Switching?

[photo28]

I'm thinking way ahead of myself here, but I just want some ideas for maybe next year (may 2010).
I currently have a Sony A200 (an older model... all I could afford).
This is my first dSLR and I've had it for a few months now, my question is... should I save up until say around May and switch to Nikon or Canon for the glass, or should I stay with my A200 and just upgrade my glass for this? Just want some general opinions.

 

[skieur]

I'm thinking way ahead of myself here, but I just want some ideas for maybe next year (may 2010).
I currently have a Sony A200 (an older model... all I could afford).
This is my first dSLR and I've had it for a few months now, my question is... should I save up until say around May and switch to Nikon or Canon for the glass, or should I stay with my A200 and just upgrade my glass for this? Just want some general opinions.

Sony has a range of glass quality that certainly competes with Nikon and Canon. Many of the Minolta lenses that are still around, tested out better than Nikon lenses when they were originally lab tested by Popular Photography. The Zeiss lenses available for the Alpha are close to Leica in quality and better than Canon for nature and landscape photography according to the tests of another photo mag. The Sony G lenses, their top line could be considered an upgraded Minolta lens, just slightly below the Zeiss in cost and quality. Even the Sony kit lenses tested out better than the Canon kit lenses.

So, glass quality is certainly no reason to change to Canon or Nikon, since you would not notice any lens associated improvement

skieur

 

[photo28]

Yeah...I was more focused on Nikon. And I agree about Sony 100% - they might even be up there next to nikon and canon soon...
What about the camera body though? Should I move up from the A200?

 

[Derrel]

The a200 is now a pretty low-end body. I'm not sure about what Minolta lens models used to test out better than comparable Canon or Nikon optics, but I doubt many of the currently produced optics are as good as Nikon or Canon's latest generation lenses. Both Nikon,and Canon have been updating their most critical lenses over the last few years--Nikon with its ultra wide zooms, wide zooms, macro lenses, and high speed prime lenses,as well as a few other lenses, like the DX ultra-wides and the DX wide zooms. Canon has been doing similar things, updating its lenses where it was weak in comparison with other makers' offerings, like updating the 24 and 45 T/S lenses to match Nikon's new TSE series, and also updating the Canon 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro after Nikon updated its 105mm 2.8 macro lens, creating a 200mm f/2 lens with stabilizer after Nikon created a 200mm f/2 lens with stabilizer, and so on.

Sony's new a850 looks like a nice full frame camera,at a VERY fair price! Sony now has a huge model lineup--what is it now? Eight d-slr bodies,isn't it? I dunno...are you happy with Sony? I know two somewhat serious enthusiasts who shoot older Minolta/ Sony a700 systems,with some nicer lenses like their 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.4, and the images they get look quite good. With Sony pushing the full frame price down lower than anybody else, I think it might be time to STAY with Sony,rather than leave them for Cannikon gear.

I'e looked at and held and demo'd some Sony stuff. The higher end has a nice "feel",and the ergonomics are,well, nicer than Canon in my opinion; Sony has a more mechanically old-school feel to me, which I prefer,and their ergonomics feel very "sorted" as the British say. Other people might prefer other brands of equipment, but I like the way the higher-end Sony gear feels and handles; their lower end stuff feels odd to me. YMMV.

 

[photo28]

The a200 is now a pretty low-end body. I'm not sure about what Minolta lens models used to test out better than comparable Canon or Nikon optics, but I doubt many of the currently produced optics are as good as Nikon or Canon's latest generation lenses. Both Nikon,and Canon have been updating their most critical lenses over the last few years--Nikon with its ultra wide zooms, wide zooms, macro lenses, and high speed prime lenses,as well as a few other lenses, like the DX ultra-wides and the DX wide zooms. Canon has been doing similar things, updating its lenses where it was weak in comparison with other makers' offerings, like updating the 24 and 45 T/S lenses to match Nikon's new TSE series, and also updating the Canon 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro after Nikon updated its 105mm 2.8 macro lens, creating a 200mm f/2 lens with stabilizer after Nikon created a 200mm f/2 lens with stabilizer, and so on.

Sony's new a850 looks like a nice full frame camera,at a VERY fair price! Sony now has a huge model lineup--what is it now? Eight d-slr bodies,isn't it? I dunno...are you happy with Sony? I know two somewhat serious enthusiasts who shoot older Minolta/ Sony a700 systems,with some nicer lenses like their 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.4, and the images they get look quite good. With Sony pushing the full frame price down lower than anybody else, I think it might be time to STAY with Sony,rather than leave them for Cannikon gear.

I'e looked at and held and demo'd some Sony stuff. The higher end has a nice "feel",and the ergonomics are,well, nicer than Canon in my opinion; Sony has a more mechanically old-school feel to me, which I prefer,and their ergonomics feel very "sorted" as the British say. Other people might prefer other brands of equipment, but I like the way the higher-end Sony gear feels and handles; their lower end stuff feels odd to me. YMMV.

Thanks,
I think Sony is fine... been happy with it so far. I'll have to check out the A850. I'm actually surprised how low SOny keeps their prices on cameras... usually Sony is fairly expensive in other fields (TVs, PS3s, etc). I was looking at the 70-200mm as well. Again thanks for the response. I'll try to get a price range soon...