Sony Struggle

I purchased my A100 immediately after they became available. I am a professional videographer and Sony has always been at the top of the heap when it comes to video production so when I learned that Sony was coming out with a DSLR that had all the features that I was looking for it seemed like a natural decision to go with Sony. I paid about a thousand dollars for my A100 with kit lense and was satisfied with it, I stopped all camera research for a while. A couple of months ago I wanted to see if there were any new accessories available, when I searched Sony DSLR on Ebay I was very surprised to see an entire line of new Sony DSLR's with new features and bells and whistles that would perhaps make my life easier and you can imagine my shock when I saw that they were a fraction of the price that I had paid for my lowly A100.

Is anyone else in the same boat as me, and if so should I be bothered by this?

That's just how it goes with digital cameras and electronics these days. It's the same with computers. You can't get upset about. My first digital SLR cost over $5000 and now I'm getting better quality from cameras that cost well under $1000. Figure out what you need, spend what you can, and don't worry about new stuff until you see that it will really improve the work you do. Waiting for prices to come down or fretting over newer, cheaper models is a losing battle.

If you think too much about it, yah, it can bother you. I had an a100 for only about 4 months before jumping up to the a700. I have a lot of older Minolta lenses, so % of total system investment wasn't that big, but basically doubling money invested in bodies in such a short time was a tough pill to swallow.

Luckily it looks like I'll get a bit more mileage out of the a700... As nice as the new a900 is, the $ for added performance/resolution doesn't make sense for my level of use and amount of disposable income I have...

In general, I look at electronics investments like a type of technology lease these days. You know you are paying more to have something new with the features you want today, and you'll never get back that money when you are ready to upgrade to that next generation when it comes out a year later. Things just change to fast to hold any value of their own.

Now good glass, that holds it's value... You should see some of the results people are getting with the a900 and their old Minolta G lenses.. Even some of the mid-range faster Minolta Glass is doing quite well on that new FF camera...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoKnees

In general, I look at electronics investments like a type of technology lease these days.

---

I like that. That's a realistic, healthy way to look at digital camera / mobile phone / computer purchases. Thanks for sharing that idea :)

I haven't looked much into the 700, what made it worth it to make the jump, I assume they share the same lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steele Productions

I haven't looked much into the 700, what made it worth it to make the jump, I assume they share the same lenses.

---

It's harder, better, faster, stronger.

I could try to compile a list, but you can read for yourself what other users thought by viewing the a700 User Reviews on this site. All alpha DSLR's use the same lenses, so it's ultimately up to you to determine if you have a need for the extra features and performance over the a100. For me, it was worth the upgrade since the a700 is really the kind of camera that I wanted in the first place. There's now been 4 models introduced since the a700 (a200, a300, a350, a900), and most of them offer features that the a700 doesn't have. However, I have no desire for those features (except maybe the FF sensor of the a900) so I won't be buying a new camera for a while. I don't foresee giving up my a700 for at least another year or two.

Here's an a700 marketing video showing off some of the things it has to offer..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CURthb5m4cc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CURthb5m4cc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This one shows off the a300 and a350's quick af liveview with tiltiing LCD.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uKrWuUVsJ1Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uKrWuUVsJ1Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Finally, the beast known as the a900
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TVLDgEWNYuo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TVLDgEWNYuo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

My motivation for change was to help me get a little better results trying to shoot action sports subjects primarily, but also better low light shooting in general.

Some of the standout differences that mattered to me:

The AF system was upgraded over the a100, both for subject tracking and a stronger/faster focusing motor for use with older lenses. They also added a better center crosshair type focus point for f2.8 or faster lenses, allowing better low light focusing results.

Faster burst rate of 5 fps...

The sensitivity was improved quite a bit over the a100 as well, allowing better high ISO shots. With the a100, going above ISO 400 started to show enough noise that you wanted to do something about it. That point for me is closer to 1600 ISO in the a700.

Lastly, and a definite consideration, was the build quality of the a700. It was built around a magnesium allow "subframe" or inner body with weather and dust sealing. The a100 wasn't as robust, and I really worried about it in moist or dusty environments. I shoot a lot at the beach and when snowboarding/skiing, so this mattered a bit to me.

There are some other things here and there, but those are the ones that come to mind...

If I were sticking to landscape photography and more static subjects, I would have stuck with the a100 for a while longer. The a100 is still a really good camera in good light, creating photographs that rival and often surpass it's higher megapixel brothers in all aspects of image quality. I look back on some of my old a100 photos and can't tell the difference on a good 23" monitor until I check the native file size. The same goes for older prints. Until you are printing posters, the megapixel difference won't come into play...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steele Productions

I haven't looked much into the 700, what made it worth it to make the jump, I assume they share the same lenses.

---

I reviewed the A100 when it came out and thought it was a really good camera. For many purposes, it's still a lot of camera. You haven't said that you've had any problems with the A100 or that it's holding you back in any way. Just because there are new cameras with more resolution or better performance doesn't mean you need one. If you weren't running into any problems with the A100, I recommend just continuing as if there were no new cameras. For most photographers, a new lens will make a much bigger difference and open more doors than a new camera body. Camera bodies are more exciting. But lenses are almost always a better place to put your money.

John is right. Unless these other camera's have features that you "must have" then sticking with the a100 and investing in lenses is definitely a much better thing to do.

I learned this lesson the hard way. When I first got into photography I fell into the body upgrading trap. I jumped from body to body to body, but I was still struggling to make the kinds of images I wanted because I didn't have the right lenses. These days I'm more interested in lenses than bodies, and it's helping me improve my photography far more than any body upgrade could.