Sony T2 vs. T70: Does anyone see any advantages to one over the other?
38158
Bought the export version of this camera in Japan back in November. This camera is magnificent in almost every way except the most important one...it takes ridiculously horrible photos. They looked look something you might expect in the 3MP range or a cell phone. Anyway, I exchanged it thinking I might have gotten a lemon, but the replacement was the same. I recommend you avoid the T2 and Sony all together...they ought to be embarassed to have this product on the market.
1163827
From the specs, they are the same except T2 has a large internal memory and rounded shape. From the sony japan site, size of T2 is 86.856.820.2mm (T70 is 9056.420.7mm).
1163828
t70 has a bigger screen and the zoom buttons are more intuative, but the t2 seems easier on the eyes because it seems less severe.
2272120
I definitely think the T49 is worth the money -- but only if you buy the nice STM lens. It is seriously an amazing lens, and I love the autofocus feature when you're taking video. Even if you're only focusing on photos, the camera is great. The enhanced auto function takes beautiful photos when you're in a hurry and don't have time to mess with ISO and aperture, and I think it takes crisper photos than the T2i (although it's probably just the nice lens). Go for it if you have the money.
1054608
I've not owned the x-100 but the x-t1 is supposed to be lots faster ....Look in dpreview.com
1365911
I didn't have a T400 so not sure..I had used this in T60. Overall I am okay with the performance based on the price paid
1949917
yeah the D5100 is a better deal if you aren't too picky. If it got the same sensor as the D7000 (which it seem) then it is better then the Canon in low light and higher ISO. Well the D7000 vs D5100 6fps vs 4fps: advantage d7000 Fixed screen vs tilt: D5100 Maganisum body vs. plastic: D7000 More manual controls vs menus: D7000 1080p 24fps vs 1080p 30fps: D5100 Sensors: tie (if it is the Sony cmos like the D7000, D3100 used Nikon Cmos) Lenses selection: D7000, the D5100 still lack th ebody motor for older Nikkor lenses. Nikon CLS wireless flash: tie, both have it I not sure if the 3100 does (for speedlight without buying a trigger and using i-ttl off camera). 39 vs 11: D7000, but I only use the single point focusing (like manual on the camera) so no really advantage unless you do thing fully automatic. Or focus and recenter, same thing. All in all the D5100 is a better deal for consumer. For enthusiast the body and control of the D7000 is much better and faster to change settings to get a good shot. The d7000 defaults were soft and designed for portrait. You have to use the submenu to jack up the sharpness and contrast to look vivid on the D7000 to look like the unnatural Canon defaults.
28796
I upgraded to this from a T3 myself, and it is absolutely worth it. Better white balance, better colors, faster autofocus, larger screen that swivels, better feel to the camera, ability to use a wireless shutter release, better kit lenses, better feel to the body, silently changes focus while recording video etc. etc. I've written a detailed review myself, and even compare it to the T3 I upgraded from. You can read it here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3LTKCTC9DEOB2/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
1009946
I just purchased the T500 and I'm very happy with it. If you don't see yourself taking any video, then the T700 is more feature rich. But, if you'll use the video feature the T500 is significantly better. The T500's HD video in decent lighting is impressive for such a small camera. The T500 screen resolution may not be as good as the T700, but I've found it more than acceptable. A friend of mine has a camera with "Smile Shutter" and he says he never uses it, more of a hassle then it's worth. I could see if you had kids who are reluctant to smile, it might be a nice feature. -Good Luck I just purchased the T500 and I'm very happy with it. If you don't see yourself taking any video, then the T700 is more feature rich. But, if you'll use the video feature the T500 is significantly better. The T500's HD video in decent lighting is impressive for such a small camera. The T500 screen resolution may not be as good as the T700, but I've found it more than acceptable. A friend of mine has a camera with "Smile Shutter" and he says he never uses it, more of a hassle then it's worth. I could see if you had kids who are reluctant to smile, it might be a nice feature. -Good... » Read More I just purchased the T500 and I'm very happy with it. If you don't see yourself taking any video, then the T700 is more feature rich. But, if you'll use the video feature the T500 is significantly better. The T500's HD video in decent lighting is impressive for such a small camera. The T500 screen resolution may not be as good as the T700, but I've found it more than acceptable. A friend of mine has a camera with "Smile Shutter" and he says he never uses it, more of a hassle then it's worth. I could see if you had kids who are reluctant to smile, it might be a nice feature. -Good Luck « Show Less
996136
I have a d700 and it has worked wonderfully with it. No issues at all, I've used it multiple times.
