Do you think the Sony 700 is as good as the Nikon D300?

Apparently, they have the same sensor, and even the same 640x480 display...

I know the sensor isn't everything, there is also auto focus speed and accuracy,
tone curves, all kinds of crap...

Now I imagine that the Nikon is the better camera, due to Nikons superior use of
things dealing with SLR cameras compared to Minolta...

(Having been a Minolta technician for a while in the 70s, I know a bit about the
crap they can make...)

However, Sony does know a thing or 2 about imaging, so they should improve on
Minolta's designs...

Bottom line is - will the images from the 2 cameras be the same, assuming the
photographer has mastered the camera, or will the Nikon always win?

There IS a $700 saving with the Sony to consider... and at my level of expertise
( I am proud of at least 1% of my photos!) I don't really need a $2000 camera.

I just want a camera with good eye relief and a big view thru a pentaprism...

(Also the Sony has anti-shake which is good...)


Comments welcome.

Flames will be used to melt the snow that is presently falling.

 

There's no Sony that's as good as a Nikon (and I don't own either).

 

A great camera in unskilled hands will yield what?
If you are a cameraholic technophile then camera specs are more important
than the photos created with the camera. I think that sums up most of the
posters on this newsgroup.
Any current dSLR will meet your needs.
Which to get is a matter of preference.
Although the sensor and other electronics may be the same in differently
badged dSLRs there are significant difference between brands with regard to
exposure, focusing, jpeg processing etc. Which is better for you is up to
you to decide.

 

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

 

The Sony jpeg is more contrasty & sharpened. It has more detail too. If
the difference between raw & jpeg is that much it's hard to tell, maybe
the Nikon applies more noise reduction to the jpegs.

For the OP's needs the Sony seems to make sense. yes the in-camera
stabilizing is nice and Minolta lenses are well respected. I don't know
what the Sony kit lens is like but if the price includes a better kit
lens & you are not planning to buy a bunch of lenses, that makes a big
difference. In some cases like Olympus it gets real expensive to look at
upgrading lenses so it's worth looking at what you (might) need in the
future: superwide (architecture?), macro, long tele (wildlife, sports?),
fixed 2.8 normal or wide zoom, etc.

 

A chance to improve...

I try not to be too techy (hard for a technician) but I'm in the market for a
camera and I think the Sony will do me fine even if the Nikon is better... but
there are a lot of Brand Nazis on this group... My biggest problem is trying to
see thru the viewfinders on these small cameras, I think the 700 is improved
over other models.

Like someone else suggested - somebody should post photos without saying which
camera took them - and have people guess... THAT would prove something...

 

What do you shoot with?


OT Do you have a Strat?

 

Does anyone know what city was featured in those shots? Camera Labs is
UK but that looks like New Zealand???

Greg

 

I use a Canon, but have nothing against Nikon.

You betcha...bought it in 1980. It's a 70s style with large headstock,
bullet truss rod, 3-bolt neck, etc. It's white (or used to be...more
cream colored now).
I also have a Les Paul Custom, Fender Jazz Bass, Yamaha acoustic, and a
6/12 doubleneck.
Amps include a Mesa Boogie, Fender bass amp, Marshall acoustic amp, and
Vox Pathfinder 15R.

 

Pretty big assumption there. Going out on a limb and sawing it off, I
would guess that no one here has used both cameras enough to say for
sure. Otherwise, all you have is the opinions of the fan-boys.

 

Straight answer - the Nikon wins at ISO setting over 800, whether or not
working from raw - both raw and JPEG qualities are better at high ISO.
They are pretty much equal at 100-800. The Nikon has an amazingly
advanced AF system but it doesn't really seem to transform the world;
after a while, I punched centre sensor focus and forgot about the
complex colour-metering linked shape recognition. But then I always seem
to revert to using a single AF sensor in almost any camera with a wide
focus area option.

The A700 beats the Nikon outright in one respect only, the in-body
stabilisation. There are situations where the Sony will win unless you
use a VR lens, a monopod or a tripod. It is particularly relevant if you
have access to decent Minolta/Sony AF glass - I have lenses like the
100mm f2.8 soft focus and the 28mm f2, not to mention 500mm mirror and
11-18mm wide zoom, 18-250mm Tamron, and 28-75mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 50mm
macro. I get the benefit of stabilisation with these and it does count.

