Which Body to Buy in 2012

<p>Hello everyone. I'm sorry if this has been asked before but I couldn't find anything with a search. I've been away from photography for far too long in order to pursue my training and career but now would like to get back into it and I feel that I need to update my camera body. I have a Minolta Maxxum 7 and a Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D (both owned since release). I stepped away about the time Sony started producing A-mount bodies. After extensive research online, it appears to me that the A700 was the successor to the 7D (which I love) and now there is an A77 to succeed that. I like everything I've read about the A700 and feel that it would fit me nicely. I cannot afford an A900/850 nor do I have any interest in what I've seen of the SLT series. The controls on the A580 and somewhat smaller size don't suit my big hands. My concern is that the technology in the A700 is dated many years after its release/discontinuation, though less so than my 7D, and that this camera is no longer relevant. Should I take a chance and buy a second hand A700 in 2012 or wait for the next generation in that line up (since the A77 is currently not a consideration)?<br>

For what it's worth, I have a strong investment in Minolta glass. I actually like to collect key pieces from that era as much as I like to shoot them so ignore the significant duplication over similar focal lengths. Thanks in advance for your responses.</p>

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 28mm f2.8</p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 35-105mm f3.5-4.5<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 70-210mm f4<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Konica-Minolta 18-70mm DT f3.5-5.6 D<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 100mm f2.8 Macro<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 24-50mm f4<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 135mm f2.8<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-4.5<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 100-300mm APO f4.5-5.6<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 28-135mm f4-4.5<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="319">

<p>Minolta 35-70mm f4<strong><br /></strong></p>

</td>

<td valign="top" width="319">

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Why exactly is the A77 not a consideration? It takes better pictures than the A700.</p>

<p>But then, you can get an A850 for not much more. So both are probably out of your budget.</p>

<p>If you want to stick with OVF, you have to find an A550 or A580. I replace my A700 with the A550, and it's a pretty close match. Even takes cheap or OEM vertical grips.</p>

<p>The problem is, they both have a 1/160 shutter and no tethering. If you want 1/250 and tethering, you either get an A700 or 850/900.</p>

<p>So you seem to be in a conundrum. If budget won't afford a FF camera, then no point in waiting for another body you can't afford. Start looking for a cheap A700.</p>

<p>Thanks for your response. The major thing against the A77 is the price right now. Unfortunately, just too far out of my reach plus, I don't really need all of those bells & whistles. Also, I don't have a P&S so I use my cameras for family functions as well and primarily shoot in JPEG with those. It's my understanding that the A77 is a bit weaker in its handling of JPEG's though I haven't indendently verified this.</p>

<p>I only shoot JPG, and haven't found any issues with A77 JPG rendition. But I'm probably not too picky. :-)<br /><br />I should compare the A77 to my 22mp MFDB and see how they compare. I'm sure the A77 will handle noise better, considering the MFDB starts at ISO 25 and craps out around 100 or 200. ;-)</p>

<p>Like you, I prefer larger bodies. But I'm probably going to keep the A55 since it's almost as small as my u4/3 and performs better. <br>

The A550 might be your best choice. Someone sold one for under $400 recently on Amazon (with lens), so you could get lucky again. It vs the A700 is a toss up...not sure which I would buy given the same price. The A700 has better controls, but the A550 is newer and has video and better ISO and resolution.</p>

<p>This pretty much sums it up.</p>

<p><a href="http://snapsort.com/compare/Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A550-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A700">http://snapsort.com/compare/Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A550-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A700</a></p>

<p>Not counting my Minolta Film Camera, I started with KM 7D, Sony A700, and I recently bought the Sony A65, A77 was a bit too expensive. I purchased it from these guys below.<br /> Not sure which country you come from, but for me buying grey market retailers in Asia saved me about $600 from what retailers in Australia want to sell it to me for.<br /> <a href="http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/browse.asp?idCategory=20&brand=7">http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/browse.asp?idCategory=20&brand=7</a><br /> In my opinion the A65 is streets ahead in Image quality (Same 24mp sensor that is in the A77, forget about so called bells and whistles, they might be there, for me its about results and price.)<br /> Sony A65, read my recent post <a href="../sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00afuk">http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00afuk</a><br>

Let me say I have big hands and now after using it I love the damn camera. the feel and the images and handling. The KM7D and A700 sit in my bag now. I struggle to find time to use those two anymore.</p>