1852342
The short answer is 'yes'. The relative image quality provided by the T3i is actually on par with the newer models. If you ever want better image quality, a higher-end lens will provide a much, much bigger improvement (and, since you saved some money on choosing this model, you might be able to get such a lens sooner). The camera includes everything you need and is only missing a couple of shiny new features provided on the newer models. If video is VERY high in your priorities, however, you might consider the 70D or SL1.
1645974
J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to windows desktops. First decide if you use your camera more for sports or portraits then decide if you want the canon or nikon. J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to... » Read More J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to windows desktops. First decide if you use your camera more for sports or portraits then decide if you want the canon or nikon. « Show Less
127692
We've had the t77 for 3 months. Picture is horrible. Sent in for repairs per Sony, but I think the camera is junk. hoping for credit.
565037
Can anyone offer a comparison/contrast between the Canon S90 and the Sony TX7? Thanks!
2004639
I've tried both and I like the 24-70 far better. It is a sharper, faster lens.
1107768
Yes, the body is exactly the same as the W70. Literally, the only difference between the two camera's is that one says 7.2 MP and the other says 6.0
1588427
Hi, Jason. You tend to see some degradation in image quality as well as some vignetting with the 2X teleconverters. While the canon is better than say a Sigma or a Tamron it will still affect image quality some. Using the 1.4X, at 200mm with the 70-200L, I have seen some very minor loss in sharpness in the corners, however I have to pixel peep to see that.
1648792
The A-700 is one year newer than the D-80, it's 12 megapixels to the D-80's 10 MP. The A-700 uses a CMOS, the Nikon uses a CCD. CMOS uses less battery power and usually gives better low-light, long exposure (night) photos with less noise than CCD sensors. The A-700 has the new 900K pixel LCD screen, the D-80 has the older 230K pixel LCD. The list of differences is too long to detail out here, read up on the cameras at DPReview. The most fundamental difference of course if the lens mount. As it's always been since the beginning of D-SLR's, people who already have a collection of SLR film camera lenses for a particular brand will probably buy whatever digital camera body will accept the lenses they already have; People who own a collection of Minolta MD and "A" mount lenses will probably at least consider the Sony A-100 or A-700 cameras before they would start from scratch by switching to Nikon, Olympus, Canon or Pentax. There are lots of old Minolta Rokkor MD mount "prime" lenses out there that were made with very high quality glass; these can be used (with manual focus and exposure) on the Sony A-100 and A-700 by adding a simple $35 adapter ring to the lens mount. Canon owners who already have a bunch of "L" series lenses are for-sure going to buy a Canon D-40 or 400. If you already own Nikon-mount lenses, you will probably want to consider the new Nikon D-300. It looks similar in specs to the Sony A-700 and probably uses the exact same sensor (it's a 12 MP CMOS). Or, there's the D-80 which is probably going to be $400~$500 less than the D-300.
1543697
Yes. I struggled with the decision to buy the 2.0 TC or the sigma 50 -500 lens to get more zoom as 200 didn't reach far enough for my needs. In the end I got the teleconverter as it was less money and mainly a way to avoid another heavy lens. It works out very well. loss of sharpness and some f/stops as others have described but you will hardly notice. faster glass and more sharpness costs thousands of dollars which i'm unwilling to spend. i'm pleased going this way.