I have finally settled on getting a sony a700 slr - any reasons not to get it.

[LittleCanonKid]

I am not a fan of the way Sony handles noise reduction. Even the A900 is prone to the blotchy, unattractive NR, which makes me wonder if Sony will ever attempt to approach noise the same way Canon or Nikon does.

Both Canon and Nikon give you more room to grow, just because they have way more options. I'd suggest you look hard and see which brand has the niche lenses you want, because that's where it really matters.

 

[wkw]

the op mentioned gps (I think). the D90 is gps compatible. You need to get the geo tagging accessory which mounts in the flash shoe though. Also, Adorama has refurb 40D's for $699

 

[macgrl]

It does seem that the Canons have the better niche lens than the range sony have. which is one reason why i am moving towards the 40D what are your thoughts about this camera littlecannonkid?

The Canon lenses seem to do better in the second hand market which would mean that if my needs changed then I could sell lenses to buy new ones.

 

[macgrl]

the op mentioned gps (I think). the D90 is gps compatible. You need to get the geo tagging accessory which mounts in the flash shoe though. Also, Adorama has refurb 40D's for $699

I did indeed, I still need to find out if the canons do, it is something that i really want

 

[Cliff3]

I did indeed, I still need to find out if the canons do, it is something that i really want

There are alternative approaches involving GPS logs captured either from an iphone or a dedicated device, and that is a subject that has been discussed in a number of threads in this forum. I would suggest you perform a search and see if those threads answer your questions/suggest a reasonable solution.

 

[cube]

You can also use something like Phototrackr, although it might be a bit less accurate than a GPS camera attachment.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

It does seem that the Canons have the better niche lens than the range sony have. which is one reason why i am moving towards the 40D what are your thoughts about this camera littlecannonkid?

The Canon lenses seem to do better in the second hand market which would mean that if my needs changed then I could sell lenses to buy new ones.

The 40D's got a pretty solid place in the Canon lineup. With the 50D out, the price for the 40D is down but it's still a very capable camera. You've got the 6.5fps for any possible sports shooting, rugged build quality and Live View to boot (which the A700 does not have). And as wkw pointed out, Adorama's selling refurb'd 40Ds for $699, which gives you even more money to bulk up on good glass.

 

[macgrl]

super i will look

 

[macgrl]

The 40D's got a pretty solid place in the Canon lineup. With the 50D out, the price for the 40D is down but it's still a very capable camera. You've got the 6.5fps for any possible sports shooting, rugged build quality and Live View to boot (which the A700 does not have). And as wkw pointed out, Adorama's selling refurb'd 40Ds for $699, which gives you even more money to bulk up on good glass.

Yes the 50D is quite a lot more than the 40D still have to decide between that or the a700.

 

[Grimace]

Yes the 50D is quite a lot more than the 40D still have to decide between that or the a700.

The 40D is a great camera -- and keep in mind that your bodies will come and go. The lens family will last you decades.

 

[Abstract]

ad

.....any reasons not to get it?

No. I love my D300 more than the A700, but the A700 was a really nice camera to hold and use. It's a great camera, and while people will say it doesn't handle noise as well as Nikon or Canon when you shoot JPEGs (RAW is fine, particularly if you buy a new one, which has the newest firmware installed on it), an advanced camera like the A700 has a setting where you can adjust the level of noise reduction. Just reduce the noise reduction down one notch, and you'll end up with really nice JPEGs. It's not like the default settings on my D300 were great. They weren't. That doesn't mean it's not a great camera though.


And regarding lense choices, I find the entire argument regarding lenses to be blown a bit out of proportion. If you think you're going to buy 3-4 lenses in your lifetime, then chances are that Sony will meet your needs. Remember, you can buy Sony lenses, or some excellent 3rd party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. Even if your level of interest goes well beyond what you originally imagined, and you end up needing 6 lenses rather than just the 3 lenses you initially thought you'd get, Sony and Sigma alone will probably meet your needs.
However, if you know that you're interested in specialised areas such as shooting birds-in-flight, where really long $5000 to $10000 lenses are needed), then lens selection will definitely matter. That's when you really should look at Nikon or Canon.

I did NOT buy a Nikon because Nikon offers over 60+ lenses. I own 2 Nikon lenses, 2 Sigma lenses, and a Tokina. I'm thinking of either getting a Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 (because it seems a bit better than the Nikon equivalent), or a Nikon 135 mm f/2 in the near future. See? I'm not limited strictly by what Nikon offers. equivalents.

 

[toxic]

i'd go for a Pentax K20D, Nikon D90, or Canon 40D before any Sony...

lens collection is very relevant when deciding on a company. sure, Sony might have all the focal lengths you want, but how do the prices compare? optical quality? for example, some photographers choose Canon over Nikon because Canon offers a wider selection of (good) prime lenses over a wider range of budgets. Nikon has its own advantages over the Canon collection.

and though you might have old MF lenses that are compatible with the a700, using manual lenses with a cropped sensor viewfinder without a split prism isn't all that reliable.

 

[NightGeometry]

It's quite amusing all the fairly baseless 'Get a canon', 'Get a Nikon' because they're better posts.

The A700 is a fine camera, built on KM's long reputation. For the features it's cheap, the lens range seems to cover most things (and then adding in Tamron and Sigma lenses...).

For landscape I'd use the Sigma 10-20mm, which is a great (not so) little lens.

For me the ergonomics of the A700 were the final thing, it just feels nicer than pretty much any other camera I tried.

At this level of camera I honestly don't think there's much between most dSLR's. If there is a specific lens you need / want that is only available on one system, then yeah, that should limit your choice.

The biggest count against the Alpha's would be their use of the Minolta hot shoe rather than the ISO one. But a £5 adapter covers that, and the Sony flashes seem to be very reasonable.

 

[macgrl]

I think that I may have been turned to the 40d. I just need to look at a good general range lens 18 to 200mm

 

[Abstract]

I think that I may have been turned to the 40d. I just need to look at a good general range lens 18 to 200mm

Then why are you not considering the Nikon D90 with the famous Nikon 18-200 mm VR lens?


This thread probably didn't help you at all, to be honest.

 

[cube]

and though you might have old MF lenses that are compatible with the a700, using manual lenses with a cropped sensor viewfinder without a split prism isn't all that reliable.

You can install a third-party focusing screen. Normally, this will affect a bit the metering, so you need to compensate.

 

[cube]

Then why are you not considering the Nikon D90 with the famous Nikon 18-200 mm VR lens?

Maybe this would be an acceptable answer:
http://www.tamron.com/B003special/index.html

and that the D90 is not weather sealed.

 

[wkw]

Nikon D200's are quite cheap now at ~$700. I had one with the 18-200 and it was fantastic.

 

[Razeus]

The 40D is a great camera -- and keep in mind that your bodies will come and go. The lens family will last you decades.

I wouldn't go quite that far.

 

[cooloregon]

Only from the minds of Minolta

Hi there cooloregon, what other cameras have you been looking at / considering, I am looking at the canon 40d more seriously now, although I do like the a700. Decisions decisions. lol

Well not much because I'm an old Minolta user. My current camera is a Konica Minolta 7D (2006) and I have three lenses...24mmf2.8, 50mmf1.4 and a 24-105mmf2.8 .All Minolta lenses. The main reason I'm looking at an a700 is that it is a direct replacement for the 7D. From 6meg ccd to 12meg.cmos sensor. Most of the controls are the same as is the layout. Also... remember Nikon uses the Sony sensors in their dslr cameras mmmmmmmmmmmm? Only from the minds of Minolta!

 

[toxic]

Maybe this would be an acceptable answer:
http://www.tamron.com/B003special/index.html

and that the D90 is not weather sealed.

well, it's not like the 40/50D is, either.... yes, i realize Canon stuck some bits and pieces in the 50D and called it "sealing".

i think the consensus is the Tamron 18-270 is better than the Canon 18-200. but why are you buying an slr just to get one big compromise lens?

Most of the controls are the same as is the layout. Also... remember Nikon uses the Sony sensors in their dslr cameras mmmmmmmmmmmm? Only from the minds of Minolta!

you realize Nikon lagged behind Canon for quite awhile because of that? meanwhile, Nikons handle the data differently.

 

[Cliff3]

It's quite amusing all the fairly baseless 'Get a canon', 'Get a Nikon' because they're better posts.

Those are actually 'get what I have because if you do it validates my decision' posts.

 

[Abstract]

That's why I said this thread hasn't helped the OP. It probably hasn't.


The Sony A700 is a fantastic camera, and the lenses available from Sony and Sigma are enough to keep her more than happy.

and that the D90 is not weather sealed.

And the Canon is going to keep all that nasty weather out, is it?

 

[andiwm2003]

the discussion sony vs. canon vs. nikon is much worse than the discussions Mac vs. PC.

don't let some small technicalities decide what camera you buy. in the A700 price range they are all good. in the end focus on what feels good in your hands and start shooting. ergonomics decide if you make a good shot or not. most people use only three or four lenses. as said before sony's/sigmas/tamrons lens collection is good enough for that.

if you have some very special shots in mind (architecture, birding, night shots) or very specialized professional applications then canon and nikon may have more to offer due to the larger selection of lenses. but then you wouldn't ask this question here.

 

[wheelhot]

Well you've selected the same camera I've been looking at too. The Alpha a700 would be a great starting camera for you. Great for the new learner and advanced photographer. I always thought that one sould buy a camera with more than you need now and as you advanced in you're ability you won"t need to buy another camera too soon. As for lens, because Sony uses the same lens mount that (Konica)Minolta used, there are more than enough lenses that you may choose from. Adorama and B&H Photo have great selections of Minolta and Sony lenses new and used. Good shooting!

Not exactly true, I've seen many people who gives this reason and end up not being that interested that much into photography or ended up not using it cause they feel it is too much for them. Really pissed me off when they just leave their 50D in the cabinet to rot

Well, it is true that Nikon uses the same sensor as Sony (well at least in the D3x) but see the image comparison, Sony noise at higher ISO is the worst of the bunch, all blotchy, lose of details, high level of chromatic and luminance noise. So even if Sony uses the same sensor as Nikon, their image quality still suck at higher ISO so there must be something else. Like how the camera process the image?

Also, frankly speaking, most 3rd party lenses is not as good as the lenses produced by the camera body manufacturer and I kept hearing horror stories about 3rd party lenses always have problems here and there and need to be returned, there are good 3rd party lenses out there just we must keep an eye about the problems we might face I guess.

Another point to be taken is ergonomics, most ppl end up bragging Nikon is better then Canon or Canon better then Sony partly come from their experience in ergonomics, I frankly cannot be on Sony side even its true that their camera offers value for money cause I HATE its ergonomics, so that totally rules thing out. I'm okay with Nikon and Canon ergonomics. (well I guess I don't need to tell that I hate Sony high ISO performance too)

Now to answer the OP question, if you want to use a 18-200 lens, I must say for you to get a Nikon D90 with that lens instead cause if I'm not mistaken, Canon 18-200 is not as good as Nikkor 18-200.

Well I gotta be frank, when I look at Canon lenses, I only care bout their L lens and their primes, the only EF-S lens I have an eye for is the 17-55 f/2.8 and another wideangle zoom (don't know much bout wide angles cause I rarely need to shoot at wideangle). The cheapest L you can get is 70-200 f/4, the constant aperture is what make this lens great (maybe will interest you cause you mentioned long distance shots) though, if you do own a 70-200 f/4 maybe you will need to get a cheaper body like the Rebel XS or XSi which are fine camera bodies also (the small grip usually will make people not to like the Rebel series, so be sure to try it out before owning it).