video cameras.

[pakodominguez]

In marketing techniques you have, basically, two option: you fill a demand or you create a demand: Did we 'needed' cell phones 15 years ago? can you live without today?

The cost of developing a video solution is what any manufacturer has to pay in order to have apealing cameras. And, once is done, it doesn't cost that much enymore -that's why some people complains about the lack of MLU. Or 'A' mode with non-coupled lenses: it cost nothing to leave it there and Sony decided to take it out from the A900

Is like, if I start complaining about the cost of developing the green 'P'(panic) mode that I NEVER used in my life (I'm a 95% Manual mode user) and blame Minolta/Sony because they make me pay for that.

IMHO you, anti-vdSRL people, better pick a different battle (better noise, resolution, more lenses, f4 zoom lenses, f2 primes, etc) because the vdSRL already decided -not against you, Sony will just folow the trend -same way other manufacturers have to follow Sony's trend: FF for less than 2000$

Regards

[Greg Beetham]

Yep I agree, video is coming to a DSLR near you...sometime, probably sooner rather than later...all I'm saying is if Sony can't include it without tradoffs on features a STILL camera should have and STILL image shooters desire, then Sony should put it in a SEPERATE model, that's all I'm saying, not that difficult really.
I like AF, the dang thing can focus faster and more accurately than I ever could with my manual focus lenses, that's for sure.
In fact I like lots of stuff in modern cameras, from ISO settings, flash balance, honeycombe metering, spot metering, spot focus, focus area select, exposure comp, AEL button features, wB adjustments, the rear screen zoom preview, rear controller dial, DOF button (although I had that in the old camera), MLU (only via the 2sec timer on the A100), AS/SSS, (D) lenses and (D) flash, WL flash, P mode, (nothing wrong with P mode in a pinch), A mode, S mode, M mode, (but it's not really manual, more like a combination of A mode and S mode without camera auto adjustments, but it's a great mode with flash on modern cameras), a much better body style and grip, the only thing I didn't like for a long time was the removal of the f-stop ring from AF lenses..but I'm coming around to the all on the body adjustment of settings point of view...
There are quite a few features as well that I hardly ever use like the 10sec timer, various bracketing features, features on the F56 flash like strobing multiple images onto the one exposure, modeling flash etc. but I'm not complaining, I might want to dabble with some of them one day....
Greg

[HFnotts]

Ah well! We don't have to use it even if it is there.

Its like Sat-Nav - never use it and have no need for it. I drove 50,000 miles a year for 45 years and know my way around much of the UK and LIKE paper maps.

Same with cameras, in the old days we never missed features which the cameras didn't possess, just learned how to use them and what 'f' stops and apertures were all about.

Minolta brought out the first AF camera, if I recall correctly, and it was a brick, slow and clunky; I recall reviewers suggesting it wouldn't catch-on and was a gimmick. Same when TTL metering came out (? Canon) it was regarded with high suspicion. Maybe it was Canon who had AF first, I recall a massive bump on a lens, but, at least, the Minolta version worked.

Look where we are now - maybe even old fashioned dinosaurs, like me, will learn to love all the bells and whistles on modern cameras BUT, by then, there will be other things to wonder why on earth they are there.

[Greg Beetham]

Yeah I understand the argument that an added feature becomes accepted over time as it matures, thing is, AF right from the outset had 'potential' for enhancing the taking of still images even if it was a bit dodgy at the beginning, besides Minolta also had the MF system running alongside the AF system for quite a while (I think yoiu could still buy a new X700 in the mid 90's).
What was disappointing was they never released an upgraded version of the X700 with some advances, like faster shutter speeds, spot metering, higher flash sync speed etc. so the MF system gradually faded from view (mores the pity).
What's needed now, as Dusty says, is a digital MF body that takes the MD lenses with a decent sensor such as the one in the A700, I'm not sure if the old MD lenses would handle a FF sensor of the A900 category, maybe a FF 14-16MP might be ok though.

Back to video....it is a mystery how anyone can mount an argument that the intoduction of video into a still camera will ever enhance the taking of still images, I can not see the logic in that one....
Greg

ps. Hah! HFnotts, I like proper maps also...

[Wes Gibbon]

What's needed now, as Dusty says, is a digital MF body that takes the MD lenses with a decent sensor such as the one in the A700, I'm not sure if the old MD lenses would handle a FF sensor of the A900 category, maybe a FF 14-16MP might be ok though.

It would be nice if there were a digital dslr that could take those classic Minolta MC/MD lenses but how much demand would there be? Unless they could design a system that could use both MD lenses and AF (maybe using adaptors), the new MD bodies would only take MD/MC lenses. Would they manufacture MD lenses again? If not, who would buy a dslr body for which lenses had not been made for years? As soon as an MD body became available, the few decent used lenses still available would be snapped up, and then there would be nothing available at all worth having. (n.b. Exif data would be severely limited.)

(I think yoiu could still buy a new X700 in the mid 90's).
What was disappointing was they never released an upgraded version of the X700 with some advances, like faster shutter speeds, spot metering, higher flash sync speed etc. so the MF system gradually faded from view (mores the pity).
What's needed now, as Dusty says, is a digital MF body th

I spoke to a Minolta rep in the 1990's, and he told me that they carried on making X700's because the production line was still OK. When that needed new machinery, production would cease.

[pakodominguez]

What's needed now, as Dusty says, is a digital MF body that takes the MD lenses with a decent sensor such as the one in the A700, I'm not sure if the old MD lenses would handle a FF sensor of the A900 category, maybe a FF 14-16MP might be ok though.

It's there: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/digital.htm

[Wes Gibbon]

It's there: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/digital.htm

Interesting! Like many other people, I was forgetting about emerging markets, particularly China. I imagine that the vast majority of Chinese will be too poor to affort a camera, but a small minority of a billion is still a lot of people, and for many of the emerging middle class cost will be a much bigger consideration than it is for many of us. If Seagull can reduce costs by avoiding Autofocus, and using their natural advantage in a home market, they could succeed. I imagine that Seagull will need to supply lenses as well as bodies (I believe they already do), and with an APS-C sensor, they will need extra-wide lenses to cover the 35mm equivalent of 28mm or wider

This also raises the question of what Sony's strategy is for the Chinese and Far-Eastern markets. I haven't seen much comment on this. We see plenty of speculation on Sony's forthcoming models as seen from the American and European viewpoint, but maybe the emerging markets in the Far East offer huge potential, particuarly as they may well be relatively Canon/Nikon-free zones. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this area would like to comment?

As for adopting a Seagull D55 to make use of Minolta MC/MD lenses: for some types of photography, the lack of autofocus would be a drawback. However, I can see that a fast 50mm would make a useful portrait lens on APS-C, and the existing MD line-up would be fine for studio & macro work. For landscapes, the lack of an extra-wide lens would be seriously limiting, unless you can lay your hands on a 17mm (if I remember rightly, the widest non-fisheye Minolta made was a 20mm, but there were a couple of indie 17mm's), or Seagull can come up with a DT-equivalent of a 16mm or wider.

Not that this is directly relevant to the original topic!

[Greg Beetham]

Hmmmpf....It's an April fools joke
Greg

see here
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/shutterbox.htm

[HFnotts]

"Not that this is directly relevant to the original topic!"

But, Wes, don't all good conversations move about and develop?

[HFnotts]

Bonneville - just re-read your invite to NNPS. Thanks but no. I was a member for many years and am a past-president, but have grown out of it. I do hear regular reports of the society having friends who remain members, but not for me nowadays. Many thanks nonetheless.

[Greg Beetham]

Re D55 April fools joke...see post above.

In any case even if it were real, thinking about it, it's not going to be easy if someone wanted to build one, a digital body for the MC MD lenses that is.
I'm not sure just how handicapped the camera would be without any feedback from the lens (no contacts), there would be no lens listed in the exif, no focal length info in the case of primes or zooms, probably not even able to record the f-stop either, and variable ratio zooms could present problems as there would be no feedback on the particular focal length in use...so there is not much likelyhood that the camera could have an effective AS/SSS...
But on the other hand the X700 was able to do very good metering and exposures without any feedback from the lens, so a camera should be able to be built that could do quite a respectable P mode (with the MC MD lenses set at minimum aperture), and if it could do a P mode it shouild be able to do an A mode as well, M mode might be a bit more like a true M mode.
It might not be much use putting the i-shoe on it as there would be no (D) info coming from the lens anyway, so it would most likely be a case of staying with a sensor flash type system. But otoh the i-shoe flashes can do pretty good TTL ceiling bounce so what's to stop TTL from working in this camera?
So how about it Sony? there is probably a scrillion MC and MD lenses out there, pretty much forgotten because they don't fit the AF cameras, a digital body would bring em all back to life again....
Greg

[Wes Gibbon]

"Not that this is directly relevant to the original topic!"

But, Wes, don't all good conversations move about and develop?

I coudn't agree more!

Hmmmpf....It's an April fools joke
Greg

see here
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/shutterbox.htm

I've been duped well and truly! However, I still think that the Chinese market may prove massively significant in years to come. Does anyone know if Nikon, Canon, Sony et al have any strategic plans for penetrating this market? Maybe a partnership with Seagull, with their local knowledge, could be invaluable.