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
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.