Canon and Nikon have already answered FYI, Canon 40D (which just hit shelves) and Nikon D300 (supposed to hit shelves in November). Both of which, IMO, are better cameras than the A700. The D300 AF module should prove to be ahead of both competitors too since they gave it the pro CAM3500. We'll have to wait and see how well it performs.
Noise should be better but nothing spectacular. You just can't do Canon 5D/Nikon D3 noise levels at that pixel density.
I have looked at the pictures on Sony's Japanese site, and that A700 looks to be a joke (just like the current Alpha is a joke, with its thunderous mirror slap and a faux metal mode dial).............................................................................................................Minolta used to be great back in the film days... But I don't think Sony know what they are doing.
This camera may be competition for Oly E510, or Rebel XTi, or the D80 (which are all much cheaper - and look like even better deal if we factor the lenses in)... But comparing it to 40D or D300 is just silly. Sad but true. The 40D has all the body of Canon lenses behind it, and D300 is simply a work of art.
Haha, and speaking of useless weather sealing, I'm guessing valiar hasn't seen the piss-poor, worthless weathersealing on the 40D yet. Canon just gave you the weather-sealing feature to shut Canon users and critics up, but they didn't give you something decent. At least Sony did, and used rubber!
So to turn the statement on its head: What's the point of having weather-sealed lenses if your camera can't cope with rain?
.................................................. Who in their right mind will want to pay $700 for a zoom like that, Carl Zeiss or not?
Who is going to buy all of these lenses?
And who is Sony's intended target audience?
I don't know for sure - but I have a guess. Probably an affluent buyer, who is upgrading from an expensive P&S, who knows nothing about photography, and yet has heard that Carl Zeiss has to be good.
The A100 body is horrible.
* It has extremely poor mirror dampening (in my unscientific testing, I estimated that the mirror slap costs about a whole f stop, if you want to avoid camera shake). I think my full-frame, ancient, mechanical Minolta X-700 was better in this respect. Even with motor drive attached.
*To add insult to injury, there is no bloody mirror lock-up! At least, I could find it nowhere. No, IS is not a substitute for a real MLU function. IS is most effective for longer lenses, and shorter shutter speeds. But for such applications as shooting night cityscapes, real MLU is a must. How hard can that be to implement?
*There is no LCD on top - just the main screen. Given how much the A100 cost when it came out, this is simply inexcusable. The D80 has such an LCD. How hard can that be?
*There is only one function dial. Furthermore, there is no provision to save "custom" modes.
*As I mentioned earlier, there is no X-sync terminal, hotshoe is ultra-proprietary, and Sony's flashguns do not do FP-TTL.
*There is that smooth plastic area around the shutter release made specifically for fingerprints. Another fingerprint magnet area is the AR-coated main screen. Hard to clean too. No hard screen protector (like on Nikons and Olys) is provided. Of course, this is not a functional complaint.
*The plastic is rather creaky (it is more of an aesthetic thing - all the A100s I have seen have held up to use reasonably well).
I had some hopes for the A700 (after all, they are trying to bill it as a "pro" or at least a "semi-pro" body). But it looks to me it is just more of the same marketing-driven development. At least, it is less of a fingerprint magnet, and there are two dials. And still no lenses!
Eh, Sony has some more lenses to make (acquire) before its market expands enough. However, the service plans for normal repair and accidental damage are really alluring.
$179 for 4 years including accidental damage? That's pretty awesome.
i agree with some of your points. but you also got the idea how they are going to market their dslr's. it's people with more money than skill. the afluent hobbyist. they (including me) want a good all around model with all the features including the "idiot" modes. it's an expensive toy. but that doesn't mean it's bad.
i tried canon, nikon, pentax, olympus and decided that the feel of the a100 for $799 was the best for me. size of body, features and ergonomics fit for me.
i have some good minolta lenses and a minolta slr around. the wireless flash from sony/minolta is priceless to me.
The mirror locks up when you set the a100 to 2 sec delayed exposure.
sony will need two years to catch up with lenses. the lenses they have are all good but expensive.
but of course they need a lot more variety there. in the meantime it's trying to find cheap minolta lenses on craigslist.
the a700 again has all features. maybe not always at its best but all around it looks interesting to me. noise control will make or break this model.
The problem with older Minolta lenses is that they are available in focal lengths that are not all that wonderful on an 1.5x crop camera. For example, if you have that older "super wide" 20mm - you only get an unispiring 30mm FOV with that 20mm lens. The "normal" 50mm lens is a tele now, and is hardly something you would want to walk around with.
Sony will never catch up beause they are clueless in this area - and they have proven it multiple times already.
If, for example, they had released a "reasonable" range of lenses to start with, and were complementing it with some interesting and "exotic" glass in order to catch up, your statement would have been valid.
See above. The only thing I agree with is the "overpriced" bit. They are overpriced, but they'll become cheaper as they sell in higher quantity.However, they have started by releasing an inconsistent mish-mash of poorly matched and grossly overpriced lenses.
For example, when Oly introduced the 4/3 system in 2003, the first lenses they came up with were the 14-54 2.8-3.5, and 50-200 2.8-3.5. Even if they were not to release any more lenses for 2 years, these two have provided coverage of most photographic needs right out of the box. After that, they have started "catching up" by releasing the 7-14 f4.0, 90-250 f2.0, etc. Right now their lens lineup compares favorably to the lineup of Canon EF L glass - and that is after less than 4 years on the market with entirely new system.
I would disagree here. Even the A100 is as good as noiseless... As are most current DSLRs. They all have close to zero noise at ISO 200 and below, and produce noisy images at ISO 800 and above. Canon's ISO 800+ images are generally the least noisy - by a small margin. It is indeed a nice feature for some applications. But do you really shoot at ISO 800+ all that often? I know I don't, and most people don't. I expect the A700 to be very nice in the noise department - but i doubt many will care.
It does not mean it HAS to be bad.
The Sony R1 is a case in point. I am a big fan of the R1 - it is a really unique, innovative camera - that is actually superior to the entire Alpha system as it is now.
It might be a fun toy if you always shoot in one of the scene modes with a kit lens. But then something like an R1 will be a much better value.
You could make the same argument about Canon and Nikon. Not many people shoot full frame. They only have two FF cameras, the 1Ds and 5D, and neither sell in loads.
Also, the crop factor may be a benefit, depending on what you're shooting.
They haven't had much of a chance to do that. They haven't proved anything yet, but they haven't disproved it either. They bought Minolta and spent time adapting those lenses.
I'm sure they're now working on new lenses, but it takes time. If it only takes 1 month to produce a new lens, I certainly wouldn't trust it.
They [Olympus] did so because they had to. They invented a new mount, and didn't have any lenses to borrow from, unlike Sony (with Minolta lenses).
See above. The only thing I agree with is the "overpriced" bit. They are overpriced, but they'll become cheaper as they sell in higher quantity.
Those R1s focus slowly, and are just slower and clunkier...in typical point and shoot fashion. The lens was flawless, but that's it. The CMOS sensor wasn't so great.
Anyway, I think the Sony is aiming for the new crowd of SLR photographers, like andiwm2003 said. Sure, I guess you don't "need" shake reduction in every lens you use. A tripod is still better. However, we're probably in an era where new photographers will probably never consider buying a $300 tripod plus head from Manfrotto, or know that monopods even exist. In-built shake reduction may not be taken seriously by serious photographers, but they certainly are by the masses.
I have looked at the pictures on Sony's Japanese site, and that A700 looks to be a joke (just like the current Alpha is a joke, with its thunderous mirror slap and a faux metal mode dial).
Things that immediately turned me off (in random order) are:
*mode wheel with no less than 6 "idiot modes", and even a "green" mode. they are highlighted as being "major features". While the "just don't use them" logic certainly does apply, this mis-feature subtracts from the overall ergonomics of the camera, and adds nothing of value.
*no multisegment LCD on top. Only main screen display - which is not articulated! The space on top, where the multisegment display could have been, is simply empty (save for a few haphazardly placed buttons). This means that to get an idea of the state the camera is in, I need to lift it/ turn it every time. Just like the much cheaper 400D and D40.
*a bloody JOYSTICK for main menu control. And you actually have to press it too to select functions. "Designers" who put these joysticks of cameras are simply clueless. Why not use a wheel system like Canon, or well spaced buttons like Olympus?
