File :-(, x, )
Just got my A700! Anonymous
What's up, /p/?

I just got my A700 today.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:17 23:47:20Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width720Image Height960
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:17 23:47:35Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width960Image Height720
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:17 23:47:50Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width960Image Height720
>> Anonymous
lol sony.

congrats, i guess
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:17 23:48:07Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width960Image Height720
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
You broke my combo!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:17 23:48:23Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length7.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width960Image Height720
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Obligatory cat pic.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution157 dpcmVertical Resolution157 dpcmImage Created2008:01:17 23:48:54Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/1.7Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Brightness-0.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width960Image Height648RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHard
>> Anonymous
>>114818
>>114819
>>114821
Witchcraft! How can a camera take a picture of itself?
>> Anonymous
>>114824
???

The exif says Canon Powershot... What the hell man?
>> Anonymous
and to think.. you could have just gotten a XTi
>> Anonymous
The big goofy Alpha is a nice touch.
>>114819
>> beethy
pictures need more XTI
>> Anonymous
>>114824

Because Sony knows their cameras suck, they package a Canon with it so Sony owners can take pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>114826
>>114829

Free IS, better viewfinder, magnesium chassis, better LCD, partial weather sealing. It's just a better camera body than the XTi, of course it's more expensive.
>> Anonymous
>>114832
Post some more example shots. Also how much did you get it for and what lenses did you get with it?
>> Anonymous
I'll do it in the morning, battery is charging right now.

Just got the 50mm and the Sigma for now.

1400$USD and change.
>> Anonymous
>>114837
zomg... 1400$? :/ Wow that is pretty pricey. Well I hope it takes some sweet pictures for that much. I can't wait till I'm out of college and can finally afford a DSLR.
>> beethy
>>114837
It better have some EXTREM SHUTTER SPEED.. and a TRUE HDR dial for that price
>> Anonymous
>>114839

Well, most "prosumer" SLRs are around that price. Canon's 40D and Nikon's D300. The Canon being cheaper and the Nikon being more expensive.

All else being equal, entry level or "consumer" SLRs have the same image quality as higher end models.

You don't have to break the bank for one. You can find good models at around 500$ or less.
>> Anonymous
>>114845

Go back to your XTi, deviantart HDR fag.
>> Anonymous
I wonder if anyone would trade a DSLR for my sub and amp... Hmm...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>114848
Yeah, just need to find some asshole who decided to pick up photography on a whim but then got tired of it and now wants to pick up guitar on another whim.
>> Anonymous
>>114817

very nice fellow anon

Sony/KM FTW.
>> Anonymous
>>114896

Hello ButterTrap
>> Anonymous
>>114822
Ah, the Minolta 50mm f1.7, my favorite lense.
I'd really like a A700, damn university studies.
>> Anonymous
>>114898


Butterfly isn't the only person on /p/ that uses/likes Sony/KM products.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114915
There are a bunch of us, and A700 = D300, but with better dynamic range.

Anyway, gits.
>> Anonymous
>>114916
1. DR should should be the same in raw, if they have the same sensor. But my understanding is that Nikon had quite a few modifications done to the basic design before ordering the sensors.
2. The D300 has 14-bit raw and the A700 has 12-bit. If you have it one way, that supports the contention they're different sensors. If you have it another way, it means that unless the Nikon sensor is made of absolute fail the D300 has more dynamic range.
3. Isn't the A700 the model with the brilliant fucking idea to apply noise reduction even to the raw files?
4. D300 has a full coverage viewfinder and the highest effective magnification of any crop sensor DSLR (.626) except the Pentax K10D and two of their old *ist models. (.633) The A700 has 95% coverage and .6 magnification.

The D300 is a much better camera than the A700; Nikon in effect stopped making a prosumer camera and made a pro full-frame camera and upped the features on its prosumer camera to basically be a pro APS-C camera. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any "pro" feature the D300 lacks.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114926
It isnt much better, its slightly better and it costs a shitload more. Also all tests have shown the A700 to have a higher dynamic range, so shut your whore mouth.

The A700 is about 95% as good as the D300 (that 5% is in the slightly faster fps the D300 manages when you BUY MORE SHIT FOR IT the vertical grip) and its less than 95% of the price of the D300.

D300 is a good camera yes, but for us Sonyminolta the A700 is awesome, its sonys SECOND DSLR (and its as good as a nikon, ohshi) and you are only ranting because you are a shit photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>114932
Maybe on JPEG. Unless Sony purposefully fucked up the sensors it sent to Nikon, 14-bit raw would inherently have more dynamic range than 12-bit.

I don't give a damn about FPS, and don't get why anyone who isn't a sports photographer having to produce for an editor in fifteen minutes would.

And points three or four can't be replaced. Point three is the stupidest decision any camera company has ever made. Point four- have you ever shot with a really good viewfinder? It makes a huge difference, a hell of a lot more than "more fps lulz!"
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114943
You should go look at the tests now really.

You know, i do sports photography, i care about fps (WHICH IS WHY I MENTIONED IT).

So while you continue trying to justify a camera you dont have, ill be enjoying going outside and taking photos.

BAIBAI
>> Anonymous
>>114944
I love you, Butterfly.
>> Chib
>>114945
Get the hell out of my Kool-Aid
>> Anonymous
>>114944
You don't have an A700 either, unless you just bought one.

It's virtually impossible- especially if the sensors have the same basic foundation- for twelve bit raw to beat fourteen bit raw. All DR is is more information, and fourteen bits is more than than twelve.

The A700 puts noise reduction on the raw files. You're alright with that, it screwing up your photographs before they even leave the camera?

And once more, viewfinder coverage and magnification really help the photographic process.
>> Anonymous
>>114926
>2. The D300 has 14-bit raw and the A700 has 12-bit.
Number of bits is not directly related to dynamic range of the sensor, it's like a 262K color display on your mobile phone vs. a 64K color one. Fuji sensors are 12-bit and still beat all others when it comes to dynamic range.

>3. Isn't the A700 the model with the brilliant fucking idea to apply noise reduction even to the raw files?
I guess Sony had to do this to live up to its reputation of fucking up high ISOs even with a good sensor, lol.

>D300 has a full coverage viewfinder and the highest effective magnification of any crop sensor DSLR (.626) except the Pentax K10D and two of their old *ist models. (.633) The A700 has 95% coverage and .6 magnification.
Wait, wut? The viewfinder magnification is in the .9-.97 range for all APS-C cameras.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Camera talk is bullshit. Post some pictures. The images are what count, not fucking megapixels and viewfinder magnification and shit. Fight this fight... IN PICTURES!
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>114954
welcome to current day /p/, where we dont post pictures anymore, but flame and troll instead...
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114952
Nah it does have 100% coverage not that it makes any real difference if you cant get a shot with 95% coverage you probably wont get it with 100%, but then bad photographers like to blame their gear.

I dont really mind about the in body NR, the noise performance for both is identical to about 3200 then you get different flavours of noise, not that it even bothers me because i still cba to shoot in raw.

>>114955
not quite true, we do do helpful crits its just no one posts images worth critiquing most of the time.
>> Anonymous
>>114966

I'd post more photos but it's 4chan and people tend to be cruel. Not because of my ego as a photographer, people can rip and tear into me for that, but because people are cruel about the subjects and it isn't fair on them.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114967
There are a couple of dicks who like to talk shit about models because they are basement dwelling fags who have never seen a real lady and like to jack off to badly drawn DA furries. The few portrait photographers we have are normally pretty good about crits for them so you should give it a try.

Also i dont really post in them because im not a portrait photographer so i dont have anything (positive or negative) to say.
>> Anonymous
>>114968

Thanks, maybe I will consider it in future then. I don't mind criticism from "non-portrait" photographers either as even a non-photographer can have insights or see something that has been missed. It is sort of like proof reading that way.

...back to lurking in the shadows now.

Signed,

Anonymous
>> VonDouche
>>114968

I haven't been hanging around here at all and already notice that you are one of the stupidest posters on this board. If epic failure had a name, it would be 'Butterfly.'
>> Anonymous
>>114952
That's because of their sensor design. With a few modifications on the Nikon side, the A700 and D300 have the same sensor. Would you grant that, given the same sensor, more bits=more dynamic range?

>Wait, wut? The viewfinder magnification is in the .9-.97 range for all APS-C cameras.

Yes, but I said "effective magnification.">>114966


Magnificiation used to always be measured with a 50mm lens, just as a standard. Made sense.

The smaller sensors of APS-C DSLRs mean smaller mirrors which means less magnification for a given field of view. But to make their viewfinders sound less crappy, camera companies still specify crop-sensor camera magnifications with a 50mm lens attached, never-mind that it works like a 75mm or 80mm now. You have to divide the magnification by the crop factor to get what it really works like. That's how Olympuses have "great magnifications" but horrible viewfinders: what the magnification really looks like is half of what it is.

>>114966
I just checked a few different places and all of them said the A700 didn't have 100% coverage.

Seeing the whole image does make a difference. I can't explain it tangibly, but my compositions just seem to come together better... maybe "more organically" is a more exact phrase than "better..." when I'm shooting with a full coverage viewfinder, and other people's I've looked at do, too, even before I knew what camera they were using. Besides, it just makes sense that actually seeing the whole image would contribute to better composition.

A good photographer will get good photographs with a Zenit with 65% (if I remember correctly) viewfinder coverage, of course. But that doesn't mean that viewfinder coverage isn't useful.
>> Anonymous
>>114954


>>114954
I'm sympathetic to this, but I'm too much of a perfectionist to post that many photographs on /p/. Ansel Adams said he only got twelve really worthwhile photographs a year, and I'm not Ansel Adams.

Megapixels are bullshit past a certain point, but if one prefers to manually focus magnification is important. I just find manually focusing a more fluid, natural process than autofocusing and recomposing or selecting AF points, so finder magnification is important for me, in the same way FPS is important to Butterfly or lots of AF points are important for someone who prefers to autofocus. Different subjects and shooting styles require/are served by different features.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114996
I was saying the D300 had 100% coverage not the A700, way to argue a point that no one made <3

The A700 has more dynamic range, doesnt matter if nikon made it use more bits, test show the A700 coming up on top for it.

Prefering the 100% coverage over the 95% is fine, i just dont think its worth the fuss you've raised over it, sure its going to be benificial but if you noticed, i already stated the D300 was a better camera than the A700.

Im not even trolling here, im just really confused why you are, given that no one is opposing you but yet you are still trying to argue that teh D300 is better.

like, wtf guys?
>> Anonymous
>>115008
The dynamic range difference is basically non-existent in the real world. You need to spend a lot more to get an appreciable difference.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
OP = COOL! have fun with it!

Butterfly = Post some links to the tests you're referring to please.
>> Anonymous
I went into Best Buy today looking at DSLRs and I could not beleive how big they are. These things are massive cameras. Could you take a picture of the A700 next to a reference object?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Depends on which model you were looking at. The A700 is in the league of the Canon 40D and Nikon D80/D300 in size.

While the Canon 400D and Nikon D40 are pocket SLRs. Okay, you can't really pocket them but they 'are' much much smaller.

See next picture
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
400D vs. 40D.
>> Anonymous
>>115262
I didn't see the A700 there, I saw a Cannon Digital Rebel, a EOS 30D... Some Nikons... I'm not positive. A Rebel XTi as well.
>> Anonymous
>>115266

Oops, 40D vs. 400D I mean.
>> Anonymous
>>115266

A friend brought his XTi over the other day. I put my 24-70mm f/2.8 and 580EX II on it. It looked ridiculous. The body itself practically disappeared between the lens and flash.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115224
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page22.asp

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D300/noise.shtml

Mostly.
>> Anonymous
big is better XD

nikon d100 fag here....
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
So, take any pictures of anything more exciting than your cat yet?
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
>>115524
Jesus Christ it's my friend!
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115314

Sorry, but have i missed something? I couldn't find anywhere in those articles where it said the A700 had better dynamic range than the D300.

The first article page you posted is just a run down, and the second is a noise test... where is the mention of superior dynamic range?

Point it out to me please, cause i'm feeling rather silly.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115549
I'm done arguing with you.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115551
How about me? I couldn't find any mention or evidence of it having greater dynamic range either. There was a mention of "advanced dynamic range adjustment options", but that sounds more like it just futzes with the curves when taking it down from the RAW to the JPEG.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115551

... Okay so you can't actually prove your statements of the A700 having better Dynamic range than the D300.

So to try and save your bullshit you relate this thread to something else completely unrelated.

Nice going trap.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115553
There is that (i forgot about it) but:
>>115554
Look at the pictures from the noise test, which has more range.

im not going to argue with you because you are wasting everyones time, you dont care about anyone else, you are doing it just to get a trip off trying to troll me.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115557

Fuck off already, no one gives a shit about you.

All i care about is that your bullshit isn't interpreted by other people AS FACT.

People here could read your diatribe and actually mistake that shit as truth.

How the hell do you LOOK at a noise test and determine Dynamic Range?

Funnily enough, i see more DR in the D300 photos.

You can't point to a test that's designed for something else and then SUBJECTIVELY conclude that the results prove something entirely different.

You have provided NO, i repeat NO empirical evidence for you assertions, which just goes to prove you're Sony Troll and your opinion is frankly, worthless.

Mines not much better, but i don't pretend to have this veil of impartiality.
>> Anonymous
>>115557

No it doesn't. You are full of shit as usual.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115563
>>115557
If this were a sitcom, you two would be making out by now.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115563
Fine, enjoy looking at D300 pictures, see what you want to see.

I will stay just to anoy you.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115567

Dude... not cool... i had that guy not that long ago talking about my chocolate being drilled... i don't want Butterfly's cock anywhere near me.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115569
>i don't want Butterfly's cock anywhere near me. And yet... I find myself strangely drawn to him on a very deep and spiritual level...
Fix'd
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115573

hahahahaha.... ahh shit AC... you've read my mind.

>>115568

Funnily enough you don't annoy me at all. All i give a shit about, like i said, is that your wild assertions about this and that is NEVER interpreted as fact by some newb looking for a bit of information here.

All i'm doing in this thread is to prove your complete lack of integrity in regards to photographic information (at least the technical). That should serve as a reminder that your opinions (well everyone's but mostly yours) should be taken with a huge bag of salt.
>> Anonymous
>>115568

ITT: Butterfly gets owned.

Sonyfag gets owned by Nikonfag.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115576
So I said one thing about dynamic range, which I dont see you posting any tests to the contry, then spend the rest of the time openly saying the D300 is a better camera and you think this is something to create a massive shistorm over.

If we ignore the dynamic range, what else have i said that has been false?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115577

Well i don't think it's a brand thing at all. It's not about Sony vs Nikon it's more like a critical analysis of information.

Everyone of ButterTrap's assertions in this thread can not be backed up by empirical evidence.

He seems to think that because Sony manufactures Nikon sensors that both of these will suddenly behave in the exact same manner. Which of course, is totally untrue. The image processing engines etc etc as previously mentioned play a huge part. Not the mention the individual characteristics of RAW.

Now i would almost have no problem with the comment that the A700 is a better camera than the D300, because that is a subjective opinion and people want different things from their cameras... but He backs it up with a statement that can be tested empirically like "A700 has better DR than the D300"... which he provided NO empirical evidence for and asserts it like he's telling the gospel truth.

That sorta shit, I simply can't stand. And he's been doing it for so long I just felt like trolling the troll for once.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Sony DSLR-A700 (ISO 100) 8.3 EV
Sony DSLR-A700 (ISO 200) 8.8 EV

Canon EOS 40D (ISO 100) 9.1 EV
Canon EOS 40D (ISO 200) 9.1 EV

*NO DATA FOR D300* So I included the D200, which is likely to be INFERIOR to the D300. Keep that in mind.

Nikon D200 (ISO 100) 8.2 EV
Nikon D200 (ISO 200) 8.2 EV

So there are your usable dynamic ranges.

The cheaper Canon 40D wins (D300 an unknown). Was I the only one who could be bothered to look up a decent test of these things? :P
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
How about:
YOU ALL STFU AND POST SOME PICS
this is /p/ not /t/roll

I'm getting fucking piss off with all this bullshit lately......
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115584
Yet again, I have not stated once that the A700 is better than the D300, because it isnt.

Thanks Blackadder, so until someone else comes up with D300 dynamic range numbers can you stop arguing about it?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115581

When did i say the D300 is a 'BETTER' camera? Don't put words in my mouth, because i stand by shit i say since i try and not assert shit unless i know it to be a fact.

I don't need to provide tests because the burden of proof is on you, the initiator of that comment.

I've included the other shit. Although it's completely unnecessary. The DR remark itself shows your bullshit since your REPEATEDLY assert it without any evidence. The only time you attempt to do so is when asked so and even then you fail miserably.
>> Anonymous
>>115587
They should tell people that sort of stuff, if a higher ISO has more DR, or they should put the lower ISO as a seperate mode, like Nikon does with its cameras where 200 performs better than 100, or Canon where its 100 performs better than its 50.
>> Anonymous
>>115588

Go ahead, practice what you preach. Post some photos or GTFO and stop baaaaawwwwing.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115593
I think its mentioned in passing in the manual according to dpreview, its mentioned in the review that the ISO100 is pushed.

>>115590
I didnt say you said the D300 was better.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>115588

Yeah, fair enough mate. I'll conclude.

>>115589

Don't try and deflect the topic.

The entire point of my rants were simple.

You post your opinions and assert them as if they ARE FACTS. You do not back it up with empirical evidence nor do you even attempt to find passable information that could be interpreted as empirical.

In other words, stop trying to pass your bullshit opinions as fact when you can't even provide simple data to prove it (the fact that D300 DR data can't be found yet you still asserted that the A700 had better DR is just pathetic) and stop acting like you know everything there is to know about photography (technical and otherwise).

Aside from that. You're a trap.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115588
Yay! I'm helping!:
>>114960
>>115324
>>114754
>>114374
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115597
Ok, so I agree I should have done more research on the DR issue and yes posting my own views on a test are not a good idea.

Looking at the thread its been a waste (although it was over from the final picture) the only things i said were about fps, coverage and DR, the fps wasnt just something i made up its the truth along with the viewfinder coverage.

So why do you think i constantly post utter bullshit and lies? I've posted numbers and (eventually) the sources that are correct but you insist that i've posted nothing but lies and bias.

You're the one making a massive shitstorm about something knowing full well I wouldnt just sit around doing nothing. If I was posting nothing but hearsay you might have had a point.

Also you're gay for me.
>> Anonymous
>>115604

>>I've posted numbers and (eventually) the sources that are correct but you insist that i've posted nothing but lies and bias

Where did you post numbers from sources that are correct? Noise test to determine DR is not correct. Jeremo is right. You're lying and at it again.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>115609
Frame coverage and FPS both covered in the dpreview link.
>> Anonymous
I didn't read any posts. I'm angry! SONY!!!11 CANON!!!1 I'm a douche bag. /mu/ and /p/ have to be THE most pretentious places on 4chan, and in the end no one knows jack. Congrats on the new camera. I use Canons and SONYs and like the both very much. I hope you enjoy you camera selection.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115760
Maan, I worked hard to bump picture threads last night so that this would fall off the front page. Don't resurrect it.