Photoclubalpha

After the A500, A550, & A850 introductions ... I simply cannot believe they left the A700 alone! It has been "discontinued" in the SONY markets in many countries, except notably ... the USA. Which, I'm afraid, is slightly confusing? Is it here to stay ... or can the outlying countries expect a replacement A7xx or just a void in the line? I mean, this is the weirdest marketing move of this kind I have ever seen!

Anyone else got a handle on this? You guys don't like the A700 or something?

It's still on sonystyle France and Germany, though they changed the price back to >1300 Euro Used to be around 799 during the last few months. So they did discover the real value of the A700 now (Anyway, you can still get it for 800 everywhere).
If you don't need lifeview or video it's just perfect. I hope it's replacement will be as solid!

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.

No replacement for the A700 this year but, if we are lucky, by PMA 2010.
And, if we are lucky, we'll have a new noise reduction approach (I haven't seen yet how good the A550 does) Video and so

Regards

Please explain to me why we need video in a still photography camera?
It is just something I see no need for, after all, if I wanted video I would buy a video camera. Surely the video in a still camera cannot be the same quality and flexibility that a proper video camera has, can it?
I just see all these, so called, developments as gimmicks. All I want, and I am sure this applies to many other photographers, is a decent, high quality STILL camera that I can use for personal satisfaction and earn a few pennies from.
I am aware that much press still work is now taken from video but that is only one style of use and cannot justify the inclusion of such extra bits and pieces in advanced amateur and semi-pro cameras.
Has anyone bought a still camera because of the video capability?

pako is right

the new A700 ( A750) shall be at the next PMA
but maybe he come`s a view mounths earlier

gustav

HFnotts wrote:Please explain to me why we need video in a still photography camera?
It is just something I see no need for, after all, if I wanted video I would buy a video camera. Surely the video in a still camera cannot be the same quality and flexibility that a proper video camera has, can it?
I just see all these, so called, developments as gimmicks. All I want, and I am sure this applies to many other photographers, is a decent, high quality STILL camera that I can use for personal satisfaction and earn a few pennies from.

I'm also one who sees no need for video, and have a video camera for when I want to video something.

I see auto-focus on an SLR as a gimmick, too, but now I'm stuck paying extra jack for bodies with focus detection systems and focus motors, plus more money again for AF lenses. I lost that battle when film died and I couldn't get a manual focus DSLR, since no-one makes one. Years of lens collection relegated to the shelf for use every couple of years, just to train the kids on "real photography."

I feel like we may also lose the video battle.

Dusty

Dusty wrote:I'm also one who sees no need for video, and have a video camera for when I want to video something.

Well, if your camera had video, you could just ignore and not use it I don't think it will boost production cost, there will be mainly some development cost. But then, you might also not want to pay for MLU, RAW support, DOF preview or the tripodmount if you don't need it.

Dusty wrote:I see auto-focus on an SLR as a gimmick

I like it. Technology moves on, things are getting more complex but more easy to use. Some might consider IS3200 or 7fps or FF or DRO a gimmick, some would die to have it! You could get a M42 adaptor and then get plenty of old lenses (if you don't have already). Maybe there are still some video enthousiasts out there that regret they no longer have to spool the film themselves while filming

is th idea that the A700 is real? it's still listed everywhere here. and it has been out of stock a few times in the last month or 2 so it seems new cameras are still coming in. are we at all sure this isn't some rumour stared from a mistake on a foreign site?

Also if Sony has to make the A700 stay relevent for another 6 months maybe we will see a v5 firmware afterall?

Javelin wrote:is th idea that the A700 is real? it's still listed everywhere here. and it has been out of stock a few times in the last month or 2 so it seems new cameras are still coming in. are we at all sure this isn't some rumour stared from a mistake on a foreign site?

mmm
this is a "foreign site", you know?

Javelin wrote:Also if Sony has to make the A700 stay relevent for another 6 months maybe we will see a v5 firmware afterall?

Inch'allah!
but in that case we'll see V2 for the A900 and, apparently, there no mayor FW improvememnt on the A850 in order to get it (at least, not yet...)
:-/

Regards

HFnotts wrote:Please explain to me why we need video in a still photography camera?

Nothing to explain, you are totally right: "WE" don't need video on a dSRL. I (and probably few others) need video on a dSRL...

HFnotts wrote: It is just something I see no need for, after all, if I wanted video I would buy a video camera. Surely the video in a still camera cannot be the same quality and flexibility that a proper video camera has, can it?

If you don't need it don't worry, apparently Sony is coming with a lot of different models with different features and there will be a camera that fill your needs

HFnotts wrote: Has anyone bought a still camera because of the video capability?

Probably not that many on this forum because Sony doesn't provide such a camera, but ask DK what does he think about his D5000 -he's becoming addict to vdSRL

Regards

Pako

Dusty wrote: I'm also one who sees no need for video, and have a video camera for when I want to video something.

I see auto-focus on an SLR as a gimmick, too, but now I'm stuck paying extra jack for bodies with focus detection systems and focus motors, plus more money again for AF lenses. I lost that battle when film died and I couldn't get a manual focus DSLR, since no-one makes one. Years of lens collection relegated to the shelf for use every couple of years, just to train the kids on "real photography."

no offense, but with Minolta/Sony you got into a system that isn't Manual-Focus AT ALL. Nikon will work better for you IMHO.

Dusty wrote: I feel like we may also lose the video battle.

Dusty

You have to learn how to pick better your battles, Dusty...

kingfisher wrote:pako is right

the new A700 ( A750) shall be at the next PMA
but maybe he come`s a view mounths earlier

gustav

I think you will keep us posted, don't you?

bossel wrote: I like it. Technology moves on, things are getting more complex but more easy to use. Some might consider IS3200 or 7fps or FF or DRO a gimmick, some would die to have it! You could get a M42 adaptor and then get plenty of old lenses (if you don't have already). Maybe there are still some video enthousiasts out there that regret they no longer have to spool the film themselves while filming

Yes, Tech moves forward, but at times it is adopted just because it's available, and not really needed. For a P&S, Af is great, for a SLR, I don't need it. I actually like a lot of what digital photography brings to the craft, but I could create great digital images with my old MD lenses, if I had a body that took them! I have no M42 lenses, (well, maybe one an an antique camera I have somewhere) so an adapter does me no good.

When Minolta went to the Maxxum system, I likes a few of the features - like higher shutter speeds - that they had, but since I couldn't convert my lenses w/o losing speed and quality, I just stuck it out and hoped that they would also continue MF body development. Of course I lost out because everybody thought that AF was needed for some reason.

I realize that there are a variety of needs for different photographic situations. Some need high ISO and some FPS, some may feel the need to have video also. I don't, and don't want to pay for features I don't want, but there is also the problems of 'packing' those features on a body. Which buttons do I lose to have buttons to control the new features? How else is it complicating the use of my camera? There is only so much real estate on a camera body, so maybe the body is now made bigger to give it more are for controls, or just to hold the extra IC boards and motors that cameras now need. All this adds cost, not to mention the R&D costs - not pure research type, we all pay for that - but the R&D to develop it into a marketable camera.

It's also easier to just abandon the simple models and make everyone pay for the new feature packed ones, denying us the choice to have only what we want, not what the masses can be convinced they should have, and never use!

Dusty

pakodominguez wrote: no offense, but with Minolta/Sony you got into a system that isn't Manual-Focus AT ALL. Nikon will work better for you IMHO.

I think the guys who made out are the Pentax K mount guys, they can still use their old lenses. Did any other mfg keep the same mount?

Too bad I didn't have Pentax, but I had Minolta. I also have a brother and sister with film Maxxums, so Sony made sense for getting loaner lenses.

Dusty