Canon 50D to Sony A700 Opinions

Euan

Euan

Messages
2,585
Edit My Images
Yes
Im thinking of doing a swap from my 50D to a Sony A700 mainly for the inbody super steady shot. And some of the older KM lenses. Has anyone swapped going this way? Whats the general opinion on the A700 the reviews all seem good.

Cheers
 
I went for a pentax camera as I get to use my old lenses, it saves me a fortune and I get image stabilisation with the older lenses as well!
 
Thats my reasoning for going sony, how do you find the inbody IS compared to in a lens?
 
I don't know that I would swap from a 50D to an A700 although I believe the A700 to be superior to the 40D. You may miss things like the micro adjustment for lenses & the 50D I believe has superior AF but of course it depends what type of photography you mainly do.
The A700 replacement ought to be breaking cover some time soon though so may be worth waiting (it'll probably be dearer though).
 
Im weighing up all the options at the moment, if i sell my 50d and lenses i could get an A700, grip and a couple of good lenses and take it from there.

Is the AF quick on the A700, whats it like on low light, fast moving things (my kids). I think the new A700 will probably be out my price range hence looking at the A700 at the moment.
 
I read a review of in body IS that said it was superior for wider lenses but lens based AF was superior for longer lenses

just a review though, as I have had no experience with high end sony kit
 
I have been wondering how good the inbody IS would be over various focal lengths but cant find a decent answer. I did wonder if it would be better at wide than at long as the shake is magnified at longer lenghts etc.

I'll need to keep looking i think.
 
Euan said:
I have been wondering how good the inbody IS would be over various focal lengths but cant find a decent answer. I did wonder if it would be better at wide than at long as the shake is magnified at longer lenghts etc.

I'll need to keep looking i think.
Click to expand...
I don't have a Sony, but I do have in body IS... and it really is awesome. I have used it on wides yielding a handheld image at 1sec, and on long 500mm lenses for birding shots.

In body IS is excellent, and as you rightly point out, every lens you place on the camera has IS, including all legacy lenses.
 
david1701 said:
I read a review of in body IS that said it was superior for wider lenses but lens based AF was superior for longer lenses

just a review though, as I have had no experience with high end sony kit
Click to expand...

mmm, I seem to remember reading a similar review like this - will have a look to see if I can find it :thinking:

Father-in-law has a Minolta that has body IS in and he finds it very benificial indeed, esp as it covers all his lenses (y)
 
Euan said:
Is the AF quick on the A700, whats it like on low light, fast moving things (my kids).
Click to expand...
it's pretty similar to that on a 40D &I believe that the 50D's is improved on the 40D's?

Euan said:
I have been wondering how good the inbody IS would be over various focal lengths but cant find a decent answer. I did wonder if it would be better at wide than at long as the shake is magnified at longer lenghts etc."
Click to expand...
They both have their own pros & cons but imo overall in-lens & in-body give very similar results & in-body certainly works at ultra tele (500 & 600mm) focal lengths (albeit at those imo you really should be considering a tripod rather than handheld).

P.S. "UBIQUE" - Sapper?
 
Hmm thats kind of put me off a bit, i think id miss that as i go a fair bit higher with the 50.
 
I just missed out on this last night as i think the seller actually realised he was severely underselling it all. Would have been a good way to try them out side by side and then sell the set i didnt like.

I like the Canon and the choice of lenses and how easy they are to get 2nd hand, dont have an issue with the image quality its mainly the inbuilt IS on the Sony that keeps holding my attention. Maybe my lack of decision tells me a story, a trip to jessops or somewhere on tuesday and have a play i think.
 
If it helps your decision I was taking 2 second exposure shots from handheld last night with my old lenses and the images were crisp.

Saves me so much money on expensive lenses with IS built in :)
 
Euan said:
Im thinking of doing a swap from my 50D to a Sony A700 mainly for the inbody super steady shot. And some of the older KM lenses. Has anyone swapped going this way? Whats the general opinion on the A700 the reviews all seem good.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think why on earth you would want to do this, and even given that you do, why you should want to go this route given the cost of swapping your substantial Canon system :shrug:

If you are keen on IS, you can argue the toss between various systems but one thing that in-camera cannot do is stabilise the viewfinder image which I find is a tremendous advantage.

Only in-lens can do that, so if image stabilisation is driving you, the way forward would seem to be to upgrade your Canon lenses.

Edit: you have five lenses covering broadly the same range??? How about you swap that lot for a 17-55 2.8 IS, and upgrade the 70-200L to an IS version. Those two are arguably the best lenses available anywhere for a crop camera. Do close ups with a set of Kenko tubes, and keep the nifty-fifty if you need f/1.8. That is pretty much my outfit as it happens :)
 
I am in the process of having a lens re-shuffle at the moment, that one of the reasons why im contemplating a change. I bought Kipax's 70-200 2.8 non is the other day and am waiting on that. I'm then going to sell both the tamrons and the 70-200 f4 to get a 17-55 IS. Probably keep the 24-105 as a walkaround.

It was just before i have a change i was wondering if longer term there would be a potential cost saving by having in-body IS. To be truthful im more than likely going to stay Canon as i cant bring myself to get rid of the 50d and i definately dont need a 2nd system especially from another manufacturer!

Then i think the best bet is practice practice practice my lens technique so i have my own in-body IS!
 
Euan said:
Used to be yeah, been out 2 1/2 years now. you?
Click to expand...

just a STAB :p

with firmware v4 an A700 is indistinguishable from a D300 - ISO1600 is very usable, 3200 is still usable & 6400 pretty much emergencies only.

If you buy Sony brand lenses you probably aren't going to save a lot but e.g. you bought a Sigma 70-200 HSM it will cost you ~£600 new, have very similar IQ to a Canon/Nikon/Sony & be stabilised on a Sony saving you ~£600 over a Canon IS lens.
Also certain lenses just aren't available with IS from Canon e.g. 24-70/2.8, 85/1.4 etc. etc. but obviously it depends upon where your main photographic interests lie.

As for s/h remember that all Minolta AF lenses fit Alphas - that's over 16 million Minolta badged lenses alone before counting 3rd party offerings.
yes, there are ultimately more Canon lenses on the market s/h but there are also more people looking so it balances out.
 
Looking at your lens re-shuffle - Why would you have a 17-55 F2.8 and a 24-105? The 17-55 is a good walkabout lens, can't imagine why I would overlap so much by keeping the 24-105. Do you really use that 55-105mm so much that it warrants keeping the lens?
 
I do actually find i use the 55-105 quite a bit, however i did think the same thing last night that it might be an idea to get rid of that and have the 17-55 to go with the 70-200, and then do a bit more zooming with my feet. Then after everything else is gone either get a 100-400 or similar to get the extra reach.
 
I have got the 17-55 then the 100-400 - Can't say that I have honestly noticed a gap. Perhaps I would if I'd always had something in between the two - They say you never miss what you've never had!!
 
not as good as the canon 5D2 or nikon D700 particularly in the chroma noise which gets all blotchy with the NR on.

quote from dpr "from iso 800 the Alpha 900 starts to fall behind the rest of the pack, with considerably more chroma noise and obvious noise reduction artefacts. There's no two ways about it; if you're looking for this kind of resolution at higher ISO settings the EOS 5D Mark II runs rings around the A900"

stan the man said:
i shot a wedding on friday with my A700,and all the church shots were shot at ISO 1600.....and the noise is very acceptable IMO,although i cannot compare to the 50D,i wouldn't have thought it would have been a lot better,if any.
Click to expand...
 
swag72 said:
I have got the 17-55 then the 100-400 - Can't say that I have honestly noticed a gap. Perhaps I would if I'd always had something in between the two - They say you never miss what you've never had!!
Click to expand...

Good point Sara (y) but we are swamped with choice these days. I really have no idea how I used to get by with just a couple of primes, but quality gear was so expensive back then - my first good camera, a Minolta SRT101, cost over £4k in today's money with just a 50 1.7 :eek:

I have Canon 17-55, 70-200 4 L IS, 100-400 L IS. If I didn't need the reach, I would have gone for the Canon 70-300 IS and TBH I don't think I'd have wanted for anything. It's just that, you know, if there's something more expensive out there it must be better, right? Well, I'm happy anyway, but I don't think my investment is very obvious just by looking at the results. It's largely a gadget thing...

Other point about the 100-400L - it does a heck of a lot and I can see why you don't feel the need to fill the gap. I just find it way too heavy and if I didn't have something more portable, that range would just get left at home. It only comes out on special occasions :)
 
I went from Sony (a100, a700) to Canon (40D very briefly, then 1DII and 1Ds).

My view is that there isn't much betwen in-body and in-lens stabilisation, but I can buy the idea noted above that in-body is better at wider angles. I find myself losing lots of shots at the moment shooting too slow at 50-150mm where the Sony would give me something crisp but my (non-IS) Canon stuff won't. IS on everything without having to worry when you swap lenses really is neat.

IQ on the a700 was fine, esp with the firmware upgrade. I didn't like to push above 800, 1600 was my limit but if you get the exposure correct the shots are fine. Metering with my a700 wasn't as good as my Canons but you get used to when it will fail.

The big downside for me is the AF. Pretty poor in my experience with Sony, especially on anything that moves. I didn't have the 40D long enough to test but my brother who uses one seems to get consistently better AF than I could on the a700 when we shot side by side. (The 1D bodies blow the a700 away FWIW).

The old Minolta glass is lovely. Combine that with the new Zeiss stuff and the Sony mount has some lovely lenses out there. Three primes that I still regret selling were a Sony 50/1.4, Min 85/1.4 and Min 200/2.8. The Minoltas gave a lovely colour with great bokeh, stunning for portraits. The new Zeiss stuff is said to be very sharp, but possibly lacking in bokeh. But with a Sony mount camera you can get two looks easliy enough mixing lens systems.

I don't regret going to Canon from Sony because I shoot a bit of sports where the Sony was lacking, but if I were a pure portrait shooter I think Sony would serve me better.
 
Well ive pretty much decided to stay Canon, most of my lenses are up for sale now. Should pick up the 17-55 IS tomorrow from kerso, the 70-200 2.8 from Kipax should be waiting for me. Maybe a 100-400 to complete the line up and i'll stop there i think.

Thanks for nearly all the posts, some excellent input and advice as per usual! (y)
 
matty said:
pointless troll type post, thanks for your input
Click to expand...

I suggest you read the rules Mister Moderator

Conduct towards other members

No offensive, rude or derogatory comments towards another member.
Click to expand...

basically calling me a troll, thanks :bonk:

but seriously I can't see the point of trading in good equipment, only to buy the same again; but worse

end/
 
buckas said:
I suggest you read the rules Mister Moderator



basically calling me a troll, thanks :bonk:

but seriously I can't see the point of trading in good equipment, only to buy the same again; but worse

end/
Click to expand...

thats Mister Administrator to you, sunbeam. :nuts: and I have read the rules, I had significant input into writing them ;) the bit you might like to take note of is this bit

Mister Administrator said:
Staff decisions are final
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
not as good as the canon 5D2 or nikon D700 particularly in the chroma noise which gets all blotchy with the NR on.

quote from dpr "from iso 800 the Alpha 900 starts to fall behind the rest of the pack, with considerably more chroma noise and obvious noise reduction artefacts. There's no two ways about it; if you're looking for this kind of resolution at higher ISO settings the EOS 5D Mark II runs rings around the A900"
Click to expand...
mmm, you may not have noticed that it isn't an A900 that he is considering ...
(nor is he considering a 5DMkII or a D700)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top