The Live view on the 40D is only good if the camera and subject are not moving.  So macro/tripod/astrophotographers get something.  Most others will find it useless.

The A700 has for only $100 more in the US...

• Stabilization
• Better LCD
• DRO
• Better UI
• built in wireless flash control
• HDMI out for modern TVs not just NTSC/PAL video
• UDMA high speed CF card support
• Always available ISO 100-6400 (Some 40D settings disable 100 & 3200)
• Wireless Remote included with the camera

Also I have seen test shots at high ISO where the Sony had better color than the D300 in a controlled circumstance.  Please note that Adobe ACR 4.3 and LR 1.3 are terrible with A700 High ISO shots because of noise reduction Adobe forces in the rendering.  Bibble Pro, Raw Therapee and others will render a much finer grain and detailed images from A700 ISO 1600+ RAW files.

I can and could have afforded a 40D or even a D300.. I chose the A700 because of it's very complete feature set.  We are even seeing some other popular publications give the edge to the A700 over the 40D and D300. 

NOTE: Until last August only Olympus had Live view at this level and so far it is not really ready for general use, so your complaints about Sony missing trend are a bit harsh.

To list the cheap kit lens (which still rates as good or better than the competition's cheap equivalents) and color problems at ISO 6400 as the A700's negatives is a stretch. Live view and an optional wireless transmitter are pretty much the only real advantage that the 40D has over the A700. The poster above listed the advantages that the A700 has over the 40D.

Bottom line, the 40D is the better camera choice if Live View is the most important feature to you, or if you care about the brand name on your pants.  If not, then go A700.

In the UK, Sony currently has a cash-back offer on the Alpha 700 - £100 off the camera body, or £150 off the camera plus a lens.

This brings the cheapest price for the camera down to £730 for body only, or £950 with the Sony 16-105mm F3.5-5.6, or else £1080 with the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 or Sony 18-250mm F3.5-6.5.

Those are some great deals - offering higher quality and more versatility than any equivalent offerings by Canon or Nikon (e.g. a Canon 40D with 17-85mm F4.0-5.6 IS costs about £1000).

Mike,

While the A700 is lacking the Live View, you really shouldn't hold it against the camera.  Traditionally Live View has only been found on P&S cameras while the dSLRs have been always using ground glass prism for a better viewfinder without the video lag/delay or lower resolution of AF compromises that are inherent when trying to incorporate this system into a SLR designed camera.

 It was only the introduction of NEW dSLRs from Canon and Nikon  in 4th quarter, 2007 that dSLRs have started to come out with Live View, and therefore making this a must have feature for future generations of dSLRs. 

I'm fairly certain, that SONY will be adopting this new technology for their next wave a dSLRs, seeing as how Canon and Nikon both have the Live View technology.  Until then, IMHO, I would hope that the lack of Live View technology should not be held against SONY at this time. 

K H - Don't forget that the Sony is limited to 12bit RAW files too. Some would argue that the potential black detail as compared to 14 or 16bit is slightly lacking. The maths would suggest so. This may be negligible for many peoples' needs, but it's something that should have been upped to compete.

G H - As it was the A700K kit that was tested, the lens had to be judged as part of the package. In terms of body alone, I still stand by "Grab a body only and a nifty lens and you'll have one of the most usable cameras around..."

As a whole there's very little noise issues throughout, but 6400 isn't (as expected) great. Not particularly holding that against the camera at all (it didn't mark it down) - if you look at the 100% ISO tabs then you can see that even ISO1600 is as good as/better than many competitors.

Two Truthes & Scott Donaldson - Everyone's throwing cashback offers around at the moment, but if you look around hard enough then you can pick up the body for around about the £850 mark, so £750 with the cash back... 100% worth it.

The Live View debate - you can't argue that it's not there. My feeling is that there might be a slight alienation of potential users through the lack of it. It's something that could quite easily have been worked into the package, people do want the next big thing. As a medium/large format user, I'm used to glass/screen based working, so it's a bonus to have it in there.

Bottom line is, it's a great camera. If the A700K had a better lens then it would have bumped up the final score. But it doesn't, hence the 8/10 (which, by the way, is very good!)

There's going to be opinions from all over the place abouty which is the best... It's good to see some debate.

Mike

So what is the value of 14 bit RAW?  The camera already captures several times the shading and gradients that the human eye can see, and way more than any current output device or color space can use at 12 bits.  14 bits means larger files, faster filling CF cards, and slower write speeds.  There are more than a few of us that realize that the mega pixel race has reached a level where the loss in IQ for a small gain in resolution, that many lenses can't even use effectively, has gone as far as it can.  Nikon with the 12 MP FF D3 seems to be suggesting better light capture vs more pixels is best and many of us agree.  bit dept in RAW 14bit vs 12 bit is just a new marketing number for people to focus on that no one will ever really see the difference.

As to Live view being easily implemented.. REALLY?  If it is so easy why is it so poor on the 40D and D300.  The 40D can't AF live view. It has to stop Live view to take an AF sensor reading and start it again.. so is useless for most shots of subjects in motion relative to the camera.  The D300 drops the use of its innovative 51 AF sensors for a slower and less accurate P&S contrast focus.  IE in both cases using live view cripples some of the key reasons we choose a DSLR.  And in reading reviews.  Sony gets one line usually about not having it.  The other cameras get a paragraph about how limited it is, making it a net neutral in review power from a marketing perspective and it is off and works poorly for new user on the 40D so it isn't an aid on the sales floor, unless there is a motivated Canon favoring sales person there to help.

