Move from Sony to Nikon/Canon?

C

chickenjames

Messages
11
Edit My Images
Yes
hello all

I have a Sony Alpha a100, and various full frame Minolta lenses:
Min 24-85 f3.5-4.5, Min 50mm f1.7, Sigma 70-210 f2.8, Sigma 18mm f3.5

The body is getting fairly tired and I'm itching to upgrade to something modern.
I"m nervous that Sony don't seem very committed to the Amount, but I'd like to keep my lenses working.

I think the options are something like
Sony A68 body about £500
Sony A77ii body about £700
A77ii body & lens (16-50 f2.8) about £1100

or - give up on Sony and start over with Nikon or Canon!

Something like D5500 + 18-140mm, £750
or D7100 + 18-105, £800

I'd probably not need a prime wide-angle, and I don't use long telephoto much so I'd probably just get a 75-300 F4-f5.6 later.

I'd like great build quality (e.g. don't like plastic lens mounts), good quality pictures but I'm not very fussed about having loads of features.

What would you do?
 
A77ii is a great camera. Build quality seems good. It is jam packed with features and has more focus points than you can throw a stick at.

Biggest loss you'll have with canon/Nikon is lack of in body IS. At least with Sony any old lens is automatically stabilised.

Sony are supposedly bringing out a new A mount full frame.

I'd stick with Sony :)
 
I went through this about 18m ago, at that point a-mount was looking very bleak and I decided to swap systems. I was swapping from APS to FF so had to change all my gear anyway and had to make the tough decision which system to 'buy in to'.

Went Nikon with the D750 and haven't regretted it one bit. As a system I find it better than Sony, although there are a few areas where I still preferred the A77-ii, such as focus peaking and fast AF in liveview.

The A99-ii has been rumoured for quite a while now so I'm not holding my breath. Also some of the rumoured specs such as a 72mp sensor seem a bit unrealistic (unless it's focus shift like the EM5-ii).

If you could find some reliable info that Sony are still going to release higher end bodies then it may be worth sticking with them, although knowing Sony if they do bring out an A99-ii expect it to be massively over-priced.
 
If I am you having some FF lenses I would go for A7 + LA-EA4, though I am biased as I am using this setup and it is great, used doesn't cost more than £750 together
 
a used a77 would be another option

the trouble with adapters is they arent full feature compatitible, and some lenses dont like them, and i really dont like the feel of that box hanging off the bottom :/, some people dont mind it but i do

and the a77 is a great camera :)
 
The A100 is a long way back in sensor technology terms, so whatever you get will give significant improvements.

Given that you've stuck with the A100 for so long, I'm guessing you are looking to buy a new camera that will likewise last for several years.

The advantage in switching system now is the cash you could make selling your existing gear (which would reduce if Sony pulled out of A-Mount) - but to be honest, you'll not get a great deal on any of those.

Note that the two Sigma's MAY have problems with AF when combined with one of the new SLT cameras (IE any current A Mount camera).

A 'cheap' option would be to go for a S/h A700 or A850/A900 - both will feel very familiar as they were the last of the 'traditional' A Mount cameras, and will both be a good step up from the A100 (but obviously not as much as one of the current models). They will also use the same cards, batteries, flash, remote release, etc as your A100, making a smooth upgrade. The viewfinders are also a bug step up from the Pentamirror on the A100 (the A900 especially)
What they won't offer is video, live view or the latest high ISO capability, but will be the cheapest option by a significant margin.
 
thanks for all the great responses guys, much appreciated.

I've learned a few things - tell me what I misunderstood

- the A77ii is a Good Thing, and most new Sony backs will be a long way ahead of the a100
- Old Sigma lenses might not work properly with new Sony bodies
- the lens I'm most interested in reusing is the Sigma 70-210 f2.8 : I would probably invest in either 16-50 f2.8 or 18-105 as the walk around lens
- there _is_ some doubt about Sony's willingness to support the A mount forever

- Nikon: for the same price as the Sony back I could have a new Nikon back AND a good super zoom
chickenjames said:
Something like D5500 + 18-140mm, £750
or D7100 + 18-105, £800
Click to expand...

How does the D5500 compare with A77ii ? I guess a better comparison might be with D7x00 - is that right?

Any more comments or ideas welcome

thanks
 
chickenjames said:
thanks for all the great responses guys, much appreciated.

I've learned a few things - tell me what I misunderstood

- the A77ii is a Good Thing, and most new Sony backs will be a long way ahead of the a100
- Old Sigma lenses might not work properly with new Sony bodies
- the lens I'm most interested in reusing is the Sigma 70-210 f2.8 : I would probably invest in either 16-50 f2.8 or 18-105 as the walk around lens
- there _is_ some doubt about Sony's willingness to support the A mount forever

- Nikon: for the same price as the Sony back I could have a new Nikon back AND a good super zoom


How does the D5500 compare with A77ii ? I guess a better comparison might be with D7x00 - is that right?

Any more comments or ideas welcome

thanks
Click to expand...
Yes, the Sony A77-II is more similar to the D7100/D7200 with all being the more advanced APS bodies. The D5500 is more entry level.
 
chickenjames said:
when you say more advanced, do you mean features or performance? or build quality?
Click to expand...
Features mainly, although build quality tends to be slightly better, and performance of certain things like autofocus systems can be markedly better. Sensor performance depends on age as much as anything, although you may find higher end bodies have slightly better dynamic range. Unfortunately Sony still lose out in the noise department due to their SLT tech, but on saying that I still got usable images at 3200 ISO on my A77-II.
 
so funny reading this thread. I went through exactly the same thing last month. I started out with a Sony A200, then went to the A77 but as I outgrew that I had to decide whether to stay Sony or make the jump!

I had 6 Sony lenses, remotes, grip and other accessories. The final straw for me was the plastic hotshoe and constant need for adapters.

So I sold it all and made the jump to the full frame Nikon D750. I haven't looked back at all. I went for the 16-35mm f4 VR and 50mm f1.8 to start with.
 
I would say that if you are thinking of investing in another system that unless you have a very specific need or want that motivates you then sit back and watch the marketplace and figure what you really want to commit to before splashing out a lot of money.

DSLRs are in an odd place right now. They are big, competent, and feature packed but also being challenged by a new breed of smaller, competent, and feature packed products.

In addition to the other options mentioned above I would suggest looking at the A58 as a lower cost solution to just keeping things going. The bodies are available at £270. Keep your A100 as a backup.

(Also bear in mind that any new Sony A-mount camera will have a different hotshoe from the A100.)
 
OP, what is it you intend to shoot? As Dryce has alluded to, if you're not shooting moving subjects mirrorless could be the way forward for you.
 
I had a Sony A100 back in the day.
In my opinion the 10 Mp CCD sensor in the A 100 produced some of the best looking images I have ever seen from a digital camera. I include cameras I have owned from Fuji (x100s) Nikon (d7000) Panasonic and Olympus (m4/3) and currently my main camera the Sony A6000. I include the provisio that these images are only up to iso 400. I have heard similar from other owners of the A100, there was just something magical about the output from the sensor. Sure CCD sensors are 'old tech' now and a dSLR with 10 Mp would never sell. Modern sensors are light years better at handling 'noise' but I doubt any have better low iso image quality than the A100.
 
I would like to shoot a mixture of landscape, architecture, portraits, and sport. My dogs would be in there somewhere as well.

Tell me more about mirrorless - friends at work suggested I might want to look at Olympus, and it's an area that I know nothing about.

It would be good to be have something that's good for band photography as well - I play in a band and then my wife can take cool photos of me. No flash allowed.
 
badlywornroy said:
I had a Sony A100 back in the day.
In my opinion the 10 Mp CCD sensor in the A 100 produced some of the best looking images I have ever seen from a digital camera.
Click to expand...
in combination with the 24-85 bokeh, you get lovely portraits. But the AF is slow, blah, blah.

Now then, what about the control dials? In case you hadn't guessed, my main back for a long time was a Dynax 700si, and I miss the two dials. How does that work out on 7200 vs 5500 ?
 
chickenjames said:
I would like to shoot a mixture of landscape, architecture, portraits, and sport. My dogs would be in there somewhere as well.

Tell me more about mirrorless - friends at work suggested I might want to look at Olympus, and it's an area that I know nothing about.

