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.
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6153
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

Yah, it's logical that that would work quite good, especially with the med format coverage compared to the rudimentory 35mm AF on tele lenses of that era, in any case even with todays cams I bet they blast off lots and lots of frames in the hope that there will be a good percentage of winners...
The thing that is tough is, taking photos of reasonably small things from intermediate distance, it probably stems from the original design of the camera...ie. the original capability was more biased towards scenery or groups of people...large things, it probably was a long time before genuine macro ability emerged or even telephoto macro..
That's where I see the superiority of APS-C, when shooting at something small like birds, especially ones that are a bit nervous and jumpy, you have to have everything going for you, you can't afford too have the camera focussing on something other than the subject, (because the bird is often in position for a few moments only) the subject has to be a reasonable size in the frame anyway to even have a chance of the camera focussing on it and not something else, (if the area where the subject is is cluttered with leaves and branches).
I still reckon that in shooting small things APS-C easily beats FF (more DOF is also a bonus), because if you actually want to take a better photo of something small you have to hump a much bigger lens around to actually get more pixels under that subject, most of the time a FF shooter would be lucky to even get as many pixels under a given small bird subject as an APS-C shooter would, never mind more.
Greg
User avatar
bossel
Viceroy
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: France, Côte d'Azur

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by bossel »

5 posts in a row and then 12 :shock: If you want others to get your message, be short and precise. Just a free advice :D
User avatar
bossel
Viceroy
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: France, Côte d'Azur

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by bossel »

Don, I am trying to help you. Most won't read all your posts and give up somewhere in the middle. Summarize your point in one post so we have a chance to follow.

Btw I do own a Sigma 70-300 and it gets little use. If I want to go light, I use the 18-250, if I need better I use the beercan. If I need 300mm, I crop or uprez my pics. I certainly can crop my 12mpix to 6mpix and this changes 210mm into 300. Or I uprez my 210mm @F4 to 300mm, the Sigma at 300mm does leave some room for improvement, even at F8 or F9.
User avatar
bossel
Viceroy
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: France, Côte d'Azur

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by bossel »

I quickly have to post something before you add another dozen replies in a row :?

My reply did concern cropping and/or uprezzing on APS-C. And consider APS-C cropped to 6mpix being like FF cropped to APS-C. Get it?

Also, I added my own experience with lenses and PP which might interest others owning these lenses.

No need to comment on your reply or squirrels I have seen a dozen of times. Yawn.
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests