Is the A700 right for me?

[farmermike]

I've been emailing with one of your members--he recommended I join these forums--about my camera wants and needs and he's pretty much got me talked into an A700, but I wanted to run the question by some others to see if they agree. I actually was looking to spend about $600 or less on a body, but I found an A700 for $809 (Broadway Photo) and I could do that. I read the reviews of the A350 on DPR and wasn't too impressed with that model, but I know nothing about the Sony line.

At any rate, here's the text of the first email I sent to your member and from this he recommended the A700. Thanks in advance for any advice.

I want to buy a moderately priced prosumer DSLR and I'm really befuddled. Here's what I know and what I want to do:

I bought my first 35mm SLR (Canon AE-1) in 1977 when I took a photography class in college. I learned to develop and print B&W film and so forth. As time went on I picked up more lenses and a Canon A-1 with a motor drive. Of course none of my stuff is auto-focus or much or auto-anything. Mostly I shot outdoors stuff from travel pics to old graveyards to birds and other nature stuff.

6 or 7 years ago I bought a Canon G2 just to shoot vacation pics, etc. I don't use it much because it isn't useful for much more than vacation pics.

Now I want to start shooting nature again, primarily birds. I don't want to spend a fortune, but I don't want anything too cheap and featureless. I've been looking at the Canon XSi and the Nikon D60, but I'm not wedded to any particular brand. Because I'm going to be mostly shooting birds, long lenses and image stabilization are top concerns. Speed is also a major consideration, I suppose, but I don't completely comprehend all this ISO stuff. I still think in terms of ASA and film grain.

So if I want to stay under $1K for a body and have lots of reasonably priced lenses available--including third party--and good image stabilization and so forth, where should I be looking?

mike cullison

[Javelin]

Hi Mike and welcome.

First I'd like to say welcome to the forum. usually our resident doctor would do that but ... he's looking for body parts to shoot for another thread I guess.

Second I'd be very wary of broadway photo look around the net for comments on them and thier practices.

Third if it comes down to the A700 or A350 in the end have a look around the local Circuit City stores. there is reports that remaining A700's are around $700.00 in their liquidation.

Now the camera. the A350 will do well for nature I think with the live view it could be usefull for small critters but for birds I agree with your friend that the A700 might be better. it's faster and you have the ability to raise the ISO further. like using a faster film you gain shutter speed or smaller aperture steps this way but you do get noisier images the higher you go. noise and grain can be considered the same thing but the digital grain will look diferent than film grain and the biggest complaint about any nose is it's not as even as film grain and when noise is bad it can look clumpier and more .. colourfull. that being said. most cameras these days produce cleaner images with high ISO than you get on most film. Consumers would rarely even have access to ISO(ASA) 800/ DIN30 which is eqivalent to ISO 800 on a digital and that is a setting on the camera rather than a diferent film. you can expect on a sony A700 to have 800 ISO look smooth with very little if any noise(grain) if the exposure is correct where on film ISO 800 colour print film.. the grain will be very aparent.. there are huge discussions around this and i'll be corrected shortly if any of this detail is wrong. The clamour of ISO and noise in digitals is basically because digital noise is less pleasing than film grain. in fact grain is almost an artform in itself on film. if your used to film you will be very pleased with digital because you can go a little farther and get smooth results.

Sony also offers the only 500mm mirror lens that autofocuses. the reason I bring this up is for birds and wildlife this seems to be a very nice lens to shoot with. light compact and not expensive for 500mm. .

[Dusty]

If you're shooting static subjects in good light, the 350s extra MPs so make a difference. For faster frame rates, focusing and better noise (grain) control at higher ISO.

I've used my 350 at ISO 1600 and 3200 only a few times, and found the results acceptable, using DXO to process the RAW files. People who use both tell me the 700 has better high ISO noise control, but coming, like you, from manual focus film cameras, I'm really happy with it. How often did we ever buy ASA 800 or 1600 film? If you plan on shooting a lot above ISO 800, you may want the the 700. If you don't pick up a 350.

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

Do not underestimate the A350. First of all, with birding the extra megapixels are like having a further 1.2X teleconverter compared to the A700 - or a 1.4X compared to the A200. I have just bought a classic Sigma 400mm f5.6 from Ffordes this morning - not the later Apo Macro version, which I'd probably get if one ever appeared for sale, but an original digital-compatible (5 contact only) gunmetal colour example at £125. It's a relatively small, light lens ideally suited for use on the A350 (they have a couple more left at £139 and £149, and an older £99 one which does not work on newer cameras, they would almost certainly sell for the same £125 though).

The Alpha 350 really is quite unique in its dynamic range, native contrast and colour palette. It has (inexplicably) almost as much dynamic range as the A900, with superb highlight recovery and very gentle midtone slope which suits portraits well. On many cameras, that means dull images, but the A350 manages to put some extra colour saturation and tips the balance towards warm colours too.

Have a look at:

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/sony_alpha_350" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

View some of the pix at 100% (original) size. The camera is completely at home at ISO 800, and in fact I find it hard to get equally good noise/grain from the A900. At ISO 3200 it can create an interesting 'grain' result if you want to, but by turning on NR it can also make a pretty clean file. I have just bought a second A350, though it is for our daughter - she is having the A350, and I am getting her Canon 400D outfit. She tried both for a week and the A350 won her over. I need to have a Canon body available, though I doubt I will use it for anything except occasional lens tests.

The important issues with the A350 are its relatively small viewfinder, though for her it's identical to the Canon so she is totally used to it; and the lack of an f/2.8 centre focus sensor, but remember - they only work with f/2.8 or faster lenses! I found that the A350 followed focus pretty well even with the relatively sluggish Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6.

David

[bossel]

...extra megapixels are like having a further 1.2X teleconverter compared to the A700

Hmmm I thought its a 1.08X teleconverter, I am calculating sqrt(14/12).

[David Kilpatrick]

...extra megapixels are like having a further 1.2X teleconverter compared to the A700

Hmmm I thought its a 1.08X teleconverter, I am calculating sqrt(14/12).

Yes, you are right, not thinking clearly there. But there is an advantage. It's especially noticeable over the Alpha 900, which is why I have kept an A350.

David

[braeside]

I have just bought a classic Sigma 400mm f5.6 from Ffordes this morning - not the later Apo Macro version, which I'd probably get if one ever appeared for sale, but an original digital-compatible (5 contact only) gunmetal colour example at £125. It's a relatively small, light lens ideally suited for use on the A350 (they have a couple more left at £139 and £149, and an older £99 one which does not work on newer cameras, they would almost certainly sell for the same £125 though).
David

My father had one of the pre APO gun metal 400/5.6 Sigmas, unfortunately it would not work on digital cameras and Sigma could not rechip it.
I eventually traded it in with Sigma for a 12-24 (with suitable cash adjustment in their favour).

[David Kilpatrick]

Well, Ffordes reckon three of the Sigmas they have do work with current cameras - one does not - and I just hope they are right.

David

[braeside]

Let us know how it goes David, it may be those lenses have an updated chip. I wish I had kept the old Sigma as I probably could have fitted a third party lens ROM nowadays.

[jcoffin]

Hi Mike and welcome.

First I'd like to say welcome to the forum. usually our resident doctor would do that but ... he's looking for body parts to shoot for another thread I guess.

Am I the only one who find the idea of a doctor looking for body parts just a little bit scary? I wondered why he was offering amputations at half price, but I guess now we have an idea.

[bossel]

Now I want to start shooting nature again, primarily birds.

What about an A200 with kit lens (18-70) and the new 70-300G/SSM for the birds? Would give you the necessary reach, sharpness, great colours and fast focussing. Of course 400mm or 500mm would be nicer but more expensice and the new Sony is said to sharp at 300 (darn I wish I had one myself )

If you go for birds in flight, all the 75-300 from Sigma/Sony/Minolta/Tamron or the (otherwise very nice) 70-210/4 are just too slow to focus and not that sharp on the long end.

[Dr. Harout]

Am I the only one who find the idea of a doctor looking for body parts just a little bit scary? I wondered why he was offering amputations at half price...

Due to the recession it's the quarter now

Oh, Mike, welcome to the forum, though my Viceroy Javelin had already welcomed you but nevertheless...

[farmermike]

Do not underestimate the A350. First of all, with birding the extra megapixels are like having a further 1.2X teleconverter compared to the A700 - or a 1.4X compared to the A200...

The important issues with the A350 are its relatively small viewfinder, though for her it's identical to the Canon so she is totally used to it; and the lack of an f/2.8 centre focus sensor, but remember - they only work with f/2.8 or faster lenses! I found that the A350 followed focus pretty well even with the relatively sluggish Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6.

David

Yeah, I just re-read the review of the A350 on the DPR web site and they were very unhappy with the size of the viewfinder and the way the articulated LCD makes it almost impossible to get your eye close to it. I guess I'd have to pick one up and try it and maybe I should since I have a big nose.

Best price I've seen for the A350 is $523 (body only) at Butterfly Photo. Don't know anything about them, but everybody else seems to want $599.

All things being equal, I can save about $300 on the camera and about $75 on the vertical grip. And I won't have to buy memory sticks, because the A350 only takes compact flash cards. I'm looking at the Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 lens as my main lens.

[farmermike]

I owned that Tammy 28-300XR and it was a decent lens, but it was clearly optically inferior to the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro.

I like Sigma lenses but someone told me their zooms--especially the 70-300--has been problematic because of plastic gears that break or strip. Any take on that?

[farmermike]

I owned that Tammy 28-300XR and it was a decent lens, but it was clearly optically inferior to the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. The 28-300 is also really slow, f6.3 at the long end, and it is also a really slow focuser and poor tracker, so don't expect the easiest bird photos with it...especially moving or in flight!

I like Sigma lenses and have owned them for my 35mm cams, but I've heard that their zooms--especially the 70-300--have plastic gears that are problematic. People say they strip and/or break. Have you had any issues like that?