Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 20, 2008, 10:05 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 202
Default

If you use the same lens, but take the same picture with Alpha 100 and alpha 700. How big is the picture quality difference?

Anyone who knows or could post 2 or more pictures?
feetjai is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 20, 2008, 11:01 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I don't know where any side by side photos taken in the same conditions with the same lighting and camera settings are (which is the only good way to get a valid comparision).

But, it's unlikely you'd see much difference in the A100 and A700 at the lower ISO speed settings with a good lens.

As ISO speeds are increased, the A700 is going to do better (and it's got higher available ISO speeds if you need them).

The A700 also has a bit better dynamic range shooting jpeg (around 2/3 stop better compared to the A100). The A700 also has more advanced dynamic range optimization features that you can better tune for a given subject type.

Unless you shoot at higher ISO speeds often (and I do), the biggest benefit you'd see from the A700 is performance. For example, faster Autofocus Speed, faster image processing with higher available frame rates (5fps versus 3fps). The viewfinder is also improved. The A700 also has a few more features like an AF Illuminator in the camera body (versus using the flash for AF assist like the A100 would). It's also got a PC Sync port (missing on the A100 but you can get an adapter for the hotshoe to give you one). The A700 has more flexbility for flash exposure using a Sony external flash, too (for example, available manual power settings, missing on the A100).

My perception is that the metering was also improved in the A700 (I've been quite pleased with mine). But again, you'd really need to test the cameras side by side in the same conditions to validate that impression, since I haven't used an A100 enough to say.

Since I like to shoot at higher ISO speeds often, I skipped the A100 and kept shooting with a KM Maxxum 5D until the A700 was released (but, note that the A100 was based mostly on the Maxxum 5D). The A100 noise levels as ISO speeds are increased (and lack of ISO 3200) kept me away from it for the type of shooting I like to do more often. If you shoot mostly in good light, you may not care about those differences.

I've been quite impressed with my A700 so far (I got one in October, as soon as it was available).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2008, 11:28 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
But, it's unlikely you'd see much difference in the A100 and A700 at the lower ISO speed settings with a good lens.
Looking at your first post here, it sounds like you're using the A100 with the 18-70mm kit lens.

We are starting to see some issues with that lens not being good enough to resolve the detail a higher resolution sensor is capable of capturing in some cases (particulary with the 14MP A350 from samples I've seen). A lower resolutoin sensor doesn't place as many demands on lens quality.

I haven't used my A700 with that lens much. I haven't used it much with the 5D either though. lol But, it seemed to do just fine the couple of times I did use with the A700.

I think the A700 would make a very good upgrade if that's what you're looking to achieve, espcially if you shoot at higher ISO speeds often. We probably have a forum member or two here that has upgraded from one that could get you more input. Hopefully, they'll notice this thread and respond.

Another option to look at would be the new A200 or A300. They've also got improved AF over the A100, as well as reduced noise as ISO speeds are increased (just not quite as good as the A700, and they don't have some of the other A700 features).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2008, 11:44 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 202
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
I don't know where any side by side photos taken in the same conditions with the same lighting and camera settings are (which is the only good way to get a valid comparision).

But, it's unlikely you'd see much difference in the A100 and A700 at the lower ISO speed settings with a good lens.

As ISO speeds are increased, the A700 is going to do better (and it's got higher available ISO speeds if you need them).

The A700 also has a bit better dynamic range shooting jpeg (around 2/3 stop better compared to the A100). The A700 also has more advanced dynamic range optimization features that you can better tune for a given subject type.

Unless you shoot at higher ISO speeds often (and I do), the biggest benefit you'd see from the A700 is performance. For example, faster Autofocus Speed, faster image processing with higher available frame rates (5fps versus 3fps). The viewfinder is also improved. The A700 also has a few more features like an AF Illuminator in the camera body (versus using the flash for AF assist like the A100 would). It's also got a PC Sync port (missing on the A100 but you can get an adapter for the hotshoe to give you one). The A700 has more flexbility for flash exposure using a Sony external flash, too (for example, available manual power settings, missing on the A100).

My perception is that the metering was also improved in the A700 (I've been quite pleased with mine). But again, you'd really need to test the cameras side by side in the same conditions to validate that impression, since I haven't used an A100 enough to say.

Since I like to shoot at higher ISO speeds often, I skipped the A100 and kept shooting with a KM Maxxum 5D until the A700 was released (but, note that the A100 was based mostly on the Maxxum 5D). The A100 noise levels as ISO speeds are increased (and lack of ISO 3200) kept me away from it for the type of shooting I like to do more often. If you shoot mostly in good light, you may not care about those differences.

I've been quite impressed with my A700 so far (I got one in October, as soon as it was available).
Thanks That will give me a better impression of how much better the 700 is compared to 100.




feetjai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2008, 12:33 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 202
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
JimC wrote:
Quote:
But, it's unlikely you'd see much difference in the A100 and A700 at the lower ISO speed settings with a good lens.
Looking at your first post here, it sounds like you're using the A100 with the 18-70mm kit lens.

We are starting to see some issues with that lens not being good enough to resolve the detail a higher resolution sensor is capable of capturing in some cases (particulary with the 14MP A350 from samples I've seen). A lower resolutoin sensor doesn't place as many demands on lens quality.

I haven't used my A700 with that lens much. I haven't used it much with the 5D either though. lol But, it seemed to do just fine the couple of times I did use with the A700.

I think the A700 would make a very good upgrade if that's what you're looking to achieve, espcially if you shoot at higher ISO speeds often. We probably have a forum member or two here that has upgraded from one that could get you more input. Hopefully, they'll notice this thread and respond.

Another option to look at would be the new A200 or A300. They've also got improved AF over the A100, as well as reduced noise as ISO speeds are increased (just not quite as good as the A700, and they don't have some of the other A700 features).

Traded my kitlens for a better one Sigma 24-70 2.8. Still have to compare the kitlens with this sigma lens...I am curious... Thanks for the info about sensor - lens quality thing.

At this momentI wouldgo for the 700 more then the 200 or 300. In the future the 700 will be cheaper. And I think: IfI upgrade from 100 to 200 the difference is not that big. As you said: shooting as higher ISO with less noise is a good thing. On top of that for a few hundred euro more you get much more. I will wait for some time and goto 700 for the improvedISO 3200.
feetjai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2008, 12:45 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That Sigma is a pretty good lens from most reports I've seen. I've thought about getting one from time to time.

Of course, what I'd really like is the new Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8. But, I couldn't justify the expense for it right this minute. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2008, 4:43 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 202
Default

=) Same here. But as an amateur that will empty my bank savingsway fast. Maybe later =)
feetjai is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.