It would be good to be have something that's good for band photography as well - I play in a band and then my wife can take cool photos of me. No flash allowed.
Click to expand...
TBH for now I would forget mirrorless for now if you're wanting to shoot sport and dogs (assuming you mean dogs running/at play etc) as they're not great for moving subjects. The Olympus EM1 and Sony A6000/A6300 are the best mirrorless in terms of being able to track moving subjects but they still can't match a high end DSLR. There's a Panny that comes close (G5 or something) but that's in good light. Mirrorless also still tend to struggle in low light so if you're taking band pics you might find mirrorless struggle compared to DSLR. That's not to say you can't get pics like this with mirrorless, and I did manage to take some moving wildlife with my Olympus but it gets frustrating when you're used to a good DSLR, and hit rate is considerably lower than DSLR.

If you're wanting to take low light photography (ie the band) then as you're considering swapping brands now might be a good time as Sony DSLT's struggle more with noise, as I alluded to earlier. Nikons win in this area at the moment, other than the Sony A7s/A7s-II.

From what you've said, and with your budget in mind (based on your suggestion of the A77-II kit at £1100) I'd be looking at something like the Nikon D7200 (£699) and Tamron/Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 (£220-270). I know a lot of people who recommend the Tamron but according to DXOmark the Sigma is actually sharper (take test scores like this with a pinch of salt)
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100__498_865_498_865_377_865

The Nikon will give you good AF in all situations (static, moving, and low light), and the best dynamic range in this category which will be better for landscape and shadow recovery. The f2.8 lens will allow more light in helping in the low light situations.

Of course if you want the best low light performance then you need to be looking at full frame but this would put budget up, even if buying second hand.
 
well, thanks for all your help guys. I went for the D5200 with 18-105 VR, and I'm very happy with it.

Ability to focus and shoot in lowish light is everything I'd hoped for, and the IQ is excellent. I think the things that combine to make me happy are
- good auto ISO up to very high speeds
- no noise even at quite high ISO
- AF is quick even when it's dim

So I'm thinking about some more lenses :
Nikon 50mm f1.8 seems like a no brainer - should I be getting the very basic non motor model at £85 or is would I notice the difference with the VR model? or maybe get the 35mm f1.8?

Also - what would people recommend for telephoto? I'm not likely to use it a lot, but I'd like to have up to 200 or 300 mm.

Options seem to be the Nikon 55-300 DX VR etc at £200 or maybe Tamron 70-210 f2.8 - what would you do?
 
Last edited:
chickenjames said:
well, thanks for all your help guys. I went for the D5200 with 18-105 VR, and I'm very happy with it.

Ability to focus and shoot in lowish light is everything I'd hoped for, and the IQ is excellent. I think the things that combine to make me happy are
- good auto ISO up to very high speeds
- no noise even at quite high ISO
- AF is quick even when it's dim

So I'm thinking about some more lenses :
Nikon 50mm f1.8 seems like a no brainer - should I be getting the very basic non motor model at £85 or is would I notice the difference with the VR model? or maybe get the 35mm f1.8?

Also - what would people recommend for telephoto? I'm not likely to use it a lot, but I'd like to have up to 200 or 300 mm.

Options seem to be the Nikon 55-300 DX VR etc at £200 or maybe Tamron 70-210 f2.8 - what would you do?
Click to expand...
Firstly I think you are getting confused with the nomenclature, VR is vibration reduction and nothing to do with having an internal focussing motor ;) For the price I would get the 50mm f1.8G (ie newer one), even if you picked up a used one.

As for telephoto the 70-210 f2.8 is a different beast to 'standard' telephoto zooms so you need to work out what you want from a zoom, it's quite a heavy beast too at around 1.3kg IIRC. The 70-210mm is an old lens now so if you go this route make sure it's compatible with the D5200, but i believe it has internal motor so should be. The 70-210 will be better optically and you get the benefit of light gathering and subject isolation of the f2.8.

As for 'standard' zooms the 55-300mm isn't a bad lens at all and designed for crop bodies. The Nikon 70-300mm VR is a better lens but it's not as wide at the short end (being 105mm on a DX body), although this wouldn't bother me. The Tamron 70-300mm VC is another good lens, especially for the price.
 
d'oh. I meant to type 7200 not 5200 ! So I'm even happier.

