Sony a100 to a700 upgrade and lens questions?

BimmerBob

Hi Everyone,

I currently have a Sony a100 and I use a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens and a Sigma 70-300 lens. I bot the Sony at the recommendation of a friend that is professional writer/photographer that freelances in the automotive industry for various car magazines. I use the camera for business to take pics of cars and products for my website www.bimmerperformancestore.com. He suggested the Sony because he was a Minolta guy, but has jumped ship to the Nikon D300. The photography bug has bitten me hard, and I enjoy it for fun and as a hobby, as well. So, I'm not just using the camera for product and car pics. Now that the background is out of the way, here are my questions:

• Does anyone think I should upgrade to the a700? The a900 is more than I'd want to spend and possibly a little overkill for my purposes. The a700 has quite a few improvements over the a100 and I really don't want to start over with a new brand.
• The Sigma 70-200 lens seems very popular. What is the application of a 70-200 lens and do I need one instead of my Sigma 70-300 lens.
• Even though is seems that Sony makes some components that are used in other cameras, Nikon and Canon seem to be much more popular. Sony is basically the next generation of Minolta. Why is it Sony seems to get dissed by most. I've done a lot of searching here on Sony, and there just isn't much info on them compared to Nikon & Canon.

Thanks for your help and suggestions. Here is a link to my SmugMug gallery

Bob

swintonphoto

The A900 is a FF sensor camera, and is made for a very different market than the A700. I think the A700 is a really fantastic camera. I don't use sony, but have read a number of raving reviews about the A700. About the sigma 70-200 2.8 lens - it is a great lens for a great price, and will likely be faster focusing and of better build than the 70-300 4-5.6. I think upgrading to that lens would make you feel like you are driving a Ferrari - compared to the old one. So I think the lens upgrade is a great idea.

The question of upgrading camera bodies always brings me to this question: How is the A100 limiting you, and how will the A700 solve that?

wayne861

BimmerBob wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I currently have a Sony a100 and I use a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens and a Sigma 70-300 lens. I bot the Sony at the recommendation of a friend that is professional writer/photographer that freelances in the automotive industry for various car magazines. I use the camera for business to take pics of cars and products for my website www.bimmerperformancestore.com. He suggested the Sony because he was a Minolta guy, but has jumped ship to the Nikon D300. The photography bug has bitten me hard, and I enjoy it for fun and as a hobby, as well. So, I'm not just using the camera for product and car pics. Now that the background is out of the way, here are my questions:

• Does anyone think I should upgrade to the a700? The a900 is more than I'd want to spend and possibly a little overkill for my purposes. The a700 has quite a few improvements over the a100 and I really don't want to start over with a new brand.
• The Sigma 70-200 lens seems very popular. What is the application of a 70-200 lens and do I need one instead of my Sigma 70-300 lens.
• Even though is seems that Sony makes some components that are used in other cameras, Nikon and Canon seem to be much more popular. Sony is basically the next generation of Minolta. Why is it Sony seems to get dissed by most. I've done a lot of searching here on Sony, and there just isn't much info on them compared to Nikon & Canon.

Thanks for your help and suggestions. Here is a link to my SmugMug gallery

Bob

Hi Bob,

I haven't any Sigma lenses, so I can't comment on them.

I have to agree with John, how is the a100 limiting you? What are you hoping to gain by moving up? Once you hit 10 megapixels, adding 2megs more isn't going to do all that much. I moved from the a100 to the a700 for the higher iso performance, and I have been very glad I did for that reason. If you shoot in low light, you will be much happier with the a700. If you just want a new camera, the a700 would be a good choice and will work with the lenses you have.

Wayne
wayne861.smugmug.com

Art Scott

Ok...as a Minolta shooter (2 each KM 7D's and 1 KM A2) and a shooter of old tired rock stars of years gone by.........I am going to jump ship back to Nikon in the near future becuse the 7D and the A2 are fantastic cameras both capable of 30 x 40 inch enlargements (with a touch of help from Genuine Fractals so I can that 30 x40 at 300dpi) but Sony should have stayed in a market they truly knew....car stereos....since the pasing of the betamax and cam they haven't had a fantastic showing always in the darkess shadow of Canon (in the PRo end of video cams).......Sony's lenses are not the quality of Nikon and Canon but yet they are priced higher in a lot of cases........BTW I shoot SIGMA LENSes the 70-210 APO F2.8 and a 24-70 EX DG F2.8.....both excellent lenses......
By comapring sony to just nikon they haven't got up to speed yet....the D300 is leaps and bounds above them....even the D90 seems to be ahead of the sony's.....what I look at is noise at high ISO and of course Nikon as of right now is the only DSLR company that you can plug a GPS unit into and tag your shots as made in real time....no software and trying to sync cam clock and gps clock to getthe right shots wit hte correct tagging.......othere things I lookat is shooting speed and also the write to card speed....from the time the tiny red light goes on til it is off.....sony is lagging in these respects and I have to have that speed if I am shooting a live concert to capture facial expressions and body language in general of finger movements and such......or brides maids and groomsmen troting down the aisle cause they think they are cute and you miss one of them........of a flying pheasant in a Kansas field.........

If you really like you're A100 and it is getting clsoe to being worn out (clsoe to its max shutter life) then yes by all means upgrade.......for what you say you're shooting the A700 would do you fine probably and there are some truly fine Minolta gear out there just waiting for a sony owner to pick'em up and give'em a home.......

Good Luck.......

BimmerBob

Thanks for the advice
Hi Guys,

Thanks so much for all the input. i think the main limiting issue with the A100 is apparently being a bit weak in low-light situations. There seem to a few really cool features that have been added to the a700, as well.

Art, I appreciate your opinion, but the problem for me is the cost of completely dumping all my Sony gear and starting over with Nikon. I can probably upgrade to an a700 for just a few hundred dollars after selling the a100, and all of my lenses and accessories are still compatible with the new camera.

Shooting concert photos does arise occasionally for me. Check out my other thread here where I did a car photo-shoot for my business management client, Eddie Money for Motortrend online. I shot about 150 photos at his concert here in Camarillo, CA back in June and later at a concert in San Luis Obispo, CA. Between the subject(s) constantly moving and the constantly changing lighting, I found concert photography to be quite a challenge. Although I'm far from a professional photographer, I have some credits on Eddie's site for some pictures we used from my first concert shoot. Funny...for every decent shot I got, I thew away 4 bad ones. I assume that as your skills improve your success % goes up (at least I hope it does).

I think the a700 will meet my needs for now.

Bob

BimmerBob

Cool pics
Hi Art,

Wow...you've been doing this for a while. You shot pics of Black Oak Arkansas?? I doubt most members even know who that is.

Jim Dandy to the rescue....

Bob

Art Scott

Thanks For Taking The Time To Look

BimmerBob wrote:

Hi Art,

Wow...you've been doing this for a while. You shot pics of Black Oak Arkansas?? I doubt most members even know who that is.

Jim Dandy to the rescue....

Bob

Thanks for taking the time to look at my gallery....if EM gets into this part of the country I am here waitng for any and all concert work.... gave it up for several years and now I am coming back into my own.


First concert shooting was in fall of '78 0r"79 here in Wichita at Century II for their Race withthe Devil tour........got to be a blast shooting upwards of a hundred rolls of film per concert and NO MOTOR DRIVE all thumb action....THANK THE GODS FOR DIGITAL

I do understand staying with Sony....for neigh on 30 years I have kept my lenses to a max of usually 2...a short zoom 24-70 and 70-210....now that I am broadening out to landscape and some fine art work my list of gear will be growing to at least 4 lenses and other gear such as pano heads and such.

Scott_Quier

BimmerBob wrote:

Funny...for every decent shot I got, I thew away 4 bad ones. I assume that as your skills improve your success % goes up (at least I hope it does).

Bob

If what I've read and what I've experienced is anything to go by, your standards. As you get better, so will your eye and you'll end up tossing photos that six months ago were "portfolio worthy". So, you may actually reduce your keeper rate - at least for a while.

Furono

I own the A100, A700 and the A900.

Here are my thoughts:

The A700 is a huge step-up. You will like it much more. It's faster, more responsive and with the version 4 firmware upgrade can do excellent high ISO.


Dgrin is a terrible forum to ask questions regarding the Sony cameras. If you post something Sony it gets buried pretty fast. If you do get a response then 9/10 times it by people who don't own one. Don't get me wrong, the people here are very knowledge but they are very into Nikon and Canon. Don't believe all the bad hype. Iv'e been finding that all the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) gets spread pretty fast when a new and unproven product gets released. Web site #1 says," look at the terrible ISO", next one says, "Awesome high ISO quality". Ask a salesman in the store and they say "Oh yeah Sony sucks.." and can't really tell you why. Anyhow..

Try these ones out:

Dyxum

dpreview

Ask your questions there, tons of knowledgable Sony owners. I don't usually need to turn people on to other forums as I really love Dgrin but this is the exception.

Steve

BimmerBob

Thanks for the advice

Furono wrote:

I own the A100, A700 and the A900.

Here are my thoughts:

The A700 is a huge step-up. You will like it much more. It's faster, more responsive and with the version 4 firmware upgrade can do excellent high ISO.


Dgrin is a terrible forum to ask questions regarding the Sony cameras. If you post something Sony it gets buried pretty fast. If you do get a response then 9/10 times it by people who don't own one. Don't get me wrong, the people here are very knowledge but they are very into Nikon and Canon. Don't believe all the bad hype. Iv'e been finding that all the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) gets spread pretty fast when a new and unproven product gets released. Web site #1 says," look at the terrible ISO", next one says, "Awesome high ISO quality". Ask a salesman in the store and they say "Oh yeah Sony sucks.." and can't really tell you why. Anyhow..

Try these ones out:

Dyxum

dpreview

Ask your questions there, tons of knowledgable Sony owners. I don't usually need to turn people on to other forums as I really love Dgrin but this is the exception.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks so much for this info. This is exactly what I was looking for. i recognize the high percentage of Nikon and Canon users here and detect a bit of bias against Sony, like it's not worthy of a professional user. However, the CameraLabs and DPreview reviews of the A700 were VERY positive for the most part and it appears that the A700 is superior to most cameras in the same price range. I believe it's DPreview that speculates the A700 has the same sensor as the Nikon D300. The comparison pictures in the review appeared better than the Canon EOS 40D and Olympus E-3 and very similar in quality to the Nikon D300 and it's $400 less than the Nikon. I would guess the 50D would be on par or arguably better, but they are not on par in price. Check out the comparison page here.

If I was starting from scratch n the DSLR market, I would probably go with the D300, just because a little better feature set and there seem to be a lot more options for lenses, accessories and more users to get tips from. However, the cost of a change is prohibitive and I really think the A700 is all I need. The only cool feature I wish A700 had is live preview, and mostly I could see myself using that to avoid having to get in the sniper position when I want a pic of a car from a worm's perspective. I'm seeing A700 camera bodies for $700 at some of the NYC websites to $999 @ Sony and used prices on eBay for the A100 body are about $275 to $350. So, I could potentially upgrade to the A700 for as little as $350 vs. thousands to switch to Nikon, including the cost of lenses, extra batters, filters and other accessories. I even have a Sony camera bag.

BTW, since you now have the A900, are you interested in selling your A700 camera body?

Thanks again for the advice.

Bob

davemj98

upgrade
You are going to love the @700; it is leaps above the 100. I know my 100 sits in the bag all the time now. It is solid, robust, and fast. A good choice, good luck.
Dave

Furono

BimmerBob wrote:

... there seem to be a lot more options for lenses, accessories and more users to get tips from

BTW, since you now have the A900, are you interested in selling your A700 camera body?

Bob

I'm actually staying with the Sony for the lenses - expensive but good Carl Zeiss lenses and my ever famous 135 STF, plus all the old cheap Minolta lenses that work on Sony.

Also, I'm finding lots of information from many professional users. More than I would of expected.

Sorry, I like my A700 so much that I'm going to keep it for a backup camera. The new firmware upgrade has made me love it that much more.

Steve

BimmerBob

Well...I got a new (kind of) A700
Well...I pulled the trigger on a refurbished A700 from the Sony store here in Camarillo at the Premium Outlets. The price wasn't much less than a new one, but I was having trouble finding one locally. The refurbished price was $949.99 and I bought a 2-year extended warranty for $100 that includes accidental breakage. Bottom Line is I paid $50 more than for a new one, but have a better warranty, so I''m happy. The only thing I didn't get was a nice retail box to sell it in when they come out with the next coolest, greatest camera I just can't live without.

All my accesories from the A100 worked, with the exception being the battery. So, I guess I'll be on eBay buying a spare for the A700. The A100 goes on eBay tonight with the box, charger and an extra battery. PM if anyone is interested. That's the A100 body in the 2nd picture.

I popped on my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 wide angle lens and snapped a couple of pics sitting at my desk in the full auto mode. My first words were, "wow". I showed the pics to my wife and she said, "wow"!! So, I guess the move to the newer camera was a good idea. Check out the pics below.

Bob

Again, these are in full auto mode with very little adjustment in Aperture.

ziggy53

Congratulations.

ront

I think you will very happy with the A700 Bob. I know that I am. Don't forget to download and install the version 4 firmware for the A700 if it is not already on the camera. It definitely improve the camera!!

Ron

BimmerBob

Thanks, Ron.

ront wrote:

I think you will very happy with the A700 Bob. I know that I am. Don't forget to download and install the version 4 firmware for the A700 if it is not already on the camera. It definitely improve the camera!!

Ron

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the reminder. Those pics were taken right out of the box with the V3 firmware. I have downloaded and successfully installed the V4 firmware update. I am loving the A700. The controls are arranged much better. In the Camerlabs review, Gordon mentioned he liked the single-purpose drive, WB, ISO, exposure buttons on the A700. It's much easier to quickly access these settings on the A700, compared to the wheel/menu setup on the A100. The camera is way faster and more responsive, as well. So far, there isn't anything about the A700 that I don't like better than the A100.

Check out the pic of one of the parts from my online store. That is a black ABS plastic stick-on replacment trunk emblem for the 2008+ BMW M3. I took it with my Sigma 70-300mm macro lens and then deleted the background in PS and added the prospective drop shadow with Alien Skin plugin. All my pics are coming out better with the A700 than they did with the same lenses on the A100.

Bob

davemj98

Ahem
I, emm, TOLD YOU SO!!!!
Dave

ront

Very nice Bob!! I think that you are going to be extremely happy!! You gave up nothing going from the A100 to the A700 and gained a camera that is much faster and more responsive and the ergonomics are very nice. The Quick Navigation system is a gem. I am looking forward to seeing more of your work.

Happy shooting, Ron

swintonphoto

Congratulations! If I wasn;t committed to a system, the A700 may be the most compelling camera for the price on the market to me. Looks pretty sweet!

BimmerBob

Yes...you did. :-)

davemj98 wrote:

I, emm, TOLD YOU SO!!!!
Dave

Yes...Yes, you did. Thank you very much for the info. I LOVE this camera. I'm sure the A900 is even nicer, but I think it's targeted at a more professional user than myself. The A700 is perfect for me, for now.

I think I've been severely bitten by the Photo-bug. I'm thinking about getting the Sony SAL-70200 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I currently have a Sigma 70-300mm f4.5 lens. Any opinions? There is a HUGE difference in the price of these two lenses.

Bob

BimmerBob

Hi Ron - New Pics with the A700

ront wrote:

Very nice Bob!! I think that you are going to be extremely happy!! You gave up nothing going from the A100 to the A700 and gained a camera that is much faster and more responsive and the ergonomics are very nice. The Quick Navigation system is a gem. I am looking forward to seeing more of your work.

Happy shooting, Ron

Hi Ron,

I couldn't agree more. i think my photos will really improve with this camera. Not only because it is superior in image quality to the A100, but because its features/options are set up so much better, I'm more likely to use the camera more to its full capabilities.

I think I mentioned I have a couple of businesses, on of them being www.bimmerperformancestore.com, which is an online aftermarket auto parts company for BMWs and Minis. Borla, a major exhaust manufacturer, used my new E92 M3 for R&D for a new exhaust for the M3. I lent the car to them earlier this week and just picked it up on Thursday. Below are a couple of pics I took with my new A700 and a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 wide angle lens.

Bob

I really like the DOF on this pic and the vivid colors in the background. The orange thing is a cone the next-door neighbors son left in the yard and it seem to add just a bit of color to the pic. I also like the birch tree, which is showing that it's Autumn.


I edited the photo above to create this forum signature image I'm now using on a couple of BMW forums.


I showed this picture to the guys at Borla and they might use it to promote the product. They like that fact that is shows the logo well, and is the right angle for how a potential customer would see the exhaust in person.

Art Scott

BimmerBob wrote:

Yes...Yes, you did. Thank you very much for the info. I LOVE this camera. I'm sure the A900 is even nicer, but I think it's targeted at a more professional user than myself. The A700 is perfect for me, for now.

I think I've been severely bitten by the Photo-bug. I'm thinking about getting the Sony SAL-70200 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I currently have a Sigma 70-300mm f4.5 lens. Any opinions? There is a HUGE difference in the price of these two lenses.

Bob

I am using a siggy 70-210 f2.8 APO and love it......watch the flea mrket and it may pop up there in the near future:D...........

davemj98

Lens
I have to tell you that there is one thing wrong with this lens. I can hardly ever force myself to take it off the camera. I went into Roberts in INDY to get a rolling case for my birthday, and found this puppy sitting in one of the used cases for $425. Must be seen to be believed.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=168
Dave

BimmerBob

Hi Art

Art Scott wrote:

I am using a siggy 70-210 f2.8 APO and love it......watch the flea mrket and it may pop up there in the near future:D...........

Hi Art...thanks for the info. I'm thinking about the Sony SAL-70200, but that guy is $1700. Anyone have opinions about the differences between the Siggy and the Sony 70-200mm lenses? I think a really fast f2.8 70-200 lens might come in handy for concert photos. Do you agree?

Bob

BimmerBob

Is that lens Sony compatible?

davemj98 wrote:

I have to tell you that there is one thing wrong with this lens. I can hardly ever force myself to take it off the camera. I went into Roberts in INDY to get a rolling case for my birthday, and found this puppy sitting in one of the used cases for $425. Must be seen to be believed.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=168
Dave

Hi Dave,

Did they ever make that in a Sony mount?

Bob

ront

BimmerBob wrote:

Hi Dave,

Did they ever make that in a Sony mount?

Bob

Bob, since the link that Dave gave you is at Dyxum.com and it is being reviewed there, it was made for the Minolta mount which is the same mount as the Sony. I am sure you already know this, but just to cover the base, you do know that you can use pretty much any Minolta AF lens? One of my favorite concert lenses is the Konica-Minolta 28-75 mm f2.8 lens. It works very well. Tamron makes the same lens for the Sony mount.

