I have finally settled on getting a sony a700 slr - any reasons not to get it.

[macgrl]

After a lot of looking around I have finally settled for the sony a700 slr. Are there any startling reasons as to why I shouldn't get this camera? I have looked at reviews etc and don't seem to have found any. The sony's seem to be better value for money than a comparable canon. The sony also seems to be good for what I need. I just don't want to shell out all that money and then discover that I have made a mistake and should have gone for something else.

I appreciated that there are many many factors involved in picking a camera and I have gone through most of these myself. I would just like to know what peoples opinions are, especially if they have used this camera before.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I suppose lens selection would be the main drawback. The line-up is not as extensive for Sony. But if Sony has the lenses you need, then it doesn't matter if their line-up has some holes in it.

 

[wheelhot]

Is the Sony A700 will be your first dSLR? Cause if it is, I feel it will be too much of a camera for a beginner and without lenses, then better opt for a lower end body and get good lenses rather then having good body with no good lens.

First of all, what made you settle on a A700? The ergonomics? Lens selection? price?

Sorry, but I can't stand Sony, hate their ergonomics and poor higher ISO image quality, not to mention the lens selection and price.

 

[macgrl]

That was one of my concerns, the Canons have a much better range of lenses however having looked at the Sony range they would seem to have all that I could envisage using. And I am thinking that they may well expand their range in the future. The Sony seems to have better features for the money.

 

[tMac85]

Is the Sony A700 will be your first dSLR? Cause if it is, I feel it will be too much of a camera for a beginner and without lenses, then better opt for a lower end body and get good lenses rather then having good body with no good lens.

First of all, what made you settle on a A700? The ergonomics? Lens selection? price?

Sorry, but I can't stand Sony, hate their ergonomics and poor higher ISO image quality, not to mention the lens selection and price.

+1 i agree

why are you picking the Sony?

 

[Grimace]

You need to think about the available lenses more than just the camera body. Sony doesn't have the expansive lineup of Canon and Nikon - but if it has all the lenses you will ever want, than go for it.

I don't think Sony will make a bad DSLR, but there are other players that are more established. Spending a few more bucks at the outset may be cheaper in the long run, depending on your taste in glass.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

That was one of my concerns, the Canons have a much better range of lenses however having looked at the Sony range they would seem to have all that I could envisage using. And I am thinking that they may well expand their range in the future. The Sony seems to have better features for the money.

It's a fine camera, and I don't think you'll regret buying it. Better to buy high, buy once IMO.

SLC

 

[macgrl]

Is the Sony A700 will be your first dSLR? Cause if it is, I feel it will be too much of a camera for a beginner and without lenses, then better opt for a lower end body and get good lenses rather then having good body with no good lens.

First of all, what made you settle on a A700? The ergonomics? Lens selection? price?

Sorry, but I can't stand Sony, hate their ergonomics and poor higher ISO image quality, not to mention the lens selection and price.

No this won't be my first slr. I thought about the body vs lens financial trade off but fortunately I am in a position where I can do both. The amount of features that you get for the price is something that drew me too it. Plus having a play with it in the shop I liked the way it handled. What would you suggest is a comparable model in Canon or Nikon? I have £650 / $1000 ish to play with on the camera body

Thank you for taking the time to reply

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

No this won't be my first slr. I thought about the body vs lens financial trade off but fortunately I am in a position where I can do both. The amount of features that you get for the price is something that drew me too it. Plus having a play with it in the shop I liked the way it handled. What would you suggest is a comparable model in Canon or Nikon?

Thank you for taking the time to reply

Nikon: D300 (nearly identical IMO, I think they even incorporate the same or extremely similar sensors)

Canon: EOS 40D or 50D.

I say stick with the Sony if that's what has piqued your attention. You'll not gain much advantage from the body if you go Nikon or Canon. Sony has some great lenses (old minoltas) and they're only going to add more. They're in it to win it, as evidenced by their A900.

SLC

 

[macgrl]

Nikon: D300 (nearly identical IMO, I think they even incorporate the same or extremely similar sensors)

Canon: EOS 40D or 50D.

I say stick with the Sony if that's what has piqued your attention. You'll not gain much advantage from the body if you go Nikon or Canon. Sony has some great lenses (old minoltas) and they're only going to add more. They're in it to win it, as evidenced by their A900.

SLC

That was one reason why I wasn't so worried by the limited sony lens range. You can use the minoltas back catalog and also sony seem to be playing hard in the market so will presumably increase their lens range with time

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

That was one reason why I wasn't so worried by the limited sony lens range. You can use the minoltas back catalog and also sony seem to be playing hard in the market so will presumably increase their lens range with time

Undoubtedly, they will expand their line. Sony will be consistently gunning fir the top spot.

Also, sigma and tamron make a lot of nice options in Sony mount.

SLC

 

[Razeus]

Any reason not to get a Sony? Yes, 2 reasons:

1) Canon
2) Nikon

 

[macgrl]

My current slr is a sony so I suppose that is another reason why I was planning to stick with them. I am a bit frightened to move to someone else but if they are better for the money then I would

 

[macgrl]

Any reason not to get a Sony? Yes, 2 reasons:

1) Canon
2) Nikon

thank you for your reply. What would you suggest is a comparable Canon / Nikon for £650 / $1000 for body.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

My current slr is a sony so I suppose that is another reason why I was planning to stick with them. I am a bit frightened to move to someone else but if they are better for the money then I would

They aren't. Anyone who insists otherwise is lying/doesn't know any better.

It should be known that I'm going with nikon, after using Pentax for years. However, I fully acknowledge that Nikon isn't really any better for my needs than Sony, if I were looking for a crop body, I'd be looking very hard at the Sony A700. But the A900 while nice, isn't what I'm looking for in terms of a FF body.

And I answered your question about the comparable nikon/canon bodies. But I don't think you'll find any of them for $1,000 you'll have to look to the Nikon d90 for that, and I think the A700 is the better body between those two. You might snag a Canon 40D for that price but I'd still prefer the A700 personally.
SLC

 

[Cliff3]

My current slr is a sony so I suppose that is another reason why I was planning to stick with them. I am a bit frightened to move to someone else but if they are better for the money then I would

If you've already got a lens collection (and flashes, etc.) started and their product range seems likely to meet your current and anticipated needs, then there is no reason to switch.

My first real camera was a hand-me-down Konica rangefinder that used to be my dad's. They're a respected name in photography and benefitting greatly from Sony's deep pockets.

 

[macgrl]

I do have some lenses for Sony but would consider selling them off if moving to another brand would be of benefit in the end.

 

[ChrisA]

About the only reason NOT to buy a Sony SLR is if buying it might prevent you from eventually collecting the set of lenses you might want. Which SLR body you buy hardly makes any difference. So think ahead. Will you be wanting a professional quality 80-200 f/2.8 zoom? Will you want a good 1.4 85mm lens? A fish eye?

Also if you selected the SLR based on spec sheets you might want to think about what's NOT on the spec sheets. For example how good is the built-in flash meter? Can the autofocus system lock onto low contrast subjects? Little things like that make a difference but don't show up in specs.

As long as you can get the lenses and the system does what you want get it.

Generally the reason most people go with the big name brands (Nikon and Canon) is to keep their options open for many years. But as long as you have the next 5+ years figured out and know that Sony will have what you want now and decades later go for it. But I don't trust Sony to even stay in the SLR business for even another 10 years.

 

[macgrl]

The one thing that has been worrying me slightly is that the likes of Canon have a larger range of lenses. The thing is that I don't know that much about Canons as opposed to Sony's so have been a bit scared to look at them. The Canon EOS 40D may be looking a contender to the sony a 700

 

[Razeus]

thank you for your reply. What would you suggest is a comparable Canon / Nikon for £650 / $1000 for body.

For $1000, in the Canon camp, I would go for the 40D or 50D. Maybe perhaps wait for the Canon Rebel X1i in May.

Nikon doesn't have a comparable option in this price range with assocatied features. They only thing I would recommend by them is the D90.

 

[macgrl]

For $1000, in the Canon camp, I would go for the 40D or 50D. Maybe perhaps wait for the Canon Rebel X1i in May.

Nikon doesn't have a comparable option in this price range with assocatied features. They only thing I would recommend by them is the D90.

The 50D is a bit pricey but the 40D is looking good. But is it an equal / better as a body to the a 700?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Sony has a good 70-200 f/2.8 available too! It's expensive, but so are Canon and Nikon's offerings.

Sigma and Tamron also have affirdable 70-200's in the A-mount



SLC

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

The 50D is a bit pricey but the 40D is looking good. But is it an equal / better as a body to the a 700?

they're both going to be pretty equal. The Sony might have a slight edge in ISO performance (it's very closely related to Nikon's D300

SLC

 

[macgrl]

It does seem that there is not a lot of difference between the first party lenses, the difference with Sony v everyone else is that Sony don't have the range at the moment

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

they're both going to be pretty equal. The Sony might have a slight edge in ISO performance (it's very closely related to Nikon's D300

SLC

Sonys are HORRIBLE for high-ISO, what are you talking about?