Sony a700 or Sony a550?? Help!!

[conradcjc]

I am looking to purchase a Sony SLR. I am going to get either the a550 or a700. I can get my hands on a new a700 for $750 or a a550 from Sony site for $849.

Any thoughts? What do you think? Which is the way to go?

Thanks!

[OldClicker]

Tough choice - I really want both in one camera!

These are two very different models. The A750 was built to win over the old Minolta fans (Sony bought Minolta) and has the features consistent with those more familiar with the film SLRs. Good viewfinder and all the basic features that have been perfected over the last couple of decades. A very nice traditional body. Remember that it was $1400 at release. $750 is a steal.

The A550 is a Sony. Fast Focus Live View (a Sony exclusive that I wouldn't be without) and Manual Focus Live View that lets you zoom way in to get the focus perfect. But the viewfinder suffers and some features that the traditionalists find necessary (like Mirror Lock Up and DoF Preview) have been left off. Compromises must be made.

Of course both have the in-body image stabilization to make every lens stabilized.

Hope this helps and just ask if you have specific questions. I have the A350 (half of an A550) and the A700. Love both.

TF

[conradcjc]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. It is a tough call. I really like both cameras myself. I am not a big fan of live view so I can live without that.

Thanks!

[OldClicker]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. It is a tough call. I really like both cameras myself. I am not a big fan of live view so I can live without that.

Thanks!

Well, the two reasons I quit using Canon and switched to Sony were for the in-body IS and Fast Focus Live View. If the FFLV doesn't interest you, I would go with the A700.

TF

[conradcjc]

I am looking to get these 3 lenses also. Do you think the following is a good choice?

SAL70200G
SAL2875
SAL18250

I read good things about that SAL2875 but even better reviews on the 2475 Carl Zeiss. Is the price difference worth it?

[OldClicker]

I am looking to get these 3 lenses also. Do you think the following is a good choice?

SAL70200G
SAL2875
SAL18250

I read good things about that SAL2875 but even better reviews on the 2475 Carl Zeiss. Is the price difference worth it?

What types of things do you intend to shoot? What is you budget?

The only one I can vouch for is the 70-200G. Excellent, but the Sigma and Tamron are supposed to be nearly as good at half the price.

You always pay a premium for a name like Zeiss (or 'G'), but that doesn't mean that they aren't better. 'Worth it' is up to you.

I don't think that I would cover the same range twice (at least not in the beginning) as you have with the other two.

Remember that the wider the zoom range the more it has to cost (and weigh) to be the same quality. You have to compromise for convenience.

The DT 16-80 Zeiss is nice.

Also, look at used Minolta lenses. They made some beauties. The 200mm f/2.8 may be the sharpest you can mount on a Sony.

Others can better advise you on the Tamron and Sigma offerings. They make some really nice glass.

I'm rambling here because I really need to know what you want to do with them and how much you can spend.

TF

[conradcjc]

I am not too concerned about price. I will be shooting all sorts of stuff from indoor events like weddings, bday parties and outside stuff like wildlife, landscapes, buildings and different things you would take pics of on vacations. So pretty much a little of everything.

[conradcjc]

I have another question. I was looking at filters. What is the difference between a UV (0) filter and a UV(010) filter. Which one should I get to protect my lenses?

[Anbesol]

Another point worth mentioning - the A550 has much better high ISO performance. so 1600-6400 look much better on the A550. Though theres no real difference in IQ from 100-800.

But yes, that and live view are the only two reasons to consider the A550 comparatively, if not for those reasons, A700 hands down. Personally, I would go for the A700 without hesitation.

Not sure what the difference in those filters are - probably varies by brand. Just be sure to get a multi-coated UV filter, otherwise it tends to cause lots of flare, among other optical degradation. The uv filters really are supposed to do NOTHING, the more nothing they do, the better. (or would it be 'the less something?)

[LightBright]

The a700's build quaility is also miles ahead of the plastic a500. Both great camera's, wished they were some how cross bred.

[hectorloshuk]

>Did you REALLY watch the video in the first post???

Yes. That video compared the Sony SR10 with the Sony XR520, and not the Canon HF-S10 with the Sony XR520. I have to tell you to READ the TWO reviews linked where the HF-S10 is compared to the XR520 in both low light and in non-low light. The Canon HF-S10 is STILL BETTER in low light, and it is way sharper. As I said above, the only thing the XR520 has for it is its better image stabilization, absolutely nothing else. And the lack of manual controls doesnt help either.