A900 crop vs. A700 - 2

[David Kilpatrick]

I have locked the previous topic - please, no matter who, don't turn the forum into a slanging match. Feel free to continue a sensible discussion of the topic here. None of the arguments are plain black and white; both the APS-C format and full frame have distinct benefits, and those benefits cover many types of photography. What works for one person may not work for another, whether it's individual items of equipment, or generalities like focal length range and format.

Please show respect on all sides, and please do not try to overwhelm anyone you think is 'opposing' your opinions. I already receive regular emails from potential forum members saying that they see this happening, and won't come here at all because of the bad attitude seen in some threads - often the most active, and therefore where people look to see what's happening. I do not want to delete entire threads, locking them does not prevent visitors seeing the contents, but at least it sends out a message.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Sonolta's post in this thread has been deleted because he used insulting language towards another forum member.

In future any posts using this type of language will be deleted - I don't care if it comes from Sonolta, or is aimed by someone else at Sonolta. Call anyone names here from now on and the post will be deleted. I'm fed up with this, I would not put up with it face to face and I don't see why I should appear to tolerate it here.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Don has removed insulting words from the post, but it does not change the tone much, and it's the tone we can do with changing. If anyone has arbitrarily decided what the original poster was asking for - a simple question of whether the quality from an A900 crop matched an A700 full frame, assuming a 200-300mm lens - then it's Don. Thomas was entirely reasonable in the locked thread. Don was over-zealous.

If I have time, I will take a look again at the 70-210mm beercan. Though Don is fairly dismissive of the lens, it's got qualities I like. As for the Sigma 70-300mm Apo DG Macro, it is hardly fair to criticise other lenses because they 'only' manage 1:4 (0.25X). A quick trawl through the Sony lens catalogue reveals that no lens manages anything better than 0.25X unless you buy either a macro lens or the new 18-55mm SAM.

I'm waiting for the HSM version of the 70-300mm Siggy. When that arrives, it will probably be my travel and general tele on the A900.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

The original post referred to 200-300mm, so presumably the original poster was interested in subjects which suit this range. The general problem with wildlife - not so much with sport - is that almost anything is never long enough, regardless of format. That's why digiscoping has been such a phenomenon. I know digiscopers who are working at an effective 2000mm all the time, and while it's lost out recently because of the size demands of picture libraries, the method remains very popular for web-page wildlife gurus.

The endpoint of this argument is that the Olympus 4/3rds system might be the best answer of all, especially with a 300-800mm Sigma...

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Don't forget the point that it is $2000-20,000 cheaper to shoot a ton of very similar, if not better long range stuff with APS-C instead of a using FF camera.

-Sonolta

Only if the resolution of APS-C is above 10.7 megapixels. The A900 in crop mode is better in theory than an A100/200/230/300/330 - since I no longer have a 10 megapixel body, I can not do a comparison.

In theory, if they took the density of the A350/380 sensor, we could have a 36 megapixel full framer. To match the A700, we need a 28.5 megapixel full framer. Then it would make no difference whether a crop or a native APS-C was used.

What has not so far been done is to design a very long lens (300+) which is purely APS-C. Everything over 270mm (Tamron VC 18-270mm) to date has been full frame. We have already seen just how excellent the 55-200mm designed for APS-C only can be. What if there was a 100-500mm made just to cover APS-C? It could be maybe no bigger than a 100-400mm for full frame.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, and the question has effectively been answered. Any number of further tests will prove, I am sure, that 12.2 megapixels offers better resolution than 10.7 megapixels.

The issues which go beyond this are:

1) The 10.7 megapixels has another 13.9 surrounding megapixels which can be very useful for adjusting final crop position, and ensuring that subjects are not truncated when aiming for a tight composition.
2) You already have an A900 if this question matters at all.
3) The A900 focus module is slightly better than the A700, aided by micro AF adjust.
4) The A700 firmware v4 is better for high ISO work than the A900 v1.0, and unless they upgrade the A900, this tilts the balance back in favour of the APS-C choice.
5) You might already have an A700 as well as an A900 and just be able to make the choice.
6) For landscapes, static subjects or anything in good light, the A350/380 takes the argument a step further and out-resolves both A900 and A700.
7) The A350/380 viewfinder is so awful that you might not be willing to accept it, regardless of that benefit.
The A350/380 high ISO is worse than either the A900 or A700. (that is not a smiley! it's an 8 and bracket...)
9) You might be better off with an Olympus 4/3rds, or a Canon 500/50D (15.1 megapixels on 1.6X format) or a Nikon...

But after all those considerations, there's NO WAY I would trade my A900 for anything else. Harvey will understand that. Most Sony stuff is predictable but the A900 really is 'like.no.other', and once you have got used to it, it makes other options harder to live with.

David

[01af]

Everything over 270 mm (Tamron VC 18-270 mm) to date has been full frame.

Don't forget the Pentax SMC DA* 300 mm f/4 SDM! That's a DA lens, i. e. for APS-C format only.

What if there was a 100-500 mm made just to cover APS-C?

At very long focal lengths, a fairly wide image circle comes almost naturally. So restricting a super-telephoto's image circle diameter to 28.5 mm will hardly make any worthwhile difference in size, weight, and price.

See the Pentax DA* 300 mm ... it's physical length is 184 mm, weight is 1,200 g. Compare that to the Minolta AF Apo HS 300 mm f/4 G which is 220 mm long and weighs 1,400 g, or to the Minolta AF Apo HS 200 mm f/2.8 G which is 135 mm long and weighs 790 g. So the APS-C-format Pentax 300/4 is much longer and heavier than a 35-mm full-frame 200/2.8 lens and only slightly smaller and lighter than a 35-mm full-frame 300/4 lens. Also compare it to the Pentax SMC 67 300 mm f/4---it's 186 mm long and weighs 1,400 g ... and that's for 6 × 7 cm medium format!

-- Olaf

[stevecim]

7) The A350/380 viewfinder is so awful that you might not be willing to accept it, regardless of that benefit.

That's why I laughed when you included it in this discussion.

-Sonolta

Don't laugh to much, some of us can't aford more than a A350 I thought the Nik D5000 has the same size VF?

[David Kilpatrick]

Don't laugh to much, some of us can't aford more than a A350 I thought the Nik D5000 has the same size VF?

My apologies to Don, I have deleted two of his posts not because they were offensive but because they simply repeated the earlier locked thread and disrupted this one. Please do not cut and paste replies from the other thread here, and please do not repeat what are essentially the same replies in a different form. I will delete any similar repetition.

The Nikon D5000 finder is similar in size, but whether it's down to eyepoint or brightness, is slightly better to use. The A380 finder should be similar to the A350 but it seems to react to small apertures by getting very much dimmer. As you zoom the 18-55mm from 18mm to 55mm, on a sunny day, it looks as if the sun has gone in suddenly. This has had me checking to see whether the sun really had gone behind a cloud. The dimming effect is more noticeable than on any other DSLR finder I've used.

I realise I have left this out of my review. Time to paste the above paragraph into the review.

I did not include the A380 in my test because I felt the camera was appropriate for sports photography, though many people reading this forum will probably own an A350 or similar camera and feel it certainly doesn't prevent them from shooting sport. I included it because of the sensor, not the camera. What if Sony came out with an A700-quality body using the 14.2 megapixel sensor upgraded to shoot a better ISO 1600 and manage 3.5fps or better?

David

[Lonnie Utah]

Here, this might help....

[bfitzgerald]

Now might be a good time to hit the "lifetime" ban button for Don.
We're all waiting, and it cannot happen soon enough

[bossel]

I have seen the posts he did earlier this afternoon and I don't understand he can still post. Kudos to DK who has given him another chance after the admin-desaster, but now it's time to pull the plug. Don has again and again proved he is unwilling to communicate and to hold back his hate, attacks, insults and rude language.

[bfitzgerald]

Don, why not re-read the remarks you left in your post above, now who is trolling about. Who is the one insulting others?
Frankly I don't care how you rate my equipment, or how expensive it is, all you do is bang on about junk most of the time, we know what counts, end results. (and you aint half as good as you think you are either!)
Also you might want to grow up a bit, adults can agree to disagree without banding about personal insults, and degrading others.
This forum would be a much better place without your constant head banging.

[bossel]

... my 3300+ posts with nonsense...

I agree

[bfitzgerald]

We'll have to get Don some of this stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diprivan