On a marginal note, the Sony DRO Advanced option (applies only to JPEGs)
works much better than Nikon's Active D-Lighting - you need to use Nikon
Retouch Menu D-Lighting to get the same level of correction.

The A700 user interface is slightly faster than the Nikon after you get
to know both well. Nikon has a neater card formatting routine. Nikon has
one or two 'to die for' new lenses which have no equivalent in the Sony
system; Sony has the 16-80mm Zeiss. Nikon has limited backward
compatibility with older lenses. Sony has total backward compatibility,
to 1985, all AF lenses. Nikon already has a good line up of sonic motor
focusing lenses. Sony has just a few hung over from Minolta, and
anything more exciting is in an unknown future - for example, a pro
grade f4.5-5.6 70-300mm sonic motor model is arriving in 2008.

Also, with the Sony you get a neat wireless remote release and HDMI TV
playback controller. With the Nikon you get Live View. If you shoot a
lot of macro work etc that could be a dealbreaker.

David

--
Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
VAT Reg No GB458101463
Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com
www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk -
www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk
Tel +44 1573 226032

 

Now there's the difference - Sony user here, Lowden O23, Lowden S35C,
handbuilt Avandel 12-fret copy of O-size New Yorker, Godin Multiac
nylon, self-built Grand Auditorium from Martin's own kit in
rosewood/redwood, Lamaq GAL5190, Romanian rosewood/cedar classical,
Brook Bovey 21.5" scale, Tacoma Papoose, 860mm scale acoustic bass, and
AER Alpha amp.

You see with that line-up, there's no way you would expect to find me
using a mainstream camera brand either!

David

--
Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
VAT Reg No GB458101463
Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com
www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk -
www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk
Tel +44 1573 226032

 

I used to play a D28. Mostly Van Ronk, Kottkey, Fahey, Jorma stuff.

Nowadays I play swing and bebop on a Gibson L5 or D'Aquisto Centura,
Polytone MegaBrute.

Yep. I'm definately more mainstream. Also, I only play one guitar at a time.
The Gibson hasn't been played since the D'Aquisto Centura arrived.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

It is NZ - Queenstown. I think they moved there a couple of years ago.
Half of the UK seems to be moving here.

 

Have you ever lived in the UK? Can't blame them

 

The sensor isn't all that makes the basic image. There are all kinds of
electronics and image processing systems. All of which Nikon seems to make
better than Sony. And has made, for years.

 

The d300 mounts and meters (including matrix metering in pretty much
all cases) with all ai and ais lenses, which includes all af lenses
and manual lenses made after 1977 (I think). You can modify older
lenses to fit. Sony supports only minolta af lenses, from what I
understand; eg it does not support md lenses (like the dynaxes
didn't), which don't even mount.

I can go into any used gear shop and buy manual focus nikkors for a
lot less than the equivalent (or worse) current af models; in
contrast, my md lenses are collecting dust because they did not fit
onto my 7xi.

So to say that nikon's backward compatibility is partial while Sony's
total is misleading. Unless you consider the fact the 2 (or 3) lenses
made for the f3af and so on don't work to be significant.

Having said that, I'd agree that the in-camera stabilization is a
significant advantage to the sony. Since the OP also is worried about
the cost, I'd personally probably go for the sony, although I haven't
handled it.

 

Cool!

I have a 1996 "50th Anniversary" Strat - candy apple red... single coils...

I also have an old 70s Precision Base that I refinished due to it being kind of
trashed... but doesn't have the Fender neck...

I have a few old amps here, Traynor, Ampeg and stuff, but I mostly design and
build my own guitar amps...

You might like my site...

http://www.geocities.com/flintstudio/index.html

 

Based solely on price of the body, the Sony maybe be a better
enthusiast's camera, but if you anticipate any need for
weatherproofing, it isn't. Also, Sony's accessories are very
expensive so in the long run the saving might be eroded.

 

Why?