Photoclubalpha

There is a Sony press conference in the UK Aug 14th for a new digital camera.

We do not know what yet, but will be attending!

David

there will be a huge outcry if this turns out to be a cell phone

The first (vague) announcements of the 'A900' (or whatever its name eventually is going to be) appeared two years ago ... and today we still don't know if the new camera to be (finally) announced on Aug 14th is going to be the A900 ... do they really mean this year's Aug 14th? In the meantime, Nikon has released three (!) new pro-grade DSLR cameras, two of them truely spectacular (D300, D3, and D700).

I am so close to jumping ship. If the A900 again turns out to be inferior to the competition (like the A700 is inferior to the D300) then I'll take the plunge. Compared to the full-frame Nikons (D3 & D700) I guess the A900 will be superior with regard to low-ISO image quality and inferior in every other regard---i. e. high-ISO image quality, ruggedness, AF accuracy, responsiveness and speed, to name a few.

I sure will miss in-body image stabilisation and Minolta glass but for my kind of shooting I need accurate, user-adjustable auto-focus, good high-ISO performance, fast frame rates, and weather-sealed bodies and lenses. I just cannot justify spending more money on non-sealed, fragile gear that needs to be babied whenever a cloud shows up. Last year, a Dynax 7D died on me in the midst of an important assignment after it was hit by a few drops of some faint spray of rain. Luckily I had a spare body with me ...

-- Olaf

I'm not so certain about the Nikon AF accuracy. It is certainly very fast but from a time I spent with the D700, I felt I was getting a higher proportion of poorly focused shots and - oddly enough - weak compositions due to lacking a longer zoom range (I was limited to the 24-70mm). Even Nikon refused to let me use the 24-120mm on the D700, they don't think it is suitable; and they don't offer another real option with a range similar to the 16-85mm CZ (24-127mm). They would not send me a 24-120mm and I had to use the 24-70mm for the third time, as their PR dept really don't want the D3/700 bodies being sent with lenses that fail to perform well optically on FX digital.

While I was processing/using the D700, I was also processing a few hundred A700 travel shots and I concluded that much though I like the D700, I would not want to swap. Son Richard has a D3 outfit of his own, and again, though I love the camera for low-light action work it's not delivering anything substantially better than the A700 in good conditions. What I gain in pixel-level image quality is being lost in limited depth of field, camera shake and something indefinable about the CZ. In real terms, I have to use the D3/D700 at ISO 400 to get shots I can safely take at ISO 100 with the A700. While it's amazingly good for ISO 400, the avantage is lost by using the higher ISO.

Now if I was shooting with both camera at ISO 1600 my views would be different, the D700/D3 would win over the A700 every time. But I'm now getting such a consistently high hit rate from the A700 I find few other cameras win me over.

Also, I did a semi-technical test of the Canon 1000D and the D700 which was a bit surprising. The 1000D with 18-55mm IS lens produced better fine detail from a distant scene than the D700 with 24-70mm (much better detail). I'm assuming this is a freak incident and not saying anything about it officially as I don't want Canonites rampaging in joy, or Nikon suspecting I had a bad lens sample.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:I'm not so certain about the Nikon AF accuracy. It is certainly very fast but from a time I spent with the D700, I felt I was getting a higher proportion of poorly focused shots ...

Umm---maybe I am suffering a bad case of 'grass is greener on the other side' ... but after all, the top-level Nikon DSLRs allow the user to fine-adjust their lenses while the Sonys don't (yet). I am more concerned with absolute AF accuracy rather than AF speed. In most cases I can, and will, pre-focus and hold.

I ordered an A700 a few weeks ago but was forced to return it immediately due to poor focus accuracy. I don't want to order and to return half a dozen samples until I find one that will focus properly. Neither want I to send it to customer service because those technicians never get it right; they'll just work to their---rather sloopy---tolerances. I want to do my fine-adjustments myself because that's the only way to get it right. Sony won't let me; Nikon does.

David Kilpatrick wrote:I was also processing a few hundred A700 travel shots and I concluded that much though I like the D700, I would not want to swap. Son Richard has a D3 outfit of his own, and again, though I love the camera for low-light action work it's not delivering anything substantially better than the A700 in good conditions.

I see. Of course, I do travel-style photography, too ... but mostly for the fun of it. The money, for me, is in those low-light action shots. For those, I routinely use ISO 400/27° to ISO 3200/36° and shutter speeds between 1/500 s and 1/4000 s, so image stabilisation here is not of primary importance. I don't necessarily need a camera that delivers anything better in low light than the A700 in good conditions but one that does better in poor conditions than the A700 in the same poor conditions. And that includes bad weather. I'm envious ever since you posted those pictures (wasn't it on dPreview?) showing an Olympus 4/3rds and a Nikon D300, both dripping wet. There's no way my Minolta/Sony gear would survive this kind of treatment.

David Kilpatrick wrote:Now if I was shooting with both camera at ISO 1600 my views would be different, the D700/D3 would win over the A700 every time.

Basically that's what I'm talking about.

David Kilpatrick wrote:But I'm now getting such a consistently high hit rate from the A700 I find few other cameras win me over.

Yes---but you are more into travel-style, low-ISO photography. For me, this type of work not irrelevant entirely but of secondary importance.

David Kilpatrick wrote:Also, I did a semi-technical test of the Canon 1000D and the D700 which was a bit surprising. The 1000D with 18-55mm IS lens produced better fine detail from a distant scene than the D700 with 24-70mm (much better detail). I'm assuming this is a freak incident ...

Freak incident? Why not simply IS at work?

Sonolta wrote:... and what camera do you own now that is user-AF-adjustable now?

None. That's my problem. Inaccurate AF keeps me losing shots.

Sonolta wrote:You make it sound like the A700 is a slow dog ...

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.

Sonolta wrote:... and can't focus ...

Well ... the sample I had for a few days couldn't. And I'm so fed up with inaccurate AF ...

Sonolta wrote:... sucks at high ISO, and will break if squeezed to hard ... Please, give me a break!

It doesn't exactly "suck" but the competition does better. And even if the A700 body may resist moisture and rain better than the Dynax 7D---the lenses still don't.

Anyway, I shall wait until the A900 is out. Then I'll decide whether to stick with Sony or to jump ship ... or maybe I'll do both

-- Olaf

I should say that the AF hesitancy encountered on the D700 could be down to the 24-70mm not being a very good sample, but the D3 when fitted with the same lens just seemed more responsive. I am sure Nikon will say this is not possible and two or three pros who have both bodies are telling me they can find no difference - but they are not used to trying to find differences, and we are.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:In real terms, I have to use the D3/D700 at ISO 400 to get shots I can safely take at ISO 100 with the A700. While it's amazingly good for ISO 400, the avantage is lost by using the higher ISO.

Do you use ISO 100 on your A700? I thought that actually ISO 200 is the lowest "real" ISO so I have always used that. Is there any advantage to use ISO 100 on the A700?

bakubo wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:In real terms, I have to use the D3/D700 at ISO 400 to get shots I can safely take at ISO 100 with the A700. While it's amazingly good for ISO 400, the avantage is lost by using the higher ISO.

Do you use ISO 100 on your A700? I thought that actually ISO 200 is the lowest "real" ISO so I have always used that. Is there any advantage to use ISO 100 on the A700?

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.

David

Sonolta wrote:Yea, use it if you need slower shutter speeds.

Yes, of course, I know that it will allow slower shutter speeds. I was wondering if there was some non-obvious advantage. It was my understanding that ISO 200 was the best speed on the A700. Thanks for the links!

David Kilpatrick wrote: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.

01af wrote:... And that includes bad weather. I'm envious ever since you posted those pictures (wasn't it on dPreview?) showing an Olympus 4/3rds and a Nikon D300, both dripping wet. There's no way my Minolta/Sony gear would survive this kind of treatment.

There is, and it does. I have used my A700 in and around the waterfalls of Havasupai, as well as out in waste deep surf off the coast of Mexico. Two weeks ago I got caught out in blowing rain on a mountain top here in Phoenix as the monsoons fired up, and for the same reasons, I was back in the rain again last night for about an hour. In several cases, there has been both fresh and salt water litterally running off the top plate of my A700 and I have had no ill effects yet. 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, just look at all the 1DsIII's that bite it regularly. Some Olympus E3's are being reported with water inside their LCD's already (though some fail and others do not apparentl). I dive, have underwater housings, and once worked with a company that specialized in pumping water. If you buy a housing, a regulator set, high pressure air or water systems, or anything else with seals, the first instructions will always be to open up the device on a regular basis, inspect and clean the seals, oil them, and put it all back together. Is there any camera company out there who will let you service your seals without voiding the warrantee? No, and for that reason all 'sealed' cameras will only ever be temporarily sealed. Canon and Nikon have reputations for being durable, weather sealed pro grade equipment. When a Mark III fails, people write it off as a freak accident, or overlook it entirely because there is a mass user opinion putting pressure on them to do so. Sony does not enjoy that reputation yet, so if they claim it is sealed and a couple fail, people will judge them in a differently. If they do as they did with the A700 so far, calling it 'dust sealed but not splash-proof' and then letting people like me test the upper limits repeatedly, those like me talk and they earn similar reputation for being more durable than they make out.

Of course your milage may very. Seals are tempermental and temperature changes, chemicals (airborn or liquid such as cigarette smoke or spilt beer), and rapid fluxuations in humidity can all compromise seals. I might be rough on my gear but I am also careful to avoid rapid changes whenever possible. I also do not trust my 20 year old beer can that is rather well worn, but will use my very new, tight Sigma EX's and still in box 24mm in the rain. Since I never shoot upward into the falling moisture, a sealed lens isn't as important as the body lines on the camera. Sure, capilary action can draw water uphill in some conditions, but it has not been a problem for me yet, and I bet there are is more sealing in any lens than we are lead to believe. If any company mentions seals, they are at least opening the door for potential litigation in many parts of the world. I know I wouldn't advertise seals until I was absolutely comfortable with the idea that I could maintain a high enough level of reliabilty that the risk would be less than the marketing benefit. Olympus and Pentax I think are being more risky in their claims because they have fewer resources and less time than Sony can afford in trying to gain some market foothold.

01af wrote: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. I cannot speak for many MkIII users as I have only shot beside one and he was a slow guy anyway, but have never been around anyone with the D3 yet. 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)? The A700 seems to have a bit deeper buffer too compared to the 40D and D300 as well as some of the fastest data throughput times DPreview has ever tested, meaning if you need short bursts in rapid order, the A700 will be the fastest overall. My own experience with the A700, 40D and D300 seems to confirm this. I would say that the D300 is fastest on paper (with grip, though the grip does not improve the buffer), and similar to the A700 overall in real world performance. The limits on 40D minimum shutter speed for fast response and slower AF mean that it's a touch behind. Again, I cannot compare to the D3 or MkIII cams, but then again the A700 is hardly in the same bracket and should not be expected to be at the same level on many counts. With cameras you often get most of what you pay for.

01af wrote:Well ... the sample I had for a few days couldn't. And I'm so fed up with inaccurate AF...

But your sample is just one, and I haven't seen a huge trend with AF inaccuracies. If you personaly have had a history of AF issues, I might also suspect some of your lenses as I have known many Minolta legacy users who have never had AF accuracy issues, only issues with speed prior to the A700. Every last case of missed focus I have had with an A700 I know I can attribute to user error and one faulty lens. That sounds harsh, and I hope you don't take offense as I don't mean to imply you cannot focus, but instead mean that we are all human and make mistakes. I have missed shots because I was using very slim DOF and managed to waver forward or backward, I have used the center point, half pressed, then slipped on the button while recomposing but not noticed the lost lock. I have brought the camera up too quick and not realized I did not have a lock yet for one reason or another while clicking through (and yes, I know I could set to not fire until I have lock, I don't like the feel of that). 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.

I have said it before though, and will continue to say it. All these cameras are imperfect tools, or just a means to an end anyway. You have to pick the right one that fits you best in as many ways as possible, and no one knows that but you. I would only hate to hear of someone making a very costly jump to another brand without accurate information however. My experience in very trying situations is that the A700 is much better built, fast and accurate than you have assumed it to be so far. I expect the A900 to be another step or two above it on all accounts, though it might not be the ISO machine you need either. The slight rumors of a possible low-res FF, if true, might be the perfect solution for you. 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. My answer was no, even when I am shooting city lights, concerts, indoor sporting events and other low light situation. Your answer is yours and yours alone to decide.

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?

Excellent HUM469. If Sony is making nice sealing without mentioning then "chapeau bas" and would be a pleasure to rely on Sony.

HUM469, good post. I have shot in the rain many times over the years. Of course, I take a reasonable amount of care to try and keep the camera from getting wetter than it has to, but all my cameras, digital and film, have gotten wet many times and in 35 years I have never had any problems. My A700 hasn't gotten much rain on it yet, but my Canon 30D, KM 7D, and Canon DRebel/300D all have been in the rain a few times each and all were fine. My old Minolta Alpha 707si (Japanese version of Maxxum/Dynax 700si) once even got submerged in the ocean for a second or two. In 1995 I waded out into the water on Aibai (a tiny uninhabited island north of New Guinea) to get a shot looking back at the beach and island. A wave caught me by surprise from behind and my turned on camera was under water (as was I ), but I quickly lifted it above my head. The camera appeared to be dead, but came back to life the next day and still works fine. I used it on many trips after that. By the way, other than wiping it off I did nothing else to it.

Sonolta, thanks for that info. In the future I will start to use ISO 100 when conditions allow.