A700 vs D90

[mmice]

Hi,

Ok, maybe this is not the best place to ask

I am getting rather frustrated at the speed of focusing, low light and noise @1600 from the A200. I was hoping for an upgrade to the A700 at PMA, but it seems like it'll be Q3 before anything is announced.

As such I've narrowed it down to either upgrading to a A700 body or to change to the Nikon camp and am looking at D90. Price wise, it is about the same (A700 is around 1.5k and D90 kit is approx 1.7k)

Lens wise, I'm not too fussed since my major investment has been on the 18-250 and should be able to recover some $ by selling that. I'll most likely keep the A200 with the kit lens as a "backup" anyway...

Has anyone played with the D90 and compared it to the A700 yet ? and what are your thougts.

Thanks

[GENO]

i think the 18-250mm is a slow lens due to the big zoom range.. if u are comparing AF speed using this lens with others, its really unfair to it.

[gymak90]

You might find the top lcd display of the D90 very useful. Allows you to get quick information and do settings easily.

And D90 costs around 1.6k now.

[Ouverture]

I think D90 definitely looks like a better option if you are only comparing with A700, in any case should be replaced soon.

I am also holding back myself (badly) not to spend unneccessary for these few months in anticipation of new launches from all the camps...be it the rumoured 500D, D5000/D400, A500/A800, etc...

I had actually wanted to switch camps all along, aiming at D90 and 40D/50D for their good fps and high ISO quality...but still holding on to A300 as my wife is also using the cam sometimes and the size and LiveView AF is easy for her.

I agree the noise level for Sony is quite disappointing as I have seen some "real life shot" meaning simple and not processed shots at home with 1000D at ISO1600 and there's so minimum noise that I thought it was taken at ISO400...

[lenrek]

Originally Posted by mmice Hi, Ok, maybe this is not the best place to ask I am getting rather frustrated at the speed of focusing, low light and noise @1600 from the A200. I was hoping for an upgrade to the A700 at PMA, but it seems like it'll be Q3 before anything is announced. As such I've narrowed it down to either upgrading to a A700 body or to change to the Nikon camp and am looking at D90. Price wise, it is about the same (A700 is around 1.5k and D90 kit is approx 1.7k) Lens wise, I'm not too fussed since my major investment has been on the 18-250 and should be able to recover some $ by selling that. I'll most likely keep the A200 with the kit lens as a "backup" anyway... Has anyone played with the D90 and compared it to the A700 yet ? and what are your thougts. Thanks

Just upgrade your lens to something with f2.8. In the long run, you will find it more worthwhile than buying a new camera body.

Checkout Sigma or Tamron with f2.8 lenses.

[Titan10k]

Sensor is the only aspect that the D90 can best A700, well from my point of view at least. But if you want to switch camp, you don't need an excuse. By all mean, do it.

[mmice]

Thanks for all the quick replies !

I agree the 18-250 is a slow lens to focus, but seems its the body that's causing it to be slow ? I tried my lens on a A700 at sonystyle and it very much faster. its noticable and its comparing it in the store which is fairly bright.

I'm not sure an F2.8 lens is the solution here for noise, I was thinking along the lines of the sensor in the body ..

I'm hesitant to switch camps and start all over again, since I do like the colors from the 28-105 xi which is a 10+ yr old lens, but if it does mean I get more consistently sharp sunsets shots and visibly less noise, then I'd go for it. If I can achieve that with the A700, even better still.

So it still seems like, I'm back to the situation where both the A700 and D90 are valid options. And for 1.6k... i get either a body or a new system....

[Galdor]

Well A200 is an entry cam & is D90 an entry cam, if it is, then it would be a good comparison. As for noise, it may not be as good as the Canon but the colours are different. Just ask yourself if you prefer to reduce noise or to adjust to get better & more accurate colours from your raw shots. Even with minimal visible noise you will still need to remove them and you can try to see which is an easier process.

I am not too an** about noise cos a good photo with noise will still beat a lousy photo with no visible noise.

Like many seniors have mentioned before, there is no perfect system after you jump to the other side you will still find faults with it and decide to jump somewhere else again. So?

Sorry for being nosey. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Titan10k]

Originally Posted by Galdor Well A200 is an entry cam & is D90 an entry cam, if it is, then it would be a good comparison. As for noise, it may not be as good as the Canon but the colours are different.

D90 high ISO performance is exceptional, quite easily the current best aps-c in this regard. Other than this, D90 is still an entry level body (i'd like to call it, "upper entry" ). A700 is just an another league.

[Galdor]

Originally Posted by Titan10k D90 high ISO performance is exceptional, quite easily the current best aps-c in this regard. Other than this, D90 is still an entry level body (i'd like to call it, "upper entry" ). A700 is just an another league.

If D90 is an entry level cam, what is D40/D60?
Doesn't matter, as long as you're happy. What I like you may not like, so just get something you're happy with cos I believe comparisons are quite pointless and a good photographer can shoot better photos than me using his PnS.

[yokechye]

d90 and a700 are totally different bodies you are talking here (other than brand).
i am not too sure about d90's AF, but I think A700 AF speed is no worst than the d90

[Azzurro]

Originally Posted by Galdor If D90 is an entry level cam, what is D40/D60? Doesn't matter, as long as you're happy. What I like you may not like, so just get something you're happy with cos I believe comparisons are quite pointless and a good photographer can shoot better photos than me using his PnS.

Agree with your point, what brand doesn't really matter. Most important you must like it and have faith in it.

Each individual brand has their own strength & weaknesses. No one system is perfect.

[kelvint81]

Best is TS go try both cams
see which one he/she likes
then go for that one.
Both cams sure to give nice pics
it all boils down to the person behind the cam.

[zuikoku]

Originally Posted by mmice Hi, Ok, maybe this is not the best place to ask I am getting rather frustrated at the speed of focusing, low light and noise @1600 from the A200. I was hoping for an upgrade to the A700 at PMA, but it seems like it'll be Q3 before anything is announced. As such I've narrowed it down to either upgrading to a A700 body or to change to the Nikon camp and am looking at D90. Price wise, it is about the same (A700 is around 1.5k and D90 kit is approx 1.7k) Lens wise, I'm not too fussed since my major investment has been on the 18-250 and should be able to recover some $ by selling that. I'll most likely keep the A200 with the kit lens as a "backup" anyway... Has anyone played with the D90 and compared it to the A700 yet ? and what are your thougts. Thanks

Sony ? DRO is the best feature which gives more detail than others (Especially for shadow or highlight)

Even on your A200, it will easily beat higher end model especially on this matter

[BrokenDown]

IMO, D90 has better NR since it's a newer camera it handles ISO 3200 very well and i can say it performs slightly better then then the D300 over NR. But A700 colours are better then the D90. Sony has a higher advantage of Image stablisation over Nikon though since Sony's SSS is built in. And, the D90 has the CLS (Creative Lighting System), if you have Nikon strobes that you want to play around with. Hope this small amount of infomation helps
Go where ever you're comfortable with dude

[liarliar]

1 minute into pondering what to buy means 1 less minute in life to shoot. Sony or Nikon, Olyumpus or Fujifilm? There's also Pentax and Sigma. Choose one, or buy them all.

[boombox]

Hi, directly answering your queries, and my experiences with both bodies, I think the D90 is a very fine camera...

It seats just outside the door of the A700, and I think performance wise, it's quite alright to compare the two, and even bring the Canon 40D in terms of price ranges that is.

While sharing essentially the same sensors (D300 = A700 = D90), the A700 has got in-built IS, as well as, I dare say, an extremely sensitive, sophisticated and accurate central AF sensor (that reliably locked onto stuff that even the 1Dmk3 and D3 failed to do - a plain white wall), and also, Unlimited burst for Fine Quality JPEGs, slightly faster continuous shooting speed (by 0.5fps), and magnesium alloy body and environmental sealing.

But I think the D90 can hold its own - it's got a 11 pt AF, and a hugely fun HD recording mode that got me totally hooked, and I'm practically just filming away with my friend's D90. Videography's fun. It's got live view as well as face detection in live view. Very clean images through the effective NR strategies implemented by Nikon - and overall body performance that's very close to that of the A700.

I think the In built IS is the greatest advantage of the A700 - and that applies to all lenses - new and old, primes, even, the M42's stabilized (this is my deal maker really) - and zoom lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 G (along with the 24-70 f2.8 L) have no VR, and it can be quite problematic at the tele end of the lens - which has a 35mm equiv. focal length of 105mm.

I'd be happy with just either cameras.

Rgds,
CA

[Getz10]

All brand had their pros and cons.......there's actually no clear winner end of the day.....
It's Minolta colour/build-in SSS or better NR/flash system????
U had to decide yourself which are the pros u want and the cons u could live with

[mmice]

Thanks again for the input

I am very happy with Sony-Minolta system. I suppose I made a "mistake" of going for the A200 when moving to digital from the film (used to have a 7xi and 9xi bodies) As such, I feel something is 'missing' after using the A200 for a while. This sort of got me to the thought of either going for the A700 or get an additional system and maintain 2 systems.

I've tried the A700 and really like it, but just can't help feeling that perhaps the D90 is better 'value' feature wise, but falls over in build quality. Just to throw another option into the works, would an A100 be worth considering to get less noise and faster focusing ?

Cheers

[boombox]

Originally Posted by mmice Thanks again for the input I am very happy with Sony-Minolta system. I suppose I made a "mistake" of going for the A200 when moving to digital from the film (used to have a 7xi and 9xi bodies) As such, I feel something is 'missing' after using the A200 for a while. This sort of got me to the thought of either going for the A700 or get an additional system and maintain 2 systems. I've tried the A700 and really like it, but just can't help feeling that perhaps the D90 is better 'value' feature wise, but falls over in build quality. Just to throw another option into the works, would an A100 be worth considering to get less noise and faster focusing ? Cheers

Well, I reckon that you wouldn't wanna go back to the A100 because that's the predecessor of the A200. A100 - More Noise, Slower Focus...

I think It would be good to wait - because the A700 is scheduled for an upgrade. Though I'd probably wait for the flood of Cheap A700s when that happens - and they'd get tossed at prices cheaper than what you'd probably get for a D90, so that's where the value comes in.