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 Nov 21, 2008, 4:09 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 64
Default

im curious/wondering what would be the difference in photo quality between the A200 and A700 ..

i have the A200 this been my first dslr and still learning, lenses i have are

minolta 50mm 1.7

minolta 28-85 f4

minolta 70-210 beercan

minolta 35-70

sigma 90mm f2.8 macro

sony kit lense 18-70mm ( back in its box)

with the above lenses would i see a big difference in photo quality with the A700.

and of course the difference in money that i would have to fork out to get the A700 .

Would i be better off keeping my A200 and maybe spending more cash on some different lenses..Yes i know the A700 costs more than the A200 so this should reflect in the quaility of photos shouldnt it ??

thought i would ask you guys what you think of the equipment i have (slag it off if you like i want honesty )

thanks again Great site/forum

Martin
linearamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 21, 2008, 7:21 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

As for lenses, the kit lenses is the least capable lens you've got. And I see it has taken it's rightful place.

The major differences between the A700 and the A200 are the 12MP vs. 10MP (not very significant), 5fps vs. 3fps (may be significant for you)(it would be for me), and the advanced features.

Is that significant? Have you maxed out the features you've got? What is it about your A200 that you think the A700 would work better for you?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2008, 4:19 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 64
Default

thanks tcav for your reply.

maybe im expecting too much at the moment .only been using a dslr for 8 months or so . So still alot to learn.

Also when i see other peoples photo's on here most of them are far better than what im producing which makes me wonder wether its me or my equipment that isnt up to the task .At a guess its me .

Regarding maxing out the features on my A200 . I dont think ive maxed them out but ive tried allot of different things . Allot of my photos seem washed out most of the time and the colours arnt bright and sharp , But again i dont want to slate the camera so its got to be me ,and a very large learning curve.

from what i read on here the lenses i have should be up to the job with the A200.

check out the links below of a couple of my recent photos and let me know what you think

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/...18de8b2f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/...eba833ae_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/...0706d4b8_b.jpg

not sure if this link works but this is all the photos ive uploaded so far to flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

thanks again and got to say again what a great site this is

Martin
linearamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2008, 1:13 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37
Default

Those photos are wonderful! Sure, they could be punched up a bit, either with in-camera processing or photo editing, but the composition and technical aspects of the photos are splendid.

This may be heresy in these parts, but 99% of the photograph is in the photographer, not the camera. I still prefer my Canon 5D's image quality and the Canon lenses, but I could make my old Minolta 7D produce nearly the same photos with a little work. I suspect that you rarely encounter a scene where you need a better camera/lens.

One other heretical comment. My photography took a big leap after studying Dan Margulis, "Professional Photoshop: The Classic Guide to Color Correction." He explains WHY a photo sometimes doesn't have the same emotional impact as an original scene, even though it faithfully captured the image. The reason I mention this book is that the photos you've posted are perfect candidates for post processing. I think you'd find that with a little work, these shots would be very similar to the spectacular photos featured in calendars and magazines. Really, your composition is very good.

I humbly suggest ignoring the equipment for a while and keep working on technique. You've got a decent eye.
rsturgill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2008, 7:15 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Default

I see nothing in your pictures that could be improved by moving "up" to an A700. Sorry.

By the way, I see nothing in my pictures from an old Minolta 5D that would benefit from moving up to an A700 either. Remember, gear is not everything. Most of photography is the "person" behind the lens (of which I am not good), the choice of lensand the camera settings chosen.

If I did anything at this point I might add awider lens. Of course playing with the camerasettings never hurts.

Like you said, you are still learning. Out grow this camera and wait for the A750 or A800 to replace the A700.
StevieDgpt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2008, 7:25 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 750
Default

For what it's worth, I started my DSLR venture with the Sony A-100 as I had the desired lenses from my old Minolta 7 film camera.
The A-100 was and is a terrific entry level camera and will do most everything that hobby photographers would require.
I moved up to the A-900 when Best Buy blew them out at low prices and I DO NOT regret it in the least.
The A-900 is better in every respect and I am sure that I will never out grow the camera.
It makes taking very nice pictures almost point and shot.
I am using the Minolta 50mm f1.7 for low light and indoor shots and the beercan and the 18-250 sony for most outdoor work.

Flying Fossil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2008, 8:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Flying Fossil wrote:
Quote:
The A-900 is better in every respect and I am sure that I will never out grow the camera.
It makes taking very nice pictures almost point and shot.
I am using the Minolta 50mm f1.7 for low light and indoor shots and the beercan and the 18-250 sony for most outdoor work.
Just to be clear, you're using a Sony 18-250 on an A900?

The A900 is a full frame dSLR, but the 18-250 is a DT lens. How do you like it?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2008, 8:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 750
Default

My bad TCav,

I have the A-700, not the 900. That is way out of my reach and beyond my needs.


I rarely take the 18-250 off of the A-700.

Flying Fossil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2008, 7:34 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

:-)I was trying to remember when Best Buy might have been blowing out A900s. :-)And why I might have missed it! :-)
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2008, 1:42 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 154
Default

flying fossil, im looking to get the sony 18-250 as well as I want/need an all around lens for hiking/climbing. hope you like it!

to the OP, i had the a300 (same as your 200 but with live view) and i sold it for the a700. I have no where near the experience to "need" the better body yet but I wanted the faster 5fps which i use quite often and just the fact of knowing when "I" get better I will have a body that will be able to do what I need it to do.
You have a much better lens selection than I do as I only have the kit 18-70 and a tamron 70-300, not the best lenses but it will grow.
anyways, like some already mentioned, think about if you will use the differences of the a700 or not.

How I look at things: Id rather have something that is above my abilities that I can grow with than to outgrow something below my abilities. sometimes its a good thing and others not, and of course more expensive.

Also, i really like the larger ovf of the a700 compared to the a300, im not sure of the size of the a200. but it was a very nice difference. even though its slightly larger it seemed as if it was twice the size.

just my thoughts...
firstascent 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 5:38 PM.