Ron

BimmerBob

The A700 as a point-and-shoot
Hi Guys,

The A700 is an excellent point-and-shoot, as well. My wife is not a big techie. She has become quite adept at basic computer skills and uses the iPhone, but hasn't exactly embraced cameras, and found all the buttons on my old A100 intimidating. The A700 has even more buttons, but I handed the camera to her and just put it on Auto and told her to play a little. Check out the pics of our cat, Max below. The first two are her's. there is just minor editing in Aperture and I cropped the pics slightly.

Bob


This was her very first attempt. Not too bad. It's a touch out of focus, but not bad for a first try. Camera was set in full auto mode. She just framed the pic and went for it.


This one came out great. The back lighting seem to accentuate the fuzzy softness of his fur.

My pics:

I didn't even sight thru the viewfinder. Just pointed the camera in his direction. I love the saturation in this one. He has beautiful blue eyes and really show in this pic. The settings the camera came up with were f2.8, 1/40, ISO 800, focal length 45mm, extra fine, Creative Style = Vivid with +1 saturation & +3 sharpness.


What a handsome guy. He's a Rag Doll and more like a dog in his temperament. He hangs where you hang, sleeps with us, and doesn't exhibit the the usual aloof attitude most cats have. He's a great cat and an excellent photography subject.

BimmerBob

Thanks for the lens info

ront wrote:

Bob, since the link that Dave gave you is at Dyxum.com and it is being reviewed there, it was made for the Minolta mount which is the same mount as the Sony. I am sure you already know this, but just to cover the base, you do know that you can use pretty much any Minolta AF lens? One of my favorite concert lenses is the Konica-Minolta 28-75 mm f2.8 lens. It works very well. Tamron makes the same lens for the Sony mount.

Ron

Thanks, Ron. So, do all the old Minolta lenses work as well with the Sony. Do they all have the same functionality as the newer lenses?

Edit: I have the Signa 18-50mm f2.8 lens. Do you think the Minolta is better than my Sigma?

Bob

ront

BimmerBob wrote:

Thanks, Ron. So, do all the old Minolta lenses work as well with the Sony. Do they all have the same functionality as the newer lenses?

Edit: I have the Signa 18-50mm f2.8 lens. Do you think the Minolta is better than my Sigma?

Bob

Yes, pretty much all of the older AF Minolta lenses work great with the Sony's. This is a big plus for the Sony dSLR's!! One to look for is the Minolta 50mm f1.7 lens. They are fairly cheap and nice and sharp and very good in low light.
I am still new enough to all of this so I do not know how the lenses you are asking about compare, but I am sure that someone else here will know. Also check the Dyxum.com site for LOTS of good info. Good forums there also as well as a buy and sell section.

Ron

BimmerBob

My Thanks Again
Hi Guys,

Thanks so much for all of the help, guidance & input. I decided to take the plunge and get the best lens I could, so I bot the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G lens. I have posted a review of the A700 and my new 70-200 lens here, together with a few pictures I've taken with my new setup.

Now I'm totally spoiled and will probably have to upgrade my other lenses.

Again, thanks for all of the input, so I could make an informed decision. This is a great forum, thanks to the members.

Bob

delphoto

Sony A700, Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G
Hey Bob,

I bought the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G in Aug '08 to shoot my daughter at her first big horse show. All I can say is I wept looking at the colour and quality of the images. It's an amazing lens and the most expensive I have ever bought but it's worth every penny. I now have the most wonderful memories....
Downside, it's heavy, I use a mono-pod at the shows.

I would love the a900 as I shoot hunter jumpers in barns and would love a faster camera then my KM 7D (which I love). Also I'd like to see what my lenses can do full frame. I'd have to get more Ram put into my MacBookPro too. I think I'll wait a few months till the bugs (if any) are worked out and the price is cheaper too and then I'll do both!!

Have fun with that lens and your new a700!

Delphine

www.delphoto.net