New camera announcement Aug 14

[David Kilpatrick]

Ok, off topic I know, sorry.

Why can't I get the Quote function to work. I have edited the above post three times no looking for some sort of break or mistake, and yet it still does not work. I have pulled apart the code on all other posts in this thread and I have everything exactly the same. Oh, and it looks like my signature is also broken now. What is going on?

You had removed the closing quotation marks after the original poster name in the opening quote command.

David

[01af]

My guess is that the A700 is much better sealed than Sony cares to mention right now. Why wouldn't they market seals heavily you ask? Well it is because seals will fail, no matter how well designed and implemented ...

Umm ... good point. And yes, I know about seals requiring maintenance if they're supposed to keep their integrity over time.

It sure is faster than my aging Dynax 7D but clearly slower than Canon EOS 40D & 1D Mk III and also slower than Nikon D300, D700, & D3.

I don't know about that. I have yet to meet any 40D or D300 with lens combinations that focus faster than my A700 when we are shooting side by side and that focus rate matters in usable speed too. I can change settings and be back to shooting faster than any Canon or Nikon shooter I know too. [...] Sure, they get slightly better FPS counts if that was what you were reffering to, but what good is maximum on paper FPS are never achievable thanks to other system slow-ups (as many have reported with the 40D)?

Yes, I was referring to frame rate mostly, and also to overall responsiveness; I was not referring to AF speed.

The A700 has 5 fps on paper and something around 4.5 fps in real life---for me, that's just barely sufficient. Sure, it's a leap forward in comparison to the 7D's frame rate (which is approx. 2.7 fps) ... but 6 - 8 fps would be really useful to me. I'd be surprised if the A900 is going to offer more than 5 fps.

And I'm so fed up with inaccurate AF ...

With the exception of a couple clearly out of spec units out there, I have found the A700 AF accuracy about the best out there so far.

Hmmm. So maybe I really should take another chance. Still I wish the user was given the option to fine-adjust focus via the menu ...

The question will have to be if the ISO alone trumps your current lens set, SSS, system familiarity, and any other advantages that the Sony models may have for you.

That's the question indeed. Obviously there are advantages---and disadvantages---on both sides of the fence.

-- Olaf

[David Kilpatrick]

The Nikon D700 card door is not weather sealed in any way. It is a push-pull door just like the A700, instead of the usual locking Nikon design, and during my use, a lot of dust and lint got into the door - more than gets into the A700. There is no seal in the rim.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Great post HUM469,
I really enjoyed that, I think this is my favourite line in it,
"With cameras you often get most of what you pay for."
It's good to hear from someone who has been in first hand contact with the various brand/models/users in actual combat.
Greg

[HUM469]

Thank you, I am glad some appreciated my own experience, though I would never profess to be much of an expert in anything. At most, more of a careful observer. Greg, my line there seems to be more and more true with each passing generation as things get pulled from the ever less expensive bottom end (MLU, AF motors, bracketing..), while things get added to the upper half (how many altitude levels, dual processors and such have you ever seen on cameras before?). The A700/40D/D300 middle ground cameras will continue to be hotly debated I image because they can neither loose features, nor move up too high in price despite growing technology, and will hopefully remain the best value out there. The A900 is more interesting to me because I hope it will indicate additional features that will fall into the A700 class in future generations.

As for camera duability, every camera I have ever owned does die eventually. I treat things hard, and am only careful enough to get my pictures home in one piece, but I can afford to be hard thanks to my insuance. I always double layer everything, and so I always have a 4 year accidental damage coverage plan, as well as an umbrella policy that extends from my combined home owners and business insuances. Of course these types of things will be different in different countries but I imagine most places there has to be some equivalent. I just don't see the point in needing to be too worried about an inanimate object, whether it be fire, flood, theft or being run over by a truck. Yes, I had a camera in Hawaii run over by a truck and only lost one frame of film! My A700 in addition to the water and lots of blowing dust, has also taken 2 falls, one a little over 2 feet onto dirt, the other a little over three feet onto tile. Cracked the tile, but no damage to the camera. The worst fall so far was one of my Sony F36's toppled backward off the top of a local mountain and I had to follow a debree trail 40 feet down the backside. After locating all 4 batteries, the little stand, and the battery door, all of which had removed themselve, I found the flash unit with nothing more than a scratch under a bush. It still works here a month later, though it no longer locks onto the camera. That's fine though as I seldom attach it and prefer the wireless setup anyhow.

[Greg Beetham]

Thank you, I am glad some appreciated my own experience, though I would never profess to be much of an expert in anything. At most, more of a careful observer. Greg, my line there seems to be more and more true with each passing generation as things get pulled from the ever less expensive bottom end (MLU, AF motors, bracketing..), while things get added to the upper half (how many altitude levels, dual processors and such have you ever seen on cameras before?). The A700/40D/D300 middle ground cameras will continue to be hotly debated I image because they can neither loose features, nor move up too high in price despite growing technology, and will hopefully remain the best value out there. The A900 is more interesting to me because I hope it will indicate additional features that will fall into the A700 class in future generations.

Yes the Mid/High Mid APS-C range has produced some very fine cameras so far, with plenty of features on each brand, although i really think the Nikon and Canon offerings are handicapped by having to rely on their legacy film era image stabilization, but you wouldn't know it from the price Nikon charge here, their D300 body is $2300, compared too the A700's $1600 ( the D300 is a fine cam but is it $700 better? I don't think so) and Canon's D40 @ $1275 ( a pretty hot price by comparison to the other two, but the D40's data throughput is very slow compared to the A700).
It seems to have gone a little quiet on that front for the time being, but could be the lull before the storm of course, Canon could do a more advanced D40 version for instance and Sony could bring out an A700B, but I just have this feeling that the next flurry is going to be in the Mid/High Mid FF area, Nikon have already led with their excellent but expensive D3 ($6195 here, body only) and recently a more of a direct competitor to Canon's 5D in the D700 ($3695), so that leaves it up too Canon and Sony to respond with their new offerings... it should be interesting to see what they come up with.

As for camera duability, every camera I have ever owned does die eventually. I treat things hard, and am only careful enough to get my pictures home in one piece, but I can afford to be hard thanks to my insuance. I always double layer everything, and so I always have a 4 year accidental damage coverage plan, as well as an umbrella policy that extends from my combined home owners and business insuances. Of course these types of things will be different in different countries but I imagine most places there has to be some equivalent. I just don't see the point in needing to be too worried about an inanimate object, whether it be fire, flood, theft or being run over by a truck. Yes, I had a camera in Hawaii run over by a truck and only lost one frame of film! My A700 in addition to the water and lots of blowing dust, has also taken 2 falls, one a little over 2 feet onto dirt, the other a little over three feet onto tile. Cracked the tile, but no damage to the camera. The worst fall so far was one of my Sony F36's toppled backward off the top of a local mountain and I had to follow a debree trail 40 feet down the backside. After locating all 4 batteries, the little stand, and the battery door, all of which had removed themselve, I found the flash unit with nothing more than a scratch under a bush. It still works here a month later, though it no longer locks onto the camera. That's fine though as I seldom attach it and prefer the wireless setup anyhow.

I've never actually dropped a camera...ever, (but then, I'm not earning my living from photography either). I did take notice of a wise man (who owned the Camera shop where I bought my first camera) when he described/showed me how to avoid ever dropping one, what he said was, "when you pick up a camera always pick up the strap first with a firm grip and put that around your neck with one hand while gripping the camera with the other hand."
That always works fine of course, as long as the camera actually has a neck strap fitted.
I did manage a heart stopper though, I dropped my nearly new F56 flash on the concrete under the house, I pulled it out of the bag and went to line it up with the camera and it just over balanced and flipped out of my hand...smash, bounce on the concrete, and the batteries came out...I thought that's it, there goes a $700 flash... I picked up the wreckage, and to my surprise I couldn't see any damage, the battery door had just popped open, it wasn't broken, and the only mark I could find was a tiny scuff on one corner of the body, so I just put the batteries back in and it's worked fine ever since...Go Minolta, well it is a Minolta flash is it not, with Sony written on the front.
Greg

[Dr. Harout]

Nicely said Greg

[HUM469]

I have never "dropped" a camera before either, but mine seem to like to get attracted to ther moving objects in the vicinity. In the case of the A700 and the cracked tile, unbeknownst to me the strap got knocked off the table the camera was on inside a restaurant, and a lady passing by was very embarrased when her purse snagged the strap and yanked it off. In the case of the fall to the dirt, it was sitting on a bench in Havasupai where I am still not sure what happened. A group of kids had gone running by about 10 feet away, and over the camera went. Perhaps wind coupled with vibrations thanks to the pounding feet? Maybe some strange kinetic magnetism that is currently unknown to science? Other cameras have fallen because of paniers getting ripped off a bike trying to avoid a car, a bag I thought was zipped not being so, careless friends and children, and in the case of the one that was run over, a very powerful gust of wind at just the wrong time.

As for my flash fall, it was imprudent placement. I had the A700 strapped to my rather heavy backpack on the highest point of rock, and took the remote and flash with me to the next point in an attempt to photograph myself with the setting sun behind. I was slightly out of range though for the wireless control to trip the shot, so I kept inching the flash closer and closer to the edge trying to get it to pick up the control. Finally, right on the lip, it did flash at the very same instant that a gust of wind caught it. The effect out of the corner of my eye looked like a rocket launch as it got really bright and accelerated away from it's light at the same time, fipping over backward as it fell out of site. Apparently it's first point of contact was on one of the legs of the little included stand since the little clip that holds it in broke off, and the second point of contact was the body near the battery door hinge, popping the door off cleanly without breaking, but leaving a small gouge in the plastic. A few other light scratches on the houseing (but none to the lens), and there wasn't a single fatal issue. I've used it on the same flash on the mountain top since then without a single issue.

[Greg Beetham]

Yep, just goes too show there are hidden dangers lurking everywhere, just waiting to pounce on our gear.
hmm Einstein postulated that gravity could bend light and was eventually proved correct, I wonder if you might have demonstrated with that F36 accident that light has thrust as well.....just kidding.
btw I like those sunset shots with just enough fill flash too simulate a camp fire effect, nicely done, night portrait mode perhaps?
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Nicely said Greg

Thanks Doc
Greg

[HUM469]

Thank you Greg, but no, I have never used any of the scene modes on the A700. Bother were shot as cRAW+JPG, in the case of the first one, I think I was in P mode, in the second I was in A, for the JPG bother were set to clear, +1 sharpening, 0's on the other parameters, DRO+2 in the first, +3 in the second, and both used wireless flash from a single 36. In both cases the camera was set to expose for the background by way of exposure lock and the flash was held by a friend of mine. For the first one, I wanted close to no shadows, and had him hold the flash near the camera, but higher than would be possible with it on camera. In the second, I wanted a more dramatic look, and wanted to feel like light was coming from the lightest clouds on the right, so I had him hold the flash off to that side and lower for the harder, more directional look. It is an awful lot of fun having such a simple wireless setup, that is for sure. But the one thing I still cannot do is manage to beat the JPEG in situations like this. I know there is a slight bit more detail and DR to be had in the RAW file, and I take the storage space to get it, but so far in these oddball cases, I cannot seem to get a RAW processed to look any better than the accompanying RAW. Oh well, at least I am not unhappy with the JPEG result when I cannot out do it by hand...

[Alain]

I use both ISO 200 and 100. There is a significant improvement in the noise level of blue skies at 100, over 200, and that counts for me. I don't often need to pull in the 2 stops of raw headroom you can get at ISO 200. But whenever it counts, yes, I use 200. The D3/D700 also have a base sensitivity of 200 and it is not a good idea to use the 100 setting (LO1) unless you have to, in the studio or for some other reason.

Thanks for that info. I didn't know that about the blue skies at ISO 100 on the A700. I will keep it in mind. With the Canon 30D, KM 7D, and Canon DRebel/300D I tried to use ISO 100 as much as was possible, but with the A700 I thought ISO 200 would be the one to use except if I just had to have a slower shutter speed.

That's exactly why I posted these earlier links to the A700 noise tests where it's pretty obvious that ISO 100 noise performance is better than ISO 200.

Signal to Noise

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/vie ... &id=191636

Grain size

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/vie ... &id=237835

It's not just blue sky that is affected, it's a ton of stuff. If you are shooting a scene with a large expanse of the same general color (you may be able exclude the very brights), or if you have substantial shadows in your shot of a normal-brightish scene, you may want to consider using 100 instead of 200. 200 has the wider DR but worse noise/shadow noise and this is evident even in something as simple as flower closeups. ISO100 can give a smoother background/bokeh than ISO 200 due to lower noise, and this lower noise principal carries through to many other areas of your photography, like frames filled with blue sky.

-Sonolta

Hi

Has someone tried the 125 and 160 iso values, can we get best of both worlds (High DR and really low noise)?

Alain

[Javelin]

someone somewhere had tested that. it was a while ago and he concluded that iso 160 was the best of both worlds. he didn't have anything to say about the blue sky noise though just that ISO 100 looked flatter. ... I've been to too many forums now and i'm mixing up what I read where and from who.

Has someone tried the 125 and 160 iso values, can we get best of both worlds (High DR and really low noise)?

Alain