Sony vs Nikon Cameras

<p>I have a Sony A700 & A100. I am pondering switching to Nikon D300 or possibly D700. Or staying with Sony and adding either the A850 or A900. Does anyone have practical experience with both brands and a opinion or each one. I own Sony 70-400mm G, 11-18mm, Tamron 70-200mm, 17-50mm, and a Minolta 50mm 1.7, all are Sony mounts .</p>

<p>well if you switch you can donate me your sony stuff.... LOL<br>

I would think you would want to stay with sony since you have all those lenses .... less your just loaded and can afford to switch and start over. I believe both system have their merrits.<br>

matt</p>

<p>The grass is always greener, eh?</p>

<p>I agree with Matt, you have some excellent Sony/Tamron lenses, It looks line your next step would be to go to a full frame Sony product. Has the Sony products served your needs? ,or what would you be expecting to gain by switching camera brands.</p>

<p>I just made the switch to Sony with A850, 70-400 and CZ 24-70. I'm coming from a D300, Sigma 100-300 f/4, flashes, 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f1.8, 18-105. I also shot the D700 for a week.<br>

I think you need to ask yourself why exactly you want to switch. I've never used the A700, so I have no idea how it performs as a crop camera, but I can say the D300 is pretty awesome. The D700 is awesome too, and its high ISO performance is very, very good. It's basically an all-around great camera, and probably the best bang-for-buck FF on the market right now.</p>

<p>I'm curious - what do you feel the Nikon system would give you that you're not getting with Sony?<br>

It was a hard choice for me, but I felt I liked the SSS and 70-400, resolution and color over Nikon's D700. It was a tough call, though. The D700 is a great great camera, and I really miss the wireless flash control, but the A850 so far is proving to be a great camera in its own right.</p>

 

<p>No the grass isn't always greener, I was just looking for some input.. I guess its because I've experienced a few glitches with sony products. First I sent my A700 to sony in texas for sensor cleaning and it actually came back worse then when I sent it out...</p>

<p>I agree with the rest of the responses. Are you unhappy with Sony? Does Nikon offer something that Sony doesn't? Is there a 'professional' reason for you to switch?<br>

The A700 is a very capable camera, and while Sony doesn't yet have a direct replacement for it, the A550 not withstanding, I expect them to offer an update before the year is out.</p>

<p>I would get a cleaning kit Robert. It's handy to have and to know how to do minor service things like that yourself (like the frnt dial problem too). I've had some annoying things happen too, but at the end of the day it won't compare to the annoyance of having to sell everything and buy everything and learning how to use it as well as I can my current stuff. I'd just take a breath, things will settle.</p>

<p>Your "glitch" is with the technician who tweaked your camera, not with Sony products per se. Personally, I won't let anyone touch my camera, let alone touch my sensor, unless there's a pretty good reason. </p>

<p>I'm sure the probability of having some bonehead mess up your Nikon camera is the same.</p>

I hope you learned your lesson!

 

Don't want to seem rude, but you can buy all the supplies you need to clean your cameras for years for about $20, and you can do

it right, and not worry about some bonehead messing with a camera that he doesn't own and likely doesn't care too terribly much

about.

<p>Both the A850/A900 and D700 are extremely good cameras, they both can do amazing things, just that they have different strong points. I guess what I need (aside from the money to pay for them) is a D700 with in body anti-shake or an A900 with the D700 sensor.... But then, I'd need to revisit my lenses and flashes, etc.,as well.</p>

<p>Nah, I like the Sony sensor just fine :)<br>

Frankly, the only thing I miss from the D700 compared to my A850 is the wireless flash control and the high ISO, though I really don't use high ISO that often.<br>

Still, it annoys me that I have to use the "Dust and Scratches" filter in CS3 to get rid of chroma spots that even noise ninja just will not eliminate with ISO 6400 files on the A850.<br>

I mean, *yes* I'm looking at 100% and *yes* ISO 6400 is a bit absurd for this type of camera, but when I think of how easily the D700 seems to handle ISO 6400, I get a little jealous sometimes :)</p>

<p>I wouldn't switch brands unless I had a very specific need, such as high ISO performance.</p>

Jeremy, you can use 20GN flash (the newest & smallest Sony one) for wireless flash control as a cheaper option (unless you already have most expensive Sony flash). Or, did I miss something when you wrote "... I miss from the D700 compared to my A850 is the wireless flash control ..."?

 

Yes, "6400" sensitivity is indeed something to be jealous of sometimes.

<p>Jeremy, how large are you printing these ISO6400 images? I've spoken to a number of pro's who use the a900 who print regularly and tell me that the noise really isn't a problem even on very large prints. Or you could do what I do when I get to high ISO & don't want to do any NR after... convert to B&W.</p>

<p>Parv: Yeah I can get the 20 flash, but that's another $130 just to have what the D700 has built-in - and then you still don't have ratio control like the excellent CLS system Nikon has. Then again, I found the D700's 95% VF kind of annoying, and I think I'd overall take the A850's VF over the D700s. I've pretty much resigned myself to getting the flash, though - sometimes I just need a bit of light and don't feel like mounting the 58AM.<br>

Richard - I haven't printed any ISO 6400 shots yet :) For the most part I'm pixel peeping when it comes to my complaints - the few prints I've done so far I very much like (I have a 2' x 3' hanging on the wall, but it was at ISO 200, 20sec)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sounds beautiful Jeremy. Well, I would give the prints ago before anything :). I wish i had a wall that big :P</p>

<p>Ironic that R. Cannon can't decide between Nikon and Sony. I say just get a cannon, it's already got your name on it...<br>

If you already have the gear... might as-well stick with it. I was thinking of jumping ship when I was having issues with my a100 that got sent back 3 or 4 times for repair. I'm glad I stayed with sony though, as adding a body was cheaper than replacing everything. Sure they all have their strong points, but likely any camera worth over $1000 is an awesome camera, and would likely kick the ass of any $2-3000 that came out 3 years ago. So spend money on glass, not bodies, and if you're hunting for the specs there's always something better right around the corner (a750 in particular) I don't think my pictures have gotten stunningly better (or at all) by going from a100 to a700, and likely the same is true if I had gone from a100 to d300, though I do enjoy the advancements.</p>

<p>But he is Cannon the camera is Canon, my name is not Smyth.</p>

<p>"But he is Cannon the camera is Canon, my name is not Smyth."<br>

The JOKE is better when you say it, and not read it. However, some people have no sense of humor, and must take everything literally.</p>

<p>I don't know who said it but it is true: "buying a Nikon does not make you a photographer it makes you a Nikon owner"</p>

<p>All your FF lenses will work great on the A850/A900, esp. the 70-400. I went from a D200 with six fine manual focus Nikkors to the A900 - what an eye opener this camera is. Being a predominantly medium format shooter for over a decade (645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9) with a slow move into digital, this is the watershed camera/sensor. Very close to my 6x7 output in overall image quality. The resolution just goes on and on comapred to ANY 12Mp camera. It may not be what some want to hear, but for most work, resolution counts.</p>

<p>You do not need the greatest of lenses, contrary to popular opinion. See Zeiss's Hubert Nasse explain why:<br>

http://www.smt.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf<br>

He also compares a 12Mp DSLR with a 24Mp DSLR in the kind of scientific method you would expect of Zeiss.</p>

<p>So, not a tough call at all. Reasons: Zeiss lenses, Leitax adaptors for Leica and CY lenses, a dedicated Mirex TS adaptor for Mamiya 645 lenses, old beautiful colour producing Minolta lenses, 100% VF, in-body SSS, light weight, Sony colour, great ergonomics (no dumb setting banks), robust tough body...and the best sensor in DSLR. Low ISO super quality is what this camera is best at, but with the correct technique it can deliver fine 1600 ISO images. I'll try to stay restrained about the fellow above moaning about the A900's 6400 performance...sheesh. </p>

<p>The Nikon is also great...for a 12Mp camera. They are about the same cost.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their input, an additional thanks to Philip; for your insight.</p>

<p>Well, since this topic is going, there's a question I've been wondering lately and seeing as there are a few here that have both Nikon and Sony experience maybe they can answer. How do the d700 and a900 compare during long exposure shots? I do long exposures with my Maxxum 7, but with the a100, I can't go over about 30" before the end result is hideous. I have a decent amount of Minolta bodies and lenses, but no real nice stuff yet (like any CZ lenses). With the a100 getting a bit frustrating, I want to upgrade, maybe to the 850 or 900, but I've also contemplated the d700.</p>

<p>Sorry, didn't want to steal the thread, but I think it fits here better than adding a new one.</p>

<p>Dustin, you really should have started a separate thread. You're comparing long exposure technique between a film camera and a digital camera. If you want better long exposure results with your A100, try freezing the camera body. The problem is that with a digital sensor you get heat build-up, so freezing the body allows longer exposure time before you get the problem you mentioned. Or, you can surround the body with frozen gel-packs.<br>

Not sure why you're taking pictures with exposures longer than 30 seconds, but a couple of possibility comes to mind- star trails or astrophotography. If it's astrophotography, you're better off using a photo stacking software, rather than one long exposure.</p>