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.
Lonnie Utah
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by Lonnie Utah »

Sonolta wrote:
This thread is not about wedding shooters and 'pro assignments'...this thread is about what you win and lose when switching to FF from APS-C so please stop trying to change the subject!


Contray to what your inflated ego tells you, you cannot control what this tread is about. It is about what ever the comunity want it to be about.

I don't give a damn how many sports team there are in the country/world. More brides get married in EVERY town in every state every weekend than there are sports teams. Every one of those weddings has a photographer there....
robsphotography
Initiate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:01 am

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by robsphotography »

paulmurphy wrote:The measly old 12mp A700 can still show some amazing detail with good glass and technique.

I hope you will forgive a couple of tiger shots

Hand held A700 + Minolta 200f2.8

Crop from the above image (you can see the meat caught in the molars)

That said I would love to try an A900 for landscapes which is my main photographic area.

Cheers

Murph

Fantastic, well done! But I suspect I was a great deal further away from my tiger! How far away from the camera was your tiger? You know I was only kidding about the measly old 12 mp cameras, in fact I still use a lot my 10mp Sony R1 and I don't intend to sell it!

Regards
Rob
User avatar
InTheSky
Viceroy
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by InTheSky »

WOW ... a lot of information there.

On my side I'm owner of both Body camera.

The A900, Is not always in my hand and the A700 is there for travel or activities when I want to bring only one camera and lens (18-200mm).

A900 = Expensive , but for me this will be very short :

- Depth of Field
- Get the real angle of view of my investment lenses. (and yes ... mostly bring me more wide angle capabilities).

When I need zoom, the 50-500mm Bigma is really good on the A900.

If you shoot JPEG, you can shoot 12MP on Full frame and this will get you killer picture over the A700 on every situation. This bring me the say that the only thing that is really missing in the A900 is a RAW option for full frame 12MP. That will be the best word to save space. But, since I'm shooting with my A900 I have started to click less time ... and think more before ...

Regards,

Frank
Frank
A7 (R, S & R II) + NEX 3N ( and few lenses )
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3743
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Sonolta wrote:
harvey wrote:Does anyone have comparisons of A900 cropped compared to A700 for same image view
Rob - Your tiger could have been better if you would have shot it with the a700. Again, you need to work on those blowouts bigtime. Next time underexpose the frame if you must and then recover what you need in post.
-Sonolta


Hmm so the A700 never blows out?? Amazing!
And there was everyone saying the A900 had the best DR of any Sony DSLR..
Time for another DxO chart Don?? :mrgreen:
robsphotography
Initiate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:01 am

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by robsphotography »

Sonalta said:

“For all - Seven pages of posts on this thread, several pages of posts on the other thread, several people that own both the a700 and the a900 have posted, but NONE of them have provided the images that several of us have asked for numerous times.

This proves to all of us beyond a shadow of doubt that the a700 wins the long end resolution battle against the a900 when using the same lens on both cameras. This also proves that long end shooters need to purchase longer lenses with the a900 when moving from the a700 for the shooter to actually benefit when shooting at the long end.”

As I mentioned in previous posts, although the A700 has a 1.5 crop factor “advantage”, this is almost entirely offset by the fact that the width of an image (in pixels) from the A900 is about 42% larger than an image from the A700. So at most, the gain in the width of an A700 image in pixels (all things being equal) because of the crop factor of 1.5 is only about 8%, and certainly no more!

You also have to bear in mind that this advantage arose because the pixel density per linear inch of an A900 image is 4279, and for the A700 it is 4617. The above figures for pixel density are calculated using the same methodology as in this article:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsens ... ensors.htm

But, as also said in a previous post, I would far prefer to own the A900 because the pixels are packed less densely on the A900 sensor than they are on the A700 sensor, as shown by the above pixel density figures (not the other way around as I think someone said in an earlier post).

The above article talks about the benefits of having less pixel density, and thus larger photosites:

“From a theoretical point of view pixel density should affect the amount of random digital noise present in an image and the dynamic range in the image the camera produces. Dynamic range is how much detail can be held in shadow areas before highlights begin to loose texture or, how many F stops of light range the camera sensor can capture. Again, in theory, larger photosites (less pixel density) on the sensor should produce less random noise and more dynamic range for any given sensor size.”

It’s interesting to note that the pixel density per linear inch of a Canon EOS 5D MKII image is lower again, at 3962.

I have done the above calculations in a bit of a hurry, so if someone would like to confirm they are correct, I may put them on my web site for future reference.

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-A900.html
(Examples of the incredible resolution of some Sony A900 images)
harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by harvey »

robsphotography wrote: I will paste in below the response I made on Dyxum:

“For my purposes, at least, the Sony 70-300 mm G SSM lens was an ideal choice for a visit to the zoo. In the few cases where the animals were a long way away from the camera, the lens at a focal length of 300mm did a pretty good job. And if you needed to get in a bit closer, then the A900’s image size of 6048 pixels x 4032 pixels allowed you to “zoom in” a lot closer and still get a really good 20 inch wide print from a cropped image width of 3024 pixels...


Right, and because the sensor pixel densities are similar, the quality compared to an A700 should be similar but we are waiting for someone to do the comparison.

I have quite a few images that need cropped because they are at the limit of the lenses/TC I have (which is currently 400mm). Here is an example...

Image

I hate to think how much it would cost in lenses to do decent 24MP distant-wildlife or even moon pictures but I don't see me concentrating on that. Rather I will concentrate on learning to take better pictures with the kit I have. I might get a zoom to take me to 400mm without the TC.

Harvey
harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by harvey »

robsphotography wrote:...Again, in theory, larger photosites (less pixel density) on the sensor should produce less random noise

I have been avoiding the N word. Initially I expected the noise on the A900 to be similar to the earlier Alpha cameras (measured per unit area or visually) but then the bad reviews came out and there have been many many postings about this. The view still prevailes that the A700 is better and I don't know if that is sensor or camera electronics/processing differences.

Given the discussions so far there is little point in revisiting it all again but I would be interested to know specifically if the sensors inherently do have similar noise performance.

Harvey
harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by harvey »

paulmurphy wrote:The measly old 12mp A700 can still show some amazing detail with good glass and technique.

I hope you will forgive a couple of tiger shots

Hand held A700 + Minolta 200f2.8

And you are selling the lens that can deliver such wonderful photos?

Harvey
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2319
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by pakodominguez »

harvey wrote:
robsphotography wrote:...Again, in theory, larger photosites (less pixel density) on the sensor should produce less random noise

I have been avoiding the N word. Initially I expected the noise on the A900 to be similar to the earlier Alpha cameras (measured per unit area or visually) but then the bad reviews came out and there have been many many postings about this. The view still prevailes that the A700 is better and I don't know if that is sensor or camera electronics/processing differences.

Given the discussions so far there is little point in revisiting it all again but I would be interested to know specifically if the sensors inherently do have similar noise performance.

Harvey

Noise isn't just about pixel density. Data transfer, or lost of data (from the chip to the in camera processing) is a big factor too, and with the A900 you are transferring "42%" more data than the A700.

Lots of fake truths during this discussion...
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2319
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by pakodominguez »

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

For all - Seven pages of posts on this thread, several pages of posts on the other thread, several people that own both the a700 and the a900 have posted, but NONE of them have provided the images that several of us have asked for numerous times. :roll:

This proves to all of us beyond a shadow of doubt that the a700 wins the long end resolution battle against the a900 when using the same lens on both cameras. This also proves that long end shooters need to purchase longer lenses with the a900 when moving from the a700 for the shooter to actually benefit when shooting at the long end.

-Sonolta


But Don, you haven't prove it either because you haven't post a "comparison of A900 compared to A700".

After all you said, the only thing claire is: If 12 MP is enough for what you want and you are a tele user, the A700 will make your life less expensive -and everybody agrees with that.

But the A900 is a better "image maker" (and a better camera too) as the website you quote all the time, the DXO mark thing, states: the A900 is in the 7th place and the A700 is 19th -probably the A350 will be a better buy because "more resolution" and less expensive than the A700.

So, are we going for a 7 more pages with squirrels and tigers? not me!
:)
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3743
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

pakodominguez wrote:So, are we going for a 7 more pages with squirrels and tigers? not me!
:)



Lol, best post so far in this thread!
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 »

Seven more pages? I don't think there is that much meat left on this bone...
Greg

ps. BTW kids there is such a thing as a Sony A500, it already exists, it's a VAIO something or other....
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6019
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Sorry, I have been distracted by continued problems with the Iomega RAID 1 drive that holds my work in progress - Disk 2 failed on Tuesday and it rebuilt the system, Disk 1 just failed today - fortunately after six hours of Lightroom work editing down over 3,000 RAWs from our daughter's photography in recent months, to a final 300 for further work and thinning down - target another 200 or so pix for Alamy.

One thing, by the way, which comes from this is just how exceptional the A350 is. Moving from Canon 400D raws to A350 raws is like getting a new pair of eyes. It's not just the quantum leap in sharpness (even the best Canon shots come nowhere close) it's the richness and subtlety of the colour.

So, I will therefore go now and make some comparisons - A900, A700, A350 (or I may just use the A380 instead to make it more up to date).

David
01af
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Germany

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by 01af »

David Kilpatrick wrote:One thing, by the way, which comes from this is just how exceptional the A350 is. Moving from Canon 400D raws to A350 raws is like getting a new pair of eyes.

Too bad the A350/A380's fine 14.2 MP sensor is coming in such a mickey mouse body. Inadequate viewfinder, poor AF module without f/2.8 sensor, no AF micro-adjustment, no mirror lock-up, no DOF preview, no PC cable socket ... and the A380 even lost the remote release socket! [EDIT: And no auto-exposure lock.] And it cannot take CF cards anymore, too :(

-- Olaf
Last edited by 01af on Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Argonaut
Oligarch
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: A900 crop vs. A700

Unread post by Argonaut »

As unnerving as it is, I agree with Sonolta on the long end. There, I said it.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the alternative to wide angle shooting with an a900 and some expensive w/a glass - stitching. Stitching software (I'm not talking what comes with every camera these days) is sophisticated enough to make seamless panoramas and landscapes. I use PTAssembler, but there are others too. For less than $100 and a KM5, I can make a gigapixel landscape with the FOV of your choice. If you want to see what can be done, go to http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/
Sony a77ii, RX-100 I; RX10 iii; Rokinon 8mm f/3.5; Tamron 17-50; Sony 70-400G; Lightroom 6.2; Photoshop CS5; PicturesToExe 8.0.
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests