Sonolta wrote:I presented this very same request to Carl G. (AlphaMountWorld) on a thread here yesterday using the Beercan fully extended between f8 and F11....He decided rather than posting the comparison he would instead admit the a700 would win the day.rush2112 wrote:...so the A700 at that focal length would win out.
Steve then repeated my request and Winston chimed in with this...Winston wrote:The A700 wins because its sensor has a higher pixel density. The A350 is even denser.
You should be aware that VERY FEW of these a900 users want to present an image comparison where the a700 beats it out or equals it. But it is a photography fact....you shoot with the lenses that you own and for many folks it is also a fact that they will need to spend some serious cabbage on new lenses to make the a900 a worthwhile upgrade for them. For me personally it would not be a 3K investment...it would be more like an 8K investment.
harvey wrote:I will explain why I asked the question.
I have an A900 mainly because I had a set of lenses that made sense with a FF sensor and I was more interested in wide-angles.
I'm interested to know the tradeoffs at the telephoto end of the range. Long and fast lenses are expensive so you could add an APS-C camera to your kit rather than get another lens or TC. But you need to consider the option of cropping the A900 image.
I also expect the A700 to come out "better" in a comparison but this is just gut feeling based on no evidence.
bfitzgerald wrote:The only problem with digital FF is price, about it.
I would happily give up APS-C for FF, any day of the week. Not sure about needing ultra high end optics, do we not hear about many happy 28-75mm f2.8 users? Not a pricey lens at all.
Really not convinced about the "tele shooters" argument either. Sounds more like Olympus 4/3 uses on a rant, than anyone else
APS-C is affordable, that's why it's popular, few would stick to it in preference to FF
rush2112 wrote:What you have to consider as well is the wide angle you gain on full frame unless wide angle isn't something that interests you of course.
Sonolta wrote:Henry, Carl is talking about the few extra mm and the resolution you pick up at the wide/ultra-wide end. For instance the Siggy 12-24 on FF provides a 12mm FOV and the Siggy 10-20 on APS-C only provides a 15mm FOV.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests