Michael Falane wrote:
I've done Photoshop and Corel for 14 years, so I can actually do those fine.

The thing is, as I mentioned above, about the future of Sony and the glass selection that they might lack compared to the larger brands. That is why I am considering the switch.

no offence but thats a dumb reason. Unless you are at the pinnacle of your game (and that means you are in a specific niche such as left-handed underwater grouse photography and need one brand's specific 23-87UW lens to fit in the underwater grouse shooting housing) Canon Nikon and Sony all have plenty of glass available to meet your needs.  By all means, upgrade from your 330 body.  it was not the best sensor in its class when it came out.  but you got free IS in-body as a tradeoff.

you dont have a lot of glass to exchange (and even if you did it would be relatively easy to dispose of on eBay). So there's no need to worry about switching if you have to.  But do you?  If you said "hey guys I really need a 24-1xx f4 lens for this type of photography and Sony doesnt have one for full frame (they dont). what should I do?" that would be a good question to ask. Or "hey I can't do low light high ISO like my neighbour's kid can do with his a55. what should I get?"  Right now you don't appear to be limited by your camera.

DISCLAIMER: I shoot Sony and Canon and I have drawers full of fast letter glass (more for Sony because I really can't afford to keep up with Canon's new lens prices for fast glass and can't find older glass that I can afford OUCH).  Never found either to be missing anything I needed for a shoot. I don't shoot left-handed underwater grouse tho.

Michael Falane wrote:
I've done Photoshop and Corel for 14 years, so I can actually do those fine.

The thing is, as I mentioned above, about the future of Sony and the glass selection that they might lack compared to the larger brands. That is why I am considering the switch.

The future of Sony is fine.  Not only are they the number 3 DSLR company, but they own a controlling share of Olympus.  They have their thumbs in so many pies that even if they did go bankrupt, somebody would step up, buy their patents, and support the cameras asap.  Just like Sony did with Minolta.

Economically speaking, Nikon is actually more likely to go away than Canon or Sony.  Canon and Sony both make a much broader variety of products, and potentially have bigger businesses to fall back on.  If it's not made of glass, Nikon doesn't make it.  Not that Nikon is in trouble, but if we're going to go all Chicken Little, that would probably be the most likely company to fail.  And again, someone would buy all their tech immediately.

But as far as the cameras themselves, I don't think an upgrade is necessary, if you're looking into doing studio stuff.  You'll be hard-pressed to see a big difference between the A330 and the D7000 at base ISO, and the jump in resolution isn't enough to make your pictures a lot bigger - you're still limited to about 12x18 at top quality.  If you're shooting at a low ISO, your pictures will improve much more with better lights and practice than with a new camera.

Of course, at higher ISOs the D7000 is much better.  It's also a much better-handling camera, so there's that.

One thing that's worth considering though is how Sony's dynamic range compares to Nikon's.  Even on cameras with similar ranges(DPReview said Sony's 24mp A77, A65, and NEX-7 have the same dynamic range as the D7000), tones come out differently.  Sony tends to keep more detail in highlights than Nikon, while Nikon keeps more detail in the shadows.  I prefer the way the Sony cameras look, since it's more film-like.  But the Nikons are much better at shooting indoors or at night, where there will be a lot of shadow areas.

If it were my money, I would look for a Sony A65, if you really wanted to buy a new camera.  At lower ISOs it produces much larger, higher resolution files than the D7000, and at higher ISOs it's only a little bit worse.  I also think the colour and tonal rendition is miles ahead of what everyone else is offering at that price.

Still doesn't handle as well as a D7000, but most people care more about the pictures than the camera itself.  I would say that without buying a D800, you're unlikely to get that level of resolution, colour, and build quality all in one.

Then again, a lot of people like Nikon colours better.  I think they're too saturated and contrasty, but that's just me.

You may also want to look into some older Minolta glass.  Slow and noisy AF, but really excellent quality for the money.  The 50mm f/1.4 can be had fairly cheaply, and aside from the AF issues I think it's the best-looking non-German 50mm lens I've ever used.

Marty McBride wrote:
If your thought process stands between you getting on with your progress in photography, then by all means get it over with, so you can move onto things that really matter!  Having a system you feel comfortable growing with and are confident with, is better in your rear view!

This!

Michael Falane wrote:
..................So, here is the question. Do I keep the A330, improve my skills, then go for the Nikon? This would require me buying more glass for the A330, and will be less money in the long run. Still, bear in mind I plan on buying a Nikon eventually.

  Or do I buy the Nikon now? With the D7100 out, I am seeing really good deals on Ebay for the D7000. If I get a D7000, I can also buy glass for it that I can be used on whatever better camera I get in the future.................

Recently faced the same decision only from Canon to Nikon and had a lot of L glass.  No regrets about the move, though.

There is something to be said for making the move now with a less expensive Nikon body and one prime lens.  If your studio has room, go for the 85mm f1.8G; if not, the 50mm f1.8G.  DO NOT buy a DX lens; you will not be able to move forward with it when you go to full frame.  Remember the glass will last for years, maybe decades, and still have value.  When the body is outmoded, its value will plummet. 

ChanStudio wrote:
If you already decided to move to Nikon, then save up the money to move to Nikon.  There are some cheap (relatively cheap) G series lenses that give you best IQ for the money, i.e. 50mm f1.8G, 85mm f1.8G, etc.

Good advice.  I started with the 85mm 1.8G Nikkor.  It's a very underestimated lens as far as IQ goes.   

Michael Falane wrote:
Buying the Nikon, though, means that the money I spend on a body means less money that I can spend on studio stuff and other things.

You can save a lot of money by making your own studio stuff (DIY) - lights, backgrounds, props, etc instead of buying factory made stuff.  There are lots of threads on here regarding DIY stuff. 

You might as well be honing your photography skills while using the system you have decided to go with rather than having to re-learn another system down the road.

Michael Falane wrote:
Thanks for the information, but do I still make the move to the D7000 now? The going rate for most seems to be about $500-$700 on Ebay, which is in my price range, as well as getting a few lenses for it. That is doable. Yes, it is $500-$700 more, which can't go into other things, but still doable.

Or are you saying that I should stay with the A330 until I can get a D800? I am thinking that if I get the D7000 for around $600 now, I can maybe sell it back for relatively the same price down the line when I upgrade to a D800, or just keep it for other projects. Or do I just keep the A330 now, even though my glass is limited?

Again, thanks for the help.

Save your money and not spend anymore on any new lenses or equipments.  Try to improve on your composition and lights..

  Once you save enough money (and some extra in the bank), then move onto the D800.  That way, you will benefit more than just upgrading the camera.  The use of lights and composition is very important in photography.  Camera and lenses will only give you that extra 10% (i.e. DOF, better DR, more MP etc) while the 90% are all base on lights and composition.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Economically speaking, Nikon is actually more likely to go away than Canon or Sony.  Canon and Sony both make a much broader variety of products, and potentially have bigger businesses to fall back on.  If it's not made of glass, Nikon doesn't make it.  Not that Nikon is in trouble, but if we're going to go all Chicken Little, that would probably be the most likely company to fail.  And again, someone would buy all their tech immediately.

Economically speaking, none of them are going anywhere.  There is zero chance of anyone of them failing at this moment, including Nikon.  Nikon is a profitable company and is in no danger whatsoever.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Economically speaking, Nikon is actually more likely to go away than Canon or Sony.  Canon and Sony both make a much broader variety of products, and potentially have bigger businesses to fall back on.  If it's not made of glass, Nikon doesn't make it.  Not that Nikon is in trouble, but if we're going to go all Chicken Little, that would probably be the most likely company to fail.  And again, someone would buy all their tech immediately.

This is actually a very funny statement. Do you realize that Nikon makes photolithography equipment used in the semiconductor industry that sell for tens of millions of dollars per unit?

Canon makes? Oh yeah, printers.

Sony has been getting their butts handed to them in consumer electronics and music for years. The only thing they really make money on is the Playstation.

Nikon has also been gaining market share in cameras where Canon has been loosing. Which is actually pretty surprising because Canon's current line is pretty strong.

Nikon is doing just fine.  There is several hundred million dollars of their products just where I work alone.

pdxROCKpix wrote:

This is actually a very funny statement. Do you realize that Nikon makes photolithography equipment used in the semiconductor industry that sell for tens of millions of dollars per unit?

Canon makes? Oh yeah, printers.

Sony has been getting their butts handed to them in consumer electronics and music for years. The only thing they really make money on is the Playstation.

Nikon has also been gaining market share in cameras where Canon has been loosing. Which is actually pretty surprising because Canon's current line is pretty strong.

Nikon is doing just fine.  There is several hundred million dollars of their products just where I work alone.

Not quiet, Sony are massive player in the film - video industry.
They also produce the sensors for various camera manufacturers.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Economically speaking, none of them are going anywhere.  There is zero chance of anyone of them failing at this moment, including Nikon.  Nikon is a profitable company and is in no danger whatsoever.

i'd add to that.  Not only is there no risk now, there is no risk with any of them for at least two more purchase cycles (think/post on MM/rethink/buy).  Even for the replacement of whatever Nikon someone buys, its not a problem. 3 cycles out? who can tell.  thats getting close to 10 years. Anyone can fail in that time so its a useless thing to factor in.

ChanStudio wrote:
if you are in the process of saving, then do not spend anymore money on any Sony lenses.  Keep shooting with what you currently have and improve on the use of lights, composition, etc.

  Only buy when you have enough money (with some extra in the bank).

+1

pdxROCKpix wrote:

This is actually a very funny statement. Do you realize that Nikon makes photolithography equipment used in the semiconductor industry that sell for tens of millions of dollars per unit?

Canon makes? Oh yeah, printers.

Sony has been getting their butts handed to them in consumer electronics and music for years. The only thing they really make money on is the Playstation.

Nikon has also been gaining market share in cameras where Canon has been loosing. Which is actually pretty surprising because Canon's current line is pretty strong.

Nikon is doing just fine.  There is several hundred million dollars of their products just where I work alone.

Canon also makes camcorders and lots of other stuff, and Sony also makes ... well, everything, in addition to being one of the world's largest record labels.  They also own the rights to the Spider-Man film franchise, and I'm pretty sure that they make money off of that too.

Of course, those businesses are all divided; Sony may not be able to skim off the music business to support the photo business - I think that's part of what got Olympus into trouble.

But as I said, none of them are exactly hurting right now.  But if you want to wig out about bankruptcy, it could happen to anyone.  As the saying goes, everyone is always one bad decision away from bankruptcy.

Michael Falane wrote:
Thanks for all the information so far, it has been really helpful.

Again, my worry was about the future of Sony and not just lens selection if they become obsolete, but also any other accessories. Now, with what people are talking about, those fears are put to rest a little.

As someone mentioned, I don't think the A330 is the best camera, and I would like to upgrade for a few reason. Also, even though it will not be the primary use, I would like to have video recording capability, which the A330 doesn't have, just in case I want it for something.

With all that being said, and switching gears a little, anyone have any opinion about the Sony A65 or A77? For the amount that it would cost for buying a new Nikon or Canon and getting lenses for it, I could get an A65 or A77 body. Anyone have any experience or opinions on them?

Again, thanks for the feedback, it has been helpful.

I already suggested it, so clearly I'm on board   As others have said, the body and controls of the A77 are both better.  But aside from a slightly faster frame rate and a small improvement to the AF system, the actual picture-taking capabilities are identical between the two.

There's also the NEX system.  I bought the NEX-7, which has got the same sensor/processor combination.  The autofocus is substantially worse, especially in low light.  But the lack of a mirror in front of the camera does improve ISO capabilities (only about half a stop), and the design means that if you like manual focus lenses, you can use any of them that you want.  Many Schneider lenses, and a very small amount of Zeiss and Leica lenses, are available for $200-$400, and those are pretty much guaranteed to shoot better than any modern AF lenses that can be had for under $1000.

Then again, you get no AF (at least not very good AF), no in-body stabilization, the camera body is far too small to use with long lenses comfortably, and those affordable German lenses will often have older coatings that are more prone to lens flare.  So it's a much better studio camera, but the NEXs are pretty awful for sports, wildlife, or using as a family camcorder.

Unless your pockets are awful deep, there are always trade-offs.  I don't think the NEX system is for you, since it sounds like you'll want the better AF and the in-body stabilization.  But I mention it because somebody is going to, and the conversation is bound to go that way eventually anyway.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
Unless you are at the pinnacle of your game (and that means you are in a specific niche such as left-handed underwater grouse photography and need one brand's specific 23-87UW lens to fit in the underwater grouse shooting housing) Canon Nikon and Sony all have plenty of glass available to meet your needs.

Amen +1

What lenses are you afraid you won't be able to get for Sony? That's the critical question -- not whose body, not frame size, not what lights you'll want or need, but what glass gets closest to what you want?

To answer that, you'll need to do some pretty serious grunt work and likely spend some loot on renting the contenders. Or you can do what I've done and buy the best glass in your current system you can afford and hope that your brand of choice doesn't decide on a major interface change. You may suffer, as I do, with lenses that want full frame (as with my 24L TS-E) while you're on a crop sensor body, and revel in the joy of the longer effective focal length (300 f4 LIS) and better edge sharpness while you've still got a crop sensor body.

One thing is sure: whatever glass you get will far outlast whatever body you hang it on. So. . . figure out what you want to shoot and what you need to shoot it. If you're shooting static subjects, maybe you can do away with automated glass, and you might be able to adapt vintage glass on the cheap and still get wonderful images?

When you start making serious money, that's the time to think about a major change -- to me, that's where the real investment comes in: learning a new system's quirks and memorizing button locations and menus takes me months, at least.

Photosbycj wrote:
I didn't read all the replies so if I repeat forgive me. I made the jump from Sony to Nikon over a year ago. I jumped from the A700 to the D700 and I have been happy with my choices. I was pretty sound technically speaking before my switch so moving into a full frame at a higher price point was more out of need not want. I was shooting with all Zeiss glass and a few other select lenses like a 70-200.

Now my opinion is switch now and switch into something above what you need so you can grow. There is a learning curve switching to a Nikon (such a button config ect) but there are many options that make it appealing such as their Creative Lighting. The main reason to switch is I strongly believe you can't improve until you can build up your lens inventory. Being limited with glass will limit your shooting potential as you need the right tools for the job. Switching now keeps you from investing in more Sony glass that won't be worth much when you do switch later on. That's my opinion.

people keep talking about the lack of lens inventory.  I have drawerfuls of glass that say its a crock.  My bank account laughs at the concept that there arent enough lens options lol. 
More to the point, you can build up your lens inventory and still be a terrible shooter.  You can also be amazing and just have barely enough to cover the standard ranges.  How many different 70-200 2.8 G glass lenses do you need if one is good?  I felt stupid having the Sony one and a Tamron 70-210 2.8 and yes it was stupid.  HSo I sold the Sony one (the Tamron is made of depleted uranium or some other dense metal so it's more exercise).

How many different "less than letter quality glass" options do you need as spares/beach lenses/etc?  I have G glass and mid-range glass all the way to 300mm. 
I don't have 400mm G glass but I could have it if I wanted to spend stupid amounts of money.

How many different primes do you need? How many different 50s do you need? I have two and it's overkill but I'm not selling either. How many 500 mm f4 lenses do you need? who needs more than one?  who can even afford one in the first place?   Tell me what is missing from available glass for Sony that made you a better shooter once you switched to Nikon?  I've implied this question before and didn't get a reply so I'll ask you directly.  what glass did you not have the option of buying that you now have in your collection and use to the betterment of your craft? 

There are literally thousands of A-mount lenses available, just like there are thousands of Nikkors. Only diff is there are more thousands for Black-and-yellow.  How many thousands do you need?

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

Save your money and not spend anymore on any new lenses or equipments.  Try to improve on your composition and lights..

  Once you save enough money (and some extra in the bank), then move onto the D800.  That way, you will benefit more than just upgrading the camera.  The use of lights and composition is very important in photography.  Camera and lenses will only give you that extra 10% (i.e. DOF, better DR, more MP etc) while the 90% are all base on lights and composition.

I'm going to disagree on the point about lenses.  I think better lenses, for MY work, was a game changer.  The quality of the photos was a significant, in my opinion, step up in quality when I changed from a Nikon 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 zoom to Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.

Select Models wrote:
Changing from Sony to Nikon?

Definitely a smart move... far more lenses... many more speedlight options... better performing sensors... just an all around wiser choice...

More speed lights?  I know Nikon makes some of the best but my SB sits on my Canon just fine so its not exactly a game changer...