Sony A100 to A700

Hi All
Thinking of upgrading from Sony A100 to Sony A700 and wondering if anyone
has done
that and what your thoughts are?
I'd been interested to know

Regards
Ron

In article ,
"Ron and Gail Smith" wrote:

Thinking of upgrading from Sony A100 to Sony A700 and wondering if anyone
has done
that and what your thoughts are?

Ron -

I purchased the A100 because I had a collection of Minolta lenses and
accessories that work with it. So far, my only incompatibility was with
the older Minolta flash not being compatible with the "D" flash system
used in later Minolta cameras and retained by Sony.

Why would I upgrade? The A700 is what I consider a slight improvement
over the A100, not enough to justify getting the new body. It has
nothing I can't live without.

I believe the same is true of other APC-sensor DSLRs on the market.
Most are on a par with the Sony. No one is so much better that a change
from any other is justified. (Contrary to opinions expressed by certain
other-brand bigots!)

I'm waiting for a model with a 24 mm X 36 mm sensor with at least 16
Megapixels, and a price in the $1000 range. I wouldn't be surprised if
this fall brings a crop of cameras that meet my requirements.

Fred

Fred McKenzie wrote:
I'm waiting for a model with a 24 mm X 36 mm sensor with at least 16
Megapixels, and a price in the $1000 range. I wouldn't be surprised if
this fall brings a crop of cameras that meet my requirements.

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000, Nikon D* -
who knows how much - but probably more than Canon. Samsung/Pentax - who
cares - as they haven't made a decent APS-c format sensor yet?
Methinks it will be a long wait for prices to drop by 2/3.
If you're desperate for a 35mm sensor format camera, then the current
run-out discount on the 5d might be as good as it gets for a while -
although the discount strictly isn't US$300 for the camera, but US$300
rebate on printer - and with the price of ink and the income stream
generated from ink sales, massive printer discounts aren't exactly unusual.

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Fred McKenzie
], who wrote in article :
Why would I upgrade? The A700 is what I consider a slight improvement
over the A100, not enough to justify getting the new body. It has
nothing I can't live without.

AFAIK, a100 is a toy. a700 is reported to be "a real camera".

E.g., one upgrade report I saw yesterday (on dpreview) is 10% focus
accuracy with a100, which goes to 90% with a700. (The same subjects
shot: little league football.)

[I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.]

Hope this helps,
Ilya

In article ,
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi body.
The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either for
handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category,
is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read
about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a euphemism
for "mirrors".

In article 1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1, frederick wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body this
fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level models come
out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other hand,
a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than an A900,
I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Fred

Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi body.
The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either for
handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category,
is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read
about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a euphemism
for "mirrors".

In article 1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1, frederick wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body this
fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level models come
out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other hand,
a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than an A900,
I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical
if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have made
some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon logically
would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D II" is rumour.
I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr, but it either
isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be featured to compete
with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at DP review forums have
talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it
will be a long time before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps
though they will make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but
not a cheap or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

frederick wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either
for handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category,
is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read
about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a
euphemism for "mirrors".

In article 1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1, frederick wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
models come out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other
hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than
an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical
if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have made
some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon logically
would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D II" is rumour.
I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr, but it either
isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be featured to compete
with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at DP review forums have
talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it
will be a long time before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps
though they will make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but
not a cheap or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

$3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
compete with the 5D on some level.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either
for handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy"
category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it
when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be
just a euphemism for "mirrors".

In article 1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1, frederick wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
models come out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other
hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than
an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical
if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have
made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon
logically would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D
II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr,
but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be
featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at
DP review forums have talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some
strange logic - IMO it will be a long time before Nikon make a
"budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will make a D3 type camera -
but without integral grip - but not a cheap or under-featured model)
Companies don't deliberately shoot themselves. There will never be
profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

$3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
compete with the 5D on some level.

Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it also
comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used both
5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage doesn't make
up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs, and ymmv.
Even when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price, good
cameras cost good money.

frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either
for handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy"
category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it
when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be
just a euphemism for "mirrors".

In article 1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1, frederick wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
models come out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP
full frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the
other hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less
expensive than an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not
identical if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC
Sony have made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the
Nikon logically would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The
"5D II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame
dslr, but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be
featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers
at DP review forums have talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using
some strange logic - IMO it will be a long time before Nikon make a
"budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will make a D3 type camera -
but without integral grip - but not a cheap or under-featured model)
Companies don't deliberately shoot themselves. There will never be
profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

$3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
compete with the 5D on some level.

Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it also
comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used both
5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage doesn't make
up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs, and ymmv. Even
when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price, good cameras
cost good money.

I was real tempted by the D3 for low light & wide angle and since I have
a bunch of full frame lenses but frankly I'd be embarrassed to be seen
with that big beast. And yeah it's a whole lot of money. If Canon can
make a 5D, Nikon can make a D70 body with full frame and a couple more
features for $3,000 easily. I can see how a full frame D200 might be
more than $3,000.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than
either for handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy"
category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it
when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be
just a euphemism for "mirrors".

In article 1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1, frederick
wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II" $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
models come out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP
full frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the
other hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less
expensive than an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not
identical if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC
Sony have made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and
the Nikon logically would cost not less but possibly more than a
D3. The "5D II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price
full-frame dslr, but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't
going to be featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The
rumour-mongers at DP review forums have talked themselves in to a
Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it will be a long time
before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will
make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but not a cheap
or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

$3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
compete with the 5D on some level.

Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it
also comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used
both 5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage
doesn't make up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs,
and ymmv. Even when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price,
good cameras cost good money.

I was real tempted by the D3 for low light & wide angle and since I have
a bunch of full frame lenses but frankly I'd be embarrassed to be seen
with that big beast. And yeah it's a whole lot of money. If Canon can
make a 5D, Nikon can make a D70 body with full frame and a couple more
features for $3,000 easily. I can see how a full frame D200 might be
more than $3,000.

I think a lot of assumptions about full-frame are made on the basis that
APS-c sensor cameras ceased to improve after the D70 or 20d. For me,
sure I'd like a full-frame D300 - but not a full-frame D70. I used 5d
and 17-40L and D300 with Sigma 10-20 - and even the "w/a advantage"
really wasn't there... perhaps with a Nikkor 14-24, but then the old
price thing comes back to bite one on the butt. (The 17-40L offered
similar edge performance to the 10-20 - worse extreme edges - yet cost
twice as much) So even if the 5d II has 20mp, Canon doesn't yet have the
lenses to interest me (except the 200mm f4 IS - the lens Nikon needs to
also make when they replace the 70-200)
Sony might be the one to come up with a killer system. Take a look at
the MTF for the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 at Photozone - tested on
APS-c. If they hold up even close to as well on the full-frame a900,
and they can make that quality in wide angle and do a couple of pro
quality standard and telephoto zooms, then Nikon and Canon have some
serious competition.
My guess is that Sony has these Zeiss primes also in mind for high
resolution cine "Red One" type developments. That looks to me where
this is all heading.