*"proven" dust reduction system... That does not reduce dust. Yes, it is the one that shakes the sensor using IS actuators.
http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/
*Extremely poor choice and very high pricing of lenses (especially of reasonable focal length). There is no fast "standard" zoom, for example. There is nothing like the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, or the Zuiko 14-54 f2.8-3.5.
There are no nice wide angle lenses (given the 1.5 crop factor). Nothing like the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L, or the Oly 7-14 f4.
Then there is that $350 50mm lens - probably the old Minolta design. The most expensive non-macro 50mm out there, bar none.
Then there are a few very expensive primes with "Carl Zeiss" slapped onto them - and they are just not worth it for what they do. Why would I want a 1k+ 85mm Planar on a 1.5-crop camera?
The only USM lenses for the system are the ones made by Sigma. All the rest is the bzzzt-motor-type. Not critical, of course.
And none of the Sony lenses are weather-sealed. Yet the A700 is advertised as having weather seals - which means this camera weather sealing is useless.
Minolta used to be great back in the film days... But I don't think Sony know what they are doing.
This camera may be competition for Oly E510, or Rebel XTi, or the D80 (which are all much cheaper - and look like even better deal if we factor the lenses in)... But comparing it to 40D or D300 is just silly. Sad but true. The 40D has all the body of Canon lenses behind it, and D300 is simply a work of art.
So does that mean Nikon never sold a pro camera? After all, they had only APS-C sized sensors until 3 weeks ago. In fact, they still haven't sold a FF DSLR. Lots of pros used the D200, and your description above pretty much matches that. Same could be said about the Canon 40D and 5D. Depending on what type of shooting you had to do, 11 AF points and 5 fps is quite respectable, even for those who make money from their work.And I haven't seen many "pro cameras" (let's not argue on the definition of pro) on the market with an APS-C sensor, only 11 AF points, or a 5fps frame rate/17 image RAW buffer (excluding the 1Ds, Hasselblads, and Leicas, all completely different animals).
Oh, and claiming that an in-body image stabilization system is complete BS. Not even a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS can do that. Gimme a break.
No, you could not.
Both Nikon and Canon have dedicated "crop" lenses, and they were quick to introduce them too. Nikon's 17-55 f2.8 DX, for example, or the Canon 11-22 EF-S are the lenses that come to mind.
They have just changed the silkscreen, and discontinued some/outsourced the production of other old Minolta models. I think the only "G" lens remaining now is the 35mm one.
There was no "adaptation" done. Compare the claimed characteristics (elements/groups, MTF) of the old Minoltas and new Sony branded glass. Everything is the same - according to Sony themselves.
Only at a higher price point.
The new A700 kit lens is again a god-awful slow consumer zoom.
Minolta-branded 70-200 never used to sell for $2400.
Canon's 70-200 2.8L is not a "high volume" lens (no $1k or more expensive lens is "high volume") - yet it costs less than half of what Sony tries to charge. Nikon somehow manages to sell their version for 1/3 the price.
What was wrong with R1's sensor in your opinion? Can you point me to any particular examples? Does it suffer from excessive noise at ISO 100, or, maybe, poor dynamic range?
From what I have seen myself, that sensor is no better and no worse than the one used in A100. AF speed is indeed better on A100, but R1's lens is significantly better than the A100 kit lens. If you only shoot with your kit lens, it is a big argument.
Does anyone think Sony is in the dSLR, especially the pro end, in the long run? I have nice minolta lenses, and an alpha, at the age of 15, but I don't know if Sony will provide what I need when I go pro.
Fair enough points, but the D200 is a few years older than the A700 and also had some of its own great features like CLS/commander mode, weather/dust sealing, and great high-ISO performance. The Nikon also had some good lenses to be used with...So does that mean Nikon never sold a pro camera? After all, they had only APS-C sized sensors until 3 weeks ago. In fact, they still haven't sold a FF DSLR. Lots of pros used the D200, and your description above pretty much matches that. Same could be said about the Canon 40D and 5D. Depending on what type of shooting you had to do, 11 AF points and 5 fps is quite respectable, even for those who make money from their work.
The fact that lens based IS is superior to in-body IS, and only the absolute best IS lenses can save 4 stops.What does a Canon lens have to do with in-body stabilization?
Does anyone know if older Minolta lens will fit/work on new alpha 700? I have an old 1.4 lens from a Minolta SRT 101 and was wondering if anyone had tried using analog lens on new cameras.