Re the lens type, yes, mea culpa, I was assuming that the VR and motor-in-lens went together.

How does something like the Nikon 55-300 perform on the 7200 ? quite nicely. I would imagine.
 
chickenjames said:
d'oh. I meant to type 7200 not 5200 ! So I'm even happier.

Re the lens type, yes, mea culpa, I was assuming that the VR and motor-in-lens went together.

How does something like the Nikon 55-300 perform on the 7200 ? quite nicely. I would imagine.
Click to expand...
Yep the D7200 certainly is a cracking camera, a big step up from the D5200. Looking at this there's not much in the 55-300mm and 70-300mm in terms of IQ so maybe save cost and weight and get the 55-300mm. However, if you think you might go full frame at some point then the 70-300mm is FF compatible.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...5.6G-DX-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100__262_865_324_865
 
snerkler said:
Yep the D7200 certainly is a cracking camera, a big step up from the D5200. Looking at this there's not much in the 55-300mm and 70-300mm in terms of IQ so maybe save cost and weight and get the 55-300mm. However, if you think you might go full frame at some point then the 70-300mm is FF compatible.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...5.6G-DX-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100__262_865_324_865
Click to expand...
May not be much in it in terms of IQ, but there is a notable difference between them in AF performance, the 70-300 is quicker.
 
PaulButler said:
May not be much in it in terms of IQ, but there is a notable difference between them in AF performance, the 70-300 is quicker.
Click to expand...
True, but he says that he doesn't use telephoto much so the cost/weight saving could be more appealing ;)
 
thanks guys. it's going to be the 55-300. The price on Amazon is wanging around like crazy today, reckon I'll wait until it's back under £200 again :)
 
LOL, I thought it had to be, I was just wondering if someone might say "I've got one, and it's marvellous" :)
 
snerkler said:
TBH for now I would forget mirrorless for now if you're wanting to shoot sport and dogs (assuming you mean dogs running/at play etc) as they're not great for moving subjects. The Olympus EM1 and Sony A6000/A6300 are the best mirrorless in terms of being able to track moving subjects but they still can't match a high end DSLR. There's a Panny that comes close (G5 or something) but that's in good light. Mirrorless also still tend to struggle in low light so if you're taking band pics you might find mirrorless struggle compared to DSLR. That's not to say you can't get pics like this with mirrorless, and I did manage to take some moving wildlife with my Olympus but it gets frustrating when you're used to a good DSLR, and hit rate is considerably lower than DSLR.
Click to expand...

There have been a number of comparison reviews which have found that the best mirrorless cameras lag behind the best DSLR's with regard to tracking but of course the best DSLR's are a tiny percentage of the market. I think it's safe to say that the best DSLR's track better than the best CSC's but it's a pretty pointless statement really and what I personally would do is compare the cameras on my shortlist.
 
woof woof said:
There have been a number of comparison reviews which have found that the best mirrorless cameras lag behind the best DSLR's with regard to tracking but of course the best DSLR's are a tiny percentage of the market. I think it's safe to say that the best DSLR's track better than the best CSC's but it's a pretty pointless statement really and what I personally would do is compare the cameras on my shortlist.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, but it was just a general statement to save going through every camera combo :p
 
just to close this off - I ended up with
d7200
Nikon 18-105
Nikon 55-300 VR
Nikon 50 f1.8G

and I'm a happy bunny

anyone want to recommend a great case that will hold all of this nicely for me?

thanks :)
 
chickenjames said:
just to close this off - I ended up with
d7200
Nikon 18-105
Nikon 55-300 VR
Nikon 50 f1.8G

and I'm a happy bunny

anyone want to recommend a great case that will hold all of this nicely for me?

thanks :)
Click to expand...
Nice, enjoy (y)

I tend to go for lowepro bags, good quality without costing silly money. I have a lowepro messenger (forget which size) for when I just have the camera and 24-120mm f4 plus flash or another small to mid size lens. Then I have the Lowepro Flipside 400 (IIRC) backpack for when I go out taking landscapes so has camera, lens(es), filters, shutter release, tripod etc, or it can fit my camera plus 150-600 and a few other bits and bobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top