 More than that, the idea that is is easy to add is incorrect.  These two limited versions are with camera using a stationary sensor that can be heat sinked easily, and still the Canon manual has overheat warnings about the Live view function (heat means battery drain too)  Sony has its innovative in camera stabilization that matches most lens based systems, that would of course have to be redesigned to allow for the added mass of sensor cooling needed for live view.

When Sony can do it without compromising the value my A700 gives me, I will welcome the feature.  But in this round at least from what I see on the 40D and D300 (which are nice cameras) it is a marketing gimmick that doesn't pay off for most users.

 Bottom Line..

• Excellent images up to ISO 1600 and even sometimes 3200 with the right processing. ( have printed ISO 1600 at a3+ with good results) 
• Stabilization with all my lenses including my 50mm f1.7 that others don't even offer stabilized. 
• Class leading Dynamic Range to the highlight side were most pictures are hurt by blown skies etc. (tests from dpreview.com confirm)

These all give me more "keepers" when I go out to shoot and have more bearing on my images than Live View or 2 more bits of wasted color graduation.  My impression is you focused on the wrong aspects when giving a low number for features and the A700 like in most other publications should have a final rating nearly identical to the 40D which this site gave 10 stars.  

1. As others already said, the "old news" LV ( live  view ) the way it's in the Canon 40D and Nikon D300 seems more like a marketing feature to please P&S's, IMO the A700 not having it is not a demerit at all.

With an impressive array of excellent features like SSS, DRO, Hi-Res LCD, great IQ up to ISO 1600 and very acceptable above up to ISO3200, very straightforward and intuitive parameters set up on the LCD with the "Quick Navi" and joystick, among several others, the A700 is definitely one of the best buys ( if not the best ) at that level today.

I Just got one with the excellent Zeiss 16-80 lens and am overwhelmed with is robustness, ergonomics and performance!

  WRONG!!!!!!!!!!     The wireless remote allows for both regular and 2 second timer shutter release, as well as all of the HDMI stuff.   Having a wireless shutter release is very handy.

Hey Jonathan, although that I am happy to see you include Sony as being "one of the big boys" after only being at this for a year or so, I think they are very much into innovation.

DRO+ (d-lighting isn't close,) SSS, Quick-navi interface and multitude of other things prove they've got plenty of innovation. Whether one argues for or against Live View, we all know that it is awful at this point in the technology for nearly any use. Sony packed in plenty of useable features for a great price.... I'm just glad they didn't realize that I would've spent D300 money on it. I wouldn't trade the Sony straight across for the Nikon.

I have fond memories of Minolta (still have one of their lightmeters somewhere) and having recently moved from Nikon to Canon I don't think I can be reasonably accused of being a mindless fanboi.  

However, speaking personally as an architectural, landscape and lowlight specialist who uses tripods 98% of the time, I would never consider buying a DSLR without Live View.   In fact I have sold my existing Canon just to get Live View, a technology which to me totally gets rid of autofocus issues.    Using a Live View camera set to 10x mag is like focussing a 5x4 and a loupe - 100% guaranteed accurate focus.

Horses for course I suppose, but hope Sony adopt Live View as a matter of urgency.

David Harling wrote (see)

I have fond memories of Minolta (still have one of their lightmeters somewhere) and having recently moved from Nikon to Canon I don't think I can be reasonably accused of being a mindless fanboi.  

However, speaking personally as an architectural, landscape and lowlight specialist who uses tripods 98% of the time, I would never consider buying a DSLR without Live View.   In fact I have sold my existing Canon just to get Live View, a technology which to me totally gets rid of autofocus issues.    Using a Live View camera set to 10x mag is like focussing a 5x4 and a loupe - 100% guaranteed accurate focus.

Horses for course I suppose, but hope Sony adopt Live View as a matter of urgency.

It will be in their next set of models, as announched at PMA.  Sony know it's important, as consumers look to the next thing.

In this instance, I, like yourself have a 5x4" background - so LiveView is the closest thing available to that process of working. That plus the introduction of pro lenses with both tilt and shift capabilities and there's a new option for those medium/large format users (although not for Sony as yet).

Not that this is what the a700 is targeting. What it's made to do it does very well, if you latch a fantastic lens onto the body then you'll have few complaints.

Sony will cover as many angles as possible with new models this year and probably next - by the end of this year or next they should have a greater and deserved slice of the DSLR sales pie.

Canon 40D - Great camera, fast auto focus, 6.5 frames per sec.

Doubt anyone is saying it isn't a great camera Philip. But compared to the 30D, it was more of an evolution than revolution. Liveview as Canon/Nikon view it, appears to be almost heath robinson compared to the version Sony have now produced with the A300/350 as did Oly some time ago.AF speed on the A700 is on a par with the 40D, and how often do you use the 6.5fps, would you have missed a shot at 5fps?

Around the price point of these cameras, you ain't gonna buy a duffer. Well, not often!