<p>FYI, I have come to the conclusion that for most people when shooting in JPG, raw etc. You can sort of ignore what you read on the reviews about image quality. Unless you are a pixel peeper and a serious pro. Then quite frankly the depth that you would need to go in order to see the faults in all cameras that these camera's reviewer see, is simply never going to happen, nor will you ever see what they go looking for.<br>

How do I know this, because I am a pixel peeper and I search I think too hard for faults in images, and I am hard pressed to find differences when things are view or printed at standard sizes.</p>

<p>Just FYI, as far as I remember, Sony has stated they won't introduce any new optical viewfinder interchangeable lens cameras, only "SLT" cameras.</p>

 

<p>I just tried to find a source for this online, and this is the first I came up with:<br>

<a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/sony-developing-dslts-only-1070088">

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/sony-developing-dslts-only-1070088</a></p>

<p>I think SLT will be the future, it will just take Canon and Nikon a few years to change simply because it's a Sony tech at the moment.</p>

<p>Hi Joshua, I have a mint A700 that I am planning on putting up for sale soon. If you are interested, you can contact me for more details and pics. thanks, elijah<br /> If the link to mail me does not work, which it seems not to most of the time, and you do not hear back from me soon, then leave a message on this thread and how to be in touch with you. thanks, elijah</p>

<p>I had been a Minolta Maxxum 35mm film user, then had a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D. It certainly appears that the A580 will be the last traditional SLR for the Maxxum / Dynax / Alpha lens mount--so I bought one. In terms of most performance parameters (especially focus speed / accuracy, dynamic range, and noise), it is a major step ahead (and it shoots pretty nice HD video). Of course, the body is somewhat smaller than the A700's, and you get a smaller pentamirror viewfinder instead of a pentaprism.</p>

<p>My advice to you is all over the map. An A700 would be a major step forward over your KM 7D. On the other hand, an A700 would be way behind more modern cameras in terms of noise, dynamic range, and video capability. The A65 has the high-end EVF (and sensor) of the A77 for considerably less money; you probably ought to at least try it. But if you really want something modern, with an OVF, you may be better off selling your equipment and going Nikon. You have a bunch of lenses, including mostly good ones, but these are good user lenses, not semi-exotic pro lenses. But whatever you do, you might want to wait just six weeks or so--a <em>lot</em> of stuff is rumored to be coming (most game-changing, IMO: a Nikon D600 FF camera for $1500).</p>

<p> </p>

I'd save for a lightly used a900. A good upgrade from a 7. It would be worth saving for IMO, prices have come down recently.

<p>Hi Josh........... If the price is right, go for the A700. I recently purchased a used unit for A$400 and it arrived looking mint. I also have the A100 and 350 but the A700 is of sturdier build and has many more features (I don't miss the live view of the 350). I am having fun, "learning" my way through this machine and am looking forward to my up-coming 5 day long weekend when I can really run it through its paces.<br>

We talk about aging technology in digital units, yet up until about 6 years ago when I went digital, I still used my Minolta 101b and Konica TC/Fs1 for wedding and fashion shoots. These units were built in the 60's/70's respectively. I still use the KISS theory in my photography.<br>

Anyway, is it the latest technology that creates the perfect picture, or the photographer? (smiles).<br>

Good luck, and let us know what you decide on.<br>

Regards</p>

Hi everyone. I just wanted to report that I ended up buying an A700 and love it. I won't get to take it out for a full test until next weekend

but so far I'm very impressed. I think this will be plenty of camera for me for some time to come. Thanks for the input.

<p>You've already bought one, but I'll still leave my comment. Whatever Sony you would have chosen to purchase, with the thought of taking pictures with it, you won't be able to find any anymore. A big online camera business told me that all Sony DSLR's, and the other big companies as well, are making the capability of taking movies a standard being built into their still cameras. So this means that if you want to purchase a DSLR to take pictures, (what else would you use, but a camera?), you're going to get stuck with a movie camera as well. I'm sure that's going to help keep the prices low on (still) cameras. I had to add the "(still)" part because it's always been understood without saying that a camera took still pictures and a movie camera took motion pictures. And I don't have a problem with there being two types of cameras for two types of pictures.</p>

Kenneth,

 

You're implying that adding that feature somehow compromises its useabilility for taking stills?

 

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. :-)