why a700?
- Thread starter soken
- Start date
- Status
soken
New Member
Me too, I use spot focus most of the time but for landscape I will change into other modes
I use centre focus about 25% of the time. 70% of the time I'm using the corner AF points (very nice for focusing on eyes), and only 5% will I use the outermost focus points / area AF.
frederickykfoo
Senior Member
So far, Sony DSLR camera have enough focusing point even for low end camera like A100 & A200. C & N have from 3 to over 50 points. Do anyone need so many ? By the time turn to the point, the object/subject may have moved.
Actually yes... they're quite important... cos with the better AF system of the A900, I start using the other sensors to focus... the 7D's outer sensors were quite crap and so I used the centre one to focus and recompose... but that kind of skewed focus sometimes, especially in group photos where the lighting is poor and you're shooting like f/5.6 and the focus is not tack sharp... especially for portrait type shots... where moving the centre Af sensor to the eyes to focus and then recompose can really throw the overall focus of the shot quite a bit off...
rawshooter
New Member
It depends on individual shooting style. It just offer the flexibility. However on A700 particularly, the center AF has Center Double Cross AF sensor which is different from other focusing point. Thus when using centre AF, you focusing is much faster and deadly accurate (one of the most accurate AF DSLR) even with low light. I uses centre focus 100% of the time unless I am doing macro. Try it to find out.
Last edited:
I haven't tried either body in depth to comment, but have a friend who owns both. Judging from the pics he took with each of them, I could not really tell the difference in the end-results, since naturally, the determinant is always the lens.
Upgrading from an a200 to a700, however, would definitely give a person the 'feel-good' factor, albeit whatever technical improvements it comes with. How much would you price that? In my case, it would be very low since, as mentioned, no much diff in end-results.
Cheers!
Upgrading from an a200 to a700, however, would definitely give a person the 'feel-good' factor, albeit whatever technical improvements it comes with. How much would you price that? In my case, it would be very low since, as mentioned, no much diff in end-results.
Cheers!
navlem
New Member
Thats where you are wrong. A good body can save more shots in a bad condition shoot. A200 might not be able to lock AF under dim-light as well as A700 and you might be just a sec slower from capturing the moment.
and Noise quality is so good that shooting at ISO1600 or even ISO3200 is not a problem for A700, whereas you might be more conservative with A200, and get much slower shutter speed and miss more shots again.
Coming from a upgrade from A300, I would say A700 definitely commands a great leap of improvements.
I am getting a lot sharper images, using the same lenses and same settings. Not because I "feel" A700 is better as it is more expensive but being able to focus much faster and more accurate, it enable me to take a lot more "useable" photos of my son at home.
Also, with parameters like DR, Creative Style settings, the jpegs straight from the camera is already usable without any PP. When I was using A300, I always need to adjust the curves, contrast and white balance a little and it's quite tiring sometimes when I need to do it for few hundreds photos taken from an event.
In actual fact, the 2nd hand prices of A700 and A200 is now about $500-600 difference, which is considered very affordable to get a very well-built, multi-featured APS-C camera of it's class...
Just comments.
Last edited:
soken
New Member
Hi, bro Ouverture, u just convinced me for an upgradation
.btw, do u keep ur a300 as a backup? I am not sure whether I should sell a200 or not. sometimes it's very inconvenient to mount and dismount lenses. But I don't think I will take 2 bodies with me when I go out shoot.
Hi, bro Ouverture, u just convinced me for an upgradation
btw, do u keep ur a300 as a backup? I am not sure whether I should sell a200 or not. sometimes it's very inconvenient to mount and dismount lenses. But I don't think I will take 2 bodies with me when I go out shoot.
Hi Bro Soken, I sold away my A300 in order to upgrade. Few reasons actually.
1) I am not pro and dun consider myself hobbist or photographer etc, just a humble employee father who wants to take good photos of my family, cos kids grow fast and adults grow old fast....better to keep as much good quality photos as possible as momento sake. So no point keeping 2 bodies...furthermore, my CFO already quite "on the look-out" after I bought lenses and dry cabinet, etc, so not so wise to further create additional anxiety...;p
2) I have seriously pondering on the upgrade for quite sometime. Main feature is the superb AF LV of A300 which really helps me to compose awkward angle shots. However, after trying the faster AF of A700, I finally gave in. Furthermore, I am sure the upcoming A5xx and A7xx will have this good LV anyway...so A700 is actually my stop-gap option.
3) As I mentioned, since I take photos mostly indoors, high ISO is quite important to me as I normally use ISO400/800 with fast primes at F2.0/F2.8. A300 has good quality when outdoors but when indoors, the noise is quite prominent at ISO400 and above. Also outdoors, the superb AF LV seems useless already as it's quite difficult to see the LCD under sunlight, so have to fall back to OVF, which is small and not as bright.
4) Once you hold on to a A700 and press the trigger, I am sure you will be enchanted by it and the feeling of upgrade is UNSTOPPABLE!!! :devil:
Last edited:
Im lining up for the purchase of the 700 very soon. I don't really need the 900 and am tired of waiting for Sony. Still using 5D (Minolta) I want to use a more sophisticated body to suit my lenses. Pirce/quality wise the 700 is likely at its peak, almost a bargain. That aside, even if a new body comes out tomorrow, it will be much more pricier and might hold functions (video) that I really do not care for.
I would only consider upgrade to new camera body after I finish my current installment.
However, while I do know A700 is better, but is it really a *must have*? For me, A350 is more than enough for my taste.
it's more of a *nice to have* rather than a must have.
my previous a200's 3fps RAW file burst ain't good enough for sports shooting so moved on to the a700. shooting skill counts much more than a camera body.
stasystylez
New Member
i upgraded to A700 from A200 4 days ago,
got my first dslr which is A200 last year june.
bought 42am and 18-250 lens while using A200 and bought sigma 30mm 1.4 recently.
felt a great change when i jump to A700,
the sharpness that my sigma30mm 1.4 give on a A700 and the speed.
the accessible buttons and extra exposure , remote commander , LCD , burst shots , the noise reduction , ISO.
and every bits.
really worth upgrading and this cam is gonna stick for me quite a while because i will be investing in lens instead,
A700 body is good enough for me.
A200 is a great dslr to start of your photography hobby when i first step in,
but soon i find it quite limited when your knowledge about photography increased,
and your expectation of your photo increased.
didn't jump to A700 in the first place because i was quite afraid of all the massive number of buttons on mid range dslr,
that's why i started out on A200 to learn all the basic.
got my first dslr which is A200 last year june.
bought 42am and 18-250 lens while using A200 and bought sigma 30mm 1.4 recently.
felt a great change when i jump to A700,
the sharpness that my sigma30mm 1.4 give on a A700 and the speed.
the accessible buttons and extra exposure , remote commander , LCD , burst shots , the noise reduction , ISO.
and every bits.
really worth upgrading and this cam is gonna stick for me quite a while because i will be investing in lens instead,
A700 body is good enough for me.
A200 is a great dslr to start of your photography hobby when i first step in,
but soon i find it quite limited when your knowledge about photography increased,
and your expectation of your photo increased.
didn't jump to A700 in the first place because i was quite afraid of all the massive number of buttons on mid range dslr,
that's why i started out on A200 to learn all the basic.
Yes... A700 5fps is very good, but I seldom take sports event. Maybe in the future. But, I would turn off auto-review and use a faster CF if I going for one.
This was posted before at alphadslr webbie. Be surprised at the result...Better than all the rest of the DSLRs!~
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29824474
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29824474
Here is my 2c...
A-700 is a very nice camera, almost too cheap with all the features that matters to the user.
Remember those 5fps basically enable you to do bracketing shots for HDR without any tripod use. Not just purely for sport photography.
A-700 is always on my bag as a backup to A-900. I also like A-700 as it is lighter as compare to A-900 while the quality from it is still very very good. A-900 due to bigger sensor, gives a little more "depth" to the pictures.
The only thing I find it difficult is the crop sensor and smaller OVF as compared to A-900. Just put it this way... I am being spoilt with D9 and A-900 in terms of their OVF and working distance.
If we take A-900 out from the equation, A-700 is probably one of the nicest camera right now.
There isn't much to complaint about the camera if you view it from an objective point of view.
Go and get one as I think the next update will be just have HD video and slightly high MP and few smaller improvement with higher price. I don't think any serious photographer will be bother with Video on DSLR.
Hope it helps....
A-700 is a very nice camera, almost too cheap with all the features that matters to the user.
Remember those 5fps basically enable you to do bracketing shots for HDR without any tripod use. Not just purely for sport photography.
A-700 is always on my bag as a backup to A-900. I also like A-700 as it is lighter as compare to A-900 while the quality from it is still very very good. A-900 due to bigger sensor, gives a little more "depth" to the pictures.
The only thing I find it difficult is the crop sensor and smaller OVF as compared to A-900. Just put it this way... I am being spoilt with D9 and A-900 in terms of their OVF and working distance.
If we take A-900 out from the equation, A-700 is probably one of the nicest camera right now.
There isn't much to complaint about the camera if you view it from an objective point of view.
Go and get one as I think the next update will be just have HD video and slightly high MP and few smaller improvement with higher price. I don't think any serious photographer will be bother with Video on DSLR.
Hope it helps....
Exactly, that's why I picked up my A700 yesterday .. what a rig ..
- Status
Similar threads
