Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > photography discussion forum

question about Sony A700!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-14 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Mar 2012 23:15:50 BDT
psn: tqfan says:
probably more a question for Doc Austin, but if anyone else can answer, it's appreciated!!

so as a sony A200 owner, i have always wanted to get the a900, or the a700.

well, i bought a used a700 on monday, which came yesterday. the kit lens with it (18-70 which i already have) the previous owner said had a lazy iris. i wasn't bothered as i already have this lens, but i am curious as to what that is. is that the slightly slower time it takes to focus? as that's what i have noticed.

my main question is this: the shutter sounds different to my a200, is this normal??

obviously having been so used to the a200 i'm probably being paranoid, as it works perfectly fine!!

i took a pic of an object with both cameras using the same lens and the pics are almost identical.

having never bought a used camera before, i hope i've got a good one!!

thanks

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 00:01:54 BDT
Hi, tqfan,
I'm guessing that "lazy iris" means the iris blades appear a bit slow3 when the canera stops down for the shot. is therre visible oil on the diaphragm blades?
Mind you, if it works why worry?

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 00:44:25 BDT
psn: tqfan says:
i am a worrier!!

i can see no oil. there's barely a speck of dust on the body. it seems to have been well looked after. just the difference in sound that got me!

i will be taking it out for a proper run tomorrow, but already i like it, and it feels just the same in my hand as my a200.

thanks for the reply!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 07:02:05 BDT
When you say the shutter sounds different is it louder or softer?
The A700 has a pentaprism viewfinder which gives a bigger image. Therefore the mirror may be a bit larger too. Quite a lot of the sound comes from the mirror so that could be the difference.
Although I upgraded from the A200 to the A700 myself I can't remember. Both make more noise than any of my roll film cameras.

Posted on 30 Mar 2012 01:00:51 BDT
psn: tqfan says:
Hi, the sound is maybe a bit softer, it sounds like it has a digital sound to it, if that makes sense. my sister and i were in the garden this afternoon, and i was taking pics of our cat, and i mentioned it to her and she said it sounds the same as her camera. she has the a230.

i got a lil excited, as it was on continuous shooting and i hadn't noticed, and it clicked and clicked!! it's so much better than the a200, in that it takes more and is faster on continuous!!
i'm very, very impressed, and believe i may just have got a bargain, as it was £100 cheaper than other auctions i have been avidly watching over the last few months, and some of those were body only.

thanks again

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Mar 2012 08:51:32 BDT
The A700 is a higher specced camera so maybe the noisy bits are better damped.
I like that it will bracket white balance as well as being easier to use with glasses.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 18:30:25 BDT
Fishman says:
The A700 shutter is quieter/softer than the A200, it is very noticeable in comparison. It's sounds "professional" if you know what I mean? I had the A200 and that was LOUD compared to my A700.

My A77 is quieter. ;) I have kept the A700 though, great second body.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 22:16:32 BDT
Hi Fishman,
How do you get on with the EVF or do you use the TV?

Posted on 1 Apr 2012 23:01:40 BDT
psn: tqfan says:
thanks fishman, that's probably what i mean, lol!!

i took it to the football on friday night and got some awesome shots! =D

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 23:43:06 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Apr 2012 23:44:47 BDT
Fishman says:
EVF is much better than I thought it would be after reading all the horror stories from people who have obviously never used it outside of Jessops. ;)

Focus peaking changes the way that I use my camera, for still life I no long use focus points as such. The AF gets me most of the way and then it drops into DMF and I simply choose focus anywhere in the frame based on the level of peaking. No lock and recompose required now.

I can also see in the dark long after the A700 OVF failed to let me do so. Yes it's grainy, but I have compared with my A700 and at least I can see to compose the shot!

I haven't done sports yet to test "lag". I am thinking of going to a nearby motorway to see how I can track vehicles between the A77 and A700 view finders. There isn't a convenient race track near me. I have seen excellent F1 images though, so I don't know what the fuss is about, however I shall see. I suspect a new technique required rather than the camera, or is it simply OVF biased opinion?

I believe the A77 is a better view finder over the A700 for my use, you really don't need to take your eye away from it when adjusting settings. Oddly though, as a contradiction, I find that I am using Live-View more than I thought, it is so fast on the A77. It's my first LV camera, I have access to Canon and Nikon and it is atrocious on those, I wouldn't bother!

The 1.05 update has improved the picture review speed and controls too. Nice update. Now if they can fix the jpeg quality so I don't feel it necessary to shoot raw...

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 02:20:11 BDT
Jpeg a problem then?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 11:37:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Apr 2012 11:39:30 BDT
Fishman says:
Not at "normal" ISO, the resolution is amazing and ISO 50 beautiful in the studio. ;)

At higher ISO (> 1600) they get the usual Sony mushy result. Sony really need to employ Nikon developers to fix jpeg processing on all their cameras!

I don't shoot much over ISO 800 and have switched to RAW+jpeg as I find that the jpegs are good enough, with RAW saving those that I mess up on. ;) > ISO 1600 I run it through ACR, the Sony IDC 4.0 isn't as good at high ISO.

On static shots MFNR is very good, I struggle to better it using RAW, so might not bother!

I don't tend to shoot people in the dark, so don't obsess over pixel peeping high ISO. Even so, ISO 3200 ran through ACR looks fine to me, you'd have to have huge prints to see noise.

I do wonder how all these high ISO people got by with ASA 400 film in the old days. :D

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 12:18:26 BDT
Hi Fishman,
Well we all had 2 stops more aperture to begin with but I take your point. Perhaps people take pics in the dark because they think they can when they turn up the gain to 12,800ISO or whatever?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 12:40:19 BDT
Fishman says:
I guess it gives people in forums something to moan about. :D
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (778 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  3
Total posts:  14
Initial post:  28 Mar 2012
Latest post:  2 Apr 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions