Forums > Photography Talk > Changing from Sony to Nikon?



Posts: 779

Lexington, Kentucky, US

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

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?

I'm not sure you got my point or maybe I'm not getting your point. Mine wasn't about Sony supposed lack of glass my point was about op's lack of glass. He is shooting with just a kit lens and a 50 prime, so in my opinion he is limiting his learning curve by not have the right tools. I could careless about owning tons of lenses or which brand as I only own 3 and only plan to own 5 total for what I shoot.

May 20 13 11:52 am Link


Zack Zoll

Posts: 6166

Glens Falls, New York, US

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.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
... 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.  ...

My favourite part about this reply is that you can tell AVD's been shooting for a long time, because he called the lens a 70-210, and not a 70-200.  It's not the 90s anymore, man tongue

Photosbycj wrote:
I'm not sure you got my point or maybe I'm not getting your point. Mine wasn't about Sony supposed lack of glass my point was about op's lack of glass. He is shooting with just a kit lens and a 50 prime, so in my opinion he is limiting his learning curve by not have the right tools. I could careless about owning tons of lenses or which brand as I only own 3 and only plan to own 5 total for what I shoot.

If he's stopping down to f/8, there's a very good chance that the kit lens isn't holding him back in the slightest - especially if he's shooting in-studio with a plain background that doesn't show bokeh characteristics.  I'm not saying that other lenses aren't better - just playing Devil's advocate, and giving you an example of where maybe the lens quality has nothing to do with how fast he improves.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
OP, don't buy a new camera.   Don't buy a new lens.   Focus on improving your technique, composition and style.   Camera brands are meaninglessness.   What you have now is fine.   No new camera will improve your work.

Then again, since I'm playing Devil's advocate, a newer camera will show less noise in shadow areas, which will allow more tonal range to be brought out while editing.  A newer camera may also be less prone to clipping highlights, allowing him to overexpose the image for even more tonal range.

The fact is that without being more familiar with Michael's work, none of us can definitely say what will or won't improve his pictures.  Looking at his portfolio, I would wager that better glass like a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 would help immensely, but he doesn't appear to be shooting at apertures where a Zeiss prime would be drastically better than that.  I would also guess that the better tonal range(after editing) of a newer camera would improve his images, but that he would see very little difference between a new APS-C camera and a full-frame.

Unless he's printing big, and he hasn't mentioned that yet.  In which case more megapixels and a bigger sensor will always be better, but I still wouldn't think that the Zeiss primes would provide much benefit over more affordable glass.

May 20 13 04:58 pm Link


Select Models

Posts: 36333

Los Angeles, California, US

David M Russell wrote:
Get a used D700.

If you're never shootin video... you can't go wrong here... borat

May 20 13 09:39 pm Link


Guy Frotto

Posts: 67

San Francisco, California, US

Michael Falane wrote:
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.

As a former D7000 owner, I did not like the images the camera created in terms of softness. 

I was able to upgrade to a new D700 last summer 2012 and have enjoyed the results ever since.

The D700 is one of the rare camera bodies that Nikon produced, which has most of the D3 features at a great price range. I don't think Nikon will repeat the same on the D4.

I'm more happy with the D700 than D7000. The D700 has a larger viewfinder, which you will find more enjoyable to compose images with. The build of the D700 is much more rugged than the D7000.

Get a used D700 over a new D7000. I recommend buying the following lenses:

28mm 1.8G
50mm 1.4G or 50mm 1.8G
85mm 1.8G.


May 20 13 10:03 pm Link


Brian Hubbs Photography

Posts: 68

Chesapeake, Virginia, US

pdxROCKpix wrote:
Prices on used D700s are coming down more and more. It is a fantastic camera that will get you into full frame and allow you to pick up a couple of lenses for what the D800 would cost. Don't be fooled by the D700s age or that it is only 12MP. It is a very serious camera that would serve you well for years. I love both of mine.

Agreed.  I love my D700 and don't see the need for a D800.  A great camera that can be picked up relatively inexpensive these days.

May 21 13 05:09 am Link



Posts: 473

Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland

I did shoot with the D7000 on Saturday.

Seriously this cam is made for dwarfs I am nit sure if it was because of the 35mm f.14 lens but I found it hard to hold it comfortably in my hand.
Beyond that it is a camera like any other. There are some things that are very awkward when coming from the Sony world.
Like exposure compensation in A mode when using the back dial (and it did not reset to 0 after the picture) it may have just been the configuration of the camera I used. I got all the right shots once I did figure out some of the strange settings the camera was in.

Is it better than an A65 or A77. don't know, I only shot with it and did not process the pictures.

Would I jump ship because it is so totally amazing ? Definitely not it is just a tool what I own works great for me. And with all the people jumping to Canon and Nikon makes it again possible to get Minolta lenses at reasonable prices

May 21 13 05:21 am Link



Posts: 6017

Fairfax, Virginia, US

Michael, I'm a long-time Nikon user, love the brand and am very happy with Nikon products.  That said, don't shift b/c you think that Nikon will instantly make you a better photographer. 

Now, it makes perfect sense to conclude that you need to upgrade your body and so you want to make a commitment to one brand (be it Nikon or Sony or Canon or whomever).

You've got a couple of decisions to make:

1.  Full-frame or crop sensor?  Once you decide that, you have a list of options to choose from.

2.  What do you want to shoot?  I know, you want to shoot everything.  But if you're going to be doing photojournalism or sports than you need to seriously look at stuff like a D3/D4 series.  If you're shooting in very low light without artificial sources than something like a D7000 will rock your world.  If you're shooting in a studio with enhanced lighting options, than you would be perfectly happy with a used D90 and invest the money you save in good glass.

My recommendations:  lots of good bodies to choose from.  Identify the type of photography you're likely to do and let that guide where you go.  Do NOT buy the "best" body you can afford.  B/c depending upon what you want to shoot, what is "best" will vary.  And frankly, having the "best" body with inferior glass is a sucky tradeoff.  The glass matters more than the body.  So don't buy the best body you can afford.  You could get a D800 on sale.  Or you could get a used D90 and a professional-quality lens and you'd probably be better off.

Last of all, you talked about improving yourself as a photographer.  That won't happen just by getting a better body.  Invest some time and money in your education.  How do you learn books?  video?  workshops?  Start to learn from others.  And give yourself weekly assignments to build your skills in things like...seeing natural patterns in nature....composition....use of negative space...use of foreground to provide perspective...high key and low key...high contrast colors...bokeh...macro concepts...abstracts...portraiture...posing...perspective...and so on.


May 21 13 08:02 am Link


Mike Gong

Posts: 95

Mahopac, New York, US

MnPhoto wrote:
People will dispense advice with a bit of bias because of the brand they use, but the advice gets better as you read along.

Fear of future support is a bad reason to go with a particular brand of hardware.
Sony has quickly become a behemoth, and lens manufacturers supply markets based on the demand.

I agree that investment in expensive glass used to force people into brand-loyal nichés, but upgrading your "game" has nothing to do with the camera, and more to do with your abilities as a photographer with whatever camera you have in your hands.

My advice:

Invest in the non-camera equipment (i.e., lights, softboxes, process-flow software).

Once you realize that it is more important to feel better about the photos than the camera, you will see things from the point of view of your paying clients.


I would recommend reading up on lighting and how to shape, modify, and control light. Framing and composition are also important - if you can't grasp that you may have a tougher time regardless of what camera/lens system you go with. Here's a few recommendations: … 0240810759 … gy_b_img_z

The principles discussed can be applied to photography as well though you may choose to skip some of the more technical discussions.

May 21 13 02:50 pm Link