login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Changing from Sony to Nikon? Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
DT Photohraphy
Posts: 4
Champaign, Illinois, US


Hello everyone,
   I have something I need help with. Yes, this might sound elementary and obvious, but I do want to get some constructive feedback.

   First of all, I plan on working on my photography skills, so buying something like a D3x isn't either practical or affordable. I just wanted to put that out there.

    Back about three years ago, I bought a Sony A330. Don't ask me "why did you do that"....I just did. Since having it, I only have two lenses for it, the 18-55 that came with it and a prime 50mm.

   Anyway, I eventually want to move to a Nikon. I have used a D800 a few times and would like to go to it. But that really is not in my budget, or practical, right now as I am trying to improve. And if it was in my budget, I could afford the body alone with no glass.

  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.

   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. But, I will eventually be getting rid of the A330 anyway, because I don't want to get a higher model Sony DSLR, because I am not a fan of their lens selection, as well as my worries about Sony continuing to make DSLRs, which will make lens options even more scarce. Also, I think I can get more for an A330 on Ebay now compared to a few years from now.

   So yes, the A330 will do the job that I will need to do and save me on the front end, but will eventually be obsolete. The Nikon is a larger front end investment, but the glass for it will be long-term investments. I guess the main questions is "do I make the switch now"?

  I am strongly going toward getting the Nikon. Any thoughts? Also, any other options that you can consider. I am just looking at the D7000 as giving me the best camera for the value.
May 19 13 05:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9,158
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


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.

  The way I see it, 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). The D800 is one awesome camera and with its 36MP, it will last a long time.  Some will argue that 36MP is too much but to me, it is just right for what I do.  In few years, the Canon, Sony, Pentax etc eventually will catch up with MP and will have 30+ MP camera. (another word, the D800 is currently ahead of its time, and that is a great thing).
May 19 13 05:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DT Photohraphy
Posts: 4
Champaign, Illinois, US


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.
May 19 13 05:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photeus Photography
Posts: 77
Springfield, Virginia, US


Don't make the mistake that I did by buying a 7000-7100  and then finding you really want  full frame. I had to sell my dx lenses at a loss within a year of buying them.

You will want full frame, but to save money consider a d600, and a 24-120 lens.  This will give you full frame and a reasonable lens that also will some day be a gpod backup and a walk around lens that you can carry as it is not as heavy as some of the Nikon line. I suggest that you will someday invest in an 800e and glass that suits your shooting needs, this way you dont waste any money.

If you are serious, then save the money, a 600 and a 24-120 is about what  you would pay for an 800 alone. Don't settle for a 7100 kit. 

Just my opinion and we all have one...

Mike
May 19 13 05:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pdxROCKpix
Posts: 117
Hillsboro, Oregon, US


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.
May 19 13 05:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tim Little Photography
Posts: 11,524
Wilmington, Delaware, US


Michael, I don't understand why you want to change camera brands. Changing will not make you a better photographer at all. Not even a little bit. Now a newer, higher quality body may give you more resolution and low light capability. It might focus faster. But none of that gives you a better eye. None of that makes you a better photographer. The camera companies have done a great job in their advertising that the key to great photography is by using their very latest model.

To become a better photographer is harder than buying a new body. It takes study. Find the images of those photographers you love and study them. Reverse engineer them to see how they were created. Study art and composition and most of all shoot a LOT. Make notes of your shoots so you can remember your lighting setup and lens and so forth. Do that so you can learn to reproduce your results.

Become proficient at post production. Be it Lightroom or Photoshop or even Corel Paint Shop Pro, editing is important. It is just as much a part of the photographic process as pushing the shutter release.

Good luck to you Michael. I looked at your port. You have talent, just keep it up!
May 19 13 07:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DT Photohraphy
Posts: 4
Champaign, Illinois, US


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.
May 19 13 07:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,903
Eugene, Oregon, US


If you switch - and simply duplicate your lens setup - it will be $200 plus change.

The 50 f1.8 D is already a FF lens.  If you go to FF you have $100 18-55 lens that can still be used in crop mode.  There is only a small downside to DX with Nikon.

Any lens you buy for the D7000 longer than 50 mm is probably also full frame - 70-300, 70-200 and all the primes except the 85 macro.

On the wide end the 24-70, 24-120, 24-85 are also full frame.  And there are a lot of 17-55 DX lens used available at around $900.

Switching now makes a lot of sense and DX is still my choice. It does what I need. 

A lot of us would like to see a D400 as the D7000 and D7100 are not good sports cameras.
May 19 13 07:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,520
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


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.

May 19 13 07:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,192
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Don't make the mistake and think that full fram will magically make your images better.  You can change brands if you feel Sony doesn't have the support you need (they keep adding lens) but it too won't make your images better really.

Just work on improving your skills today, gear is just a tool.
May 19 13 07:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,266
Glens Falls, New York, US


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.

May 19 13 08:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
I M N Photography
Posts: 2,282
New York, New York, US


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 nich├ęs, 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.
May 19 13 08:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marty McBride
Posts: 3,132
Owensboro, Kentucky, US


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!
May 19 13 08:10 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,986
Baltimore, Maryland, US


If you are looking to move to Nikon I would definately advise towards a D7100 or even aD5200 over the D7000. Nothing wrong with the D7000, but if you are switching brands you may as well go for the best sensor you can afford. And the 24-mp units are definitely better than the 16-mp sensors for overall IQ and low-light performance.

The D7100 does have some advantages if you are building a kit on a budget - AF confirm & metering with AIS MF lenses, and full AF support for AF-D glass.
May 19 13 08:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ed Woodson Photography
Posts: 2,644
Savannah, Georgia, US


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!

May 19 13 08:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,153
Sisters, Oregon, US


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.

May 19 13 08:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,736
Buena Park, California, US


Sony is in this game for the long haul.

Outside of that, if you really really want to go Nikon, find a body that meets your minimum requirements.  Do you really need a D7000?  Perhaps you can find a better deal by getting an older but more "pro" body such as a D200 or D300.  Get whatever will meet your min. needs and get it for as little as possible.  Reserve as much cash as you can for lenses.  The prices of Nikon lenses don't really go down much if at all.  And years later, they might have rebates to save you some money but it won't be a whole lot.  Bodies on the other hand will come down in price greatly.  In 5 years a D800 will likely command $1,000 to $1,500.  Maybe a little bit more as the D700 holds pretty strongly it appears to the $1,500 range.
May 19 13 08:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


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.

May 19 13 08:25 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,425
San Francisco, California, US


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.

May 19 13 09:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pdxROCKpix
Posts: 117
Hillsboro, Oregon, US


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.

May 19 13 09:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
You Can Call Me Pierre
Posts: 730
Montreal, Quebec, Canada


The D600 is a bargain as Nikon's entry level FX.
May 19 13 10:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,111
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


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.

May 19 13 10:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,520
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


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.

May 19 13 10:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
alessandro2009
Posts: 7,360
Florence, Toscana, Italy


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

May 19 13 10:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,750
Los Angeles, California, US


I use the Nikon D7000. What others have said about lights and modifiers is really the way to go. When I bought the Nikon D7000 I bought two lenses for it: the 50mm 1.8 D and the 85mm 1.8f D. I like aperture rings. In the dark I have manually focused with the 85mm 1.8 D.

Upon buying the 85 mm 1.8f D, for my first shoot with a model, I had the following: a 48 inch gold and white reflector, 3 speedlights, one a sb800. And minibox modifiers, plus a softbox.

I added a diffuser panel about 6 shoots later.

Since then I bought photoshop cs5. I spend money on polarisers and neutral density filters for both. I upgraded the speedlights and now have 5, with four of them being heavy duty monsters that actually out-perform just about any speedlight on the market.

I bought a 72 inch by 48 inch panel and have a gold panel, a white panel and a diffuser panel for it.

I have 5 light stands. If your current camera can work with ten speedlights then I would consider staying with it and just adding equipment to really make images pop.

I was near the beach yesterday, saw a guy walking around town with with a would-be model. He was shooting her on the street. She needed MAKE-UP and HAIR. Dress was okay, it showed her legs.  She had some lactite-- but a good build, and a good face,  and I watched the massacre with interest. He was using an E0S 3. I watched him snap as they walked along and he really wasn't considering the background. He wasn't really changing his settings. He was on autopilot it seemed. He was popping headshots and really it seemed a little amateurish. And maybe I am wrong about it, as I am very critical.

But she really messed up, not getting really good MUA. I presumed it was an abortion of a trade shoot.

So MUA is damn important. And planning, and lighting modifiers, and lighting equipment that gives you options. The camera body is just that: a body. Good models are crucial. Good luck.
May 19 13 11:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DT Photohraphy
Posts: 4
Champaign, Illinois, US


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.
May 19 13 11:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
realistgva
Posts: 419
Plan-les-Ouates, Geneva, Switzerland


I think Sony is here to stay in the photo business. Just take a walk and count the number of Sony Nex cameras. Sony shooters are more interested in getting the picture than the gear.

I own the A77 but also the A99 and A100 used to own the A850 as well.
It did take me 8 years to outgrown the A100
The A850 was an absolutely great camera but terrible at low light.
The A77 was a very good complement to the A850 to replace the A100.

However one I was hired to shoot Ice hockey for the local team I really had to get the A99. Shooting Ice hockey means ISO 3200 f2.8 1/100s. The A77 was ok got a 2nd A99 1month in the job.

Personally I prefer the A77 over the A65. It has a few more buttons which are very convenient to change : ISO, Shutter mode, expo compensation and white balance. Just make sure that you test the EVF, some people hate it, others love it. For me it is a great tool for what I shoot and no regrets over an OVF, but you have to get used to it

The results should be pretty much the same which ever you get. They are not as nice as a FF but not the same price either.

There are plenty of great lenses new: Zeiss and the G lenses. Many of the old Minolta lenses produce amazing results.
May 19 13 02:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,266
Glens Falls, New York, US


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 smile  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.

May 19 13 03:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,728
Santa Ana, California, US


I moved to a D800e about 5 months ago (which is an amazing camera for what I do - nothing comes close).

I moved from a D300, but I started my upgrade about two years prior, by incrementally migrating to two of the best lenses available. That approach paid off as soon as I made the final jump to the D800e purchase. But if I did it all at once, it would have been a suffocating cash outlay.
May 19 13 03:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kerri Sullivan Photo
Posts: 98
Red Bank, New Jersey, US


i actually did something just like what you're considering! i had an (ancient) sony alpha 100 for 5 years and i really loved the camera. i had the kit lens, a pretty good zoom, and a 50mm prime. last year, i felt like the time to upgrade had come. i got the d7000, a cheap vivitar flash, a 50 /1.8, and a 28 /2.8. so far, i've been happy! there are so many more things i want to buy (including a new camera body, ugh. one day!), but for now this gear is serving me well. it was a good buy for me.
May 19 13 07:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kerri Sullivan Photo
Posts: 98
Red Bank, New Jersey, US


i also was able to sell some of my sony gear to people on craigslist. i did pretty well--in some cases i got more than half what i originally paid. this is a good thing to keep in mind. sony stuff is less available to buy used, sometimes, so i got a lot of responses and interest.
May 19 13 07:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
OTSOG
Posts: 141
Benicia, California, US


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.

May 19 13 09:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Select Models
Posts: 35,294
Upland, California, US


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... wink
May 19 13 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,520
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


pick up an a65 and an a77.  you will put down the a65 and want the a77.  and it will be a good choice.  its not just the magnesium body. Its everything about how it works together.
May 19 13 10:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,083
New York, New York, US


Get a used D700.
May 20 13 03:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
redbanana
Posts: 775
Lexington, Kentucky, US


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.
May 20 13 06:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,520
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


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?

May 20 13 07:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,736
Buena Park, California, US


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.

May 20 13 09:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,192
Atlanta, Georgia, US


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... wink

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...

May 20 13 10:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 18,966
Chicago, Illinois, US


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.
May 20 13 10:11 am  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers