Upgrading from a100

[yiannis_roussos]

<p>Greetings to all. I am in an upgrading dilemma and in need of your thoughts.<br>

I currently own a sony a100, which, after about 4,000 actuations, I have noticed some signs of wearing off – focusing extremely poor, metering difficult to handle, not fast enough to capture moving objects (or my 2.5 year old nephew!) etc.<br>

So I decided to upgrade. I have been looking at the Sony range, and frankly I have been quite disappointed. The only camera that would suit an upgrade seems to be the a580, however it still feels that I am upgrading to a camera that will be extinct in 2 years, despite all the nice features.<br>

The a900 seems really ok, but for that kind of money I would be looking for more than just an ok (frankly I see LiveView a vital part of contemporary photography – not video recording). Plus, the a850 I think is too slow for its money, both in terms of fps and for focusing issues.<br>

Lastly, I’ve read that the SLTs have an advanced technology, making my Sigma Lenses obsolete.<br>

(mind you, these opinions are only from reading reviews over the internet and in magazines)<br>

My question is threefold:</p>

<ol>

<li>Is it worth ditching the sony range, sell all lenses, and going to another brand for a much more robust enthusiast cameras (such as Nikon D300, or Canon 7D)? </li>

<li>Is it worth to stay in the sony family, with a “compromise” e.g. upgrade to a a580 or even a second hand / refurbished a700?</li>

<li>Should there be “yet” another year of waiting until the Sony corporation release the awaited successor to a700 - which I have personally been waiting for the past 2 years now…</li>

</ol>

<p>In case you are missing a few pieces to my puzzle:<br>

I own the following: Sony 18-70mm (collecting dust), Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8 [full frame], Sigma 70-300mm f/3-something APO, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 , Minolta 50mm f/1.7 (a very sweet lens), Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, plus the flash.<br>

I shoot all kinds of things, landscapes, close-ups, street photography, potraits etc. Haven’t shot anything professionally but I have shot friends’ weddings (as the guest photographer to the hired one!) etc.<br>

All responses much welcomed!<br>

Thank you for your time.</p>

 

[parv]

"The only camera that would suit an upgrade seems to be the a580, however it still feels that I am upgrading to a camera that will be extinct in 2 years," -- Yiannis R.

 

Yiannis, what you mean by extinct? Do you expect the camera to just vanish or self destruct after two years?

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Hi Yiannis, you have plenty of questions here so let's unwrap things a little further. In terms of mechanical and electronic integrity 4,000 actuations on your a100 is barely any mileage at all, so unless it has been through some rough times I presume the "wearing off" you mentioned is purely in terms of your own photographic skill learning and finding yourself too frequently hitting limitations in the a100's specs.</p>

<p>That could be a good thing in the sense that if it is still in very good cosmetic and operational shape then you can expect to sell it off for a better price than a scratched-up, banged-up and/or dusty specimen. On the other hand the resale value of even like new a100s is only $300ish at best so it certainly won't make a very significant trade-up dent in the purchase price of an a850 or a900. Have you had your a100 for quite a while now or did you start using it just within the last year or so? The question is not just relevant in terms of resale value but also as an indication of your shooting rate (which in turn relates to the question how much or how little it matters in practice for you to worry about future technology developments).</p>

<p>If you're not into video then there's no reason to pay the newness price premium for any of the most recently released models like a55 and a580. Instead, check out the a500 or a550 which are dropping substantially in price and which would cost you very little out of pocket as a tradeup. Note that Gary Friedman reviewed the a550 <a href="http://friedmanarchives.com/newsletters/newsletter-09-12/index.htm">here</a> as a brilliant camera specifically for young families with toddlers and/or hyperactive kids.</p>

<p>In terms of fps 3 is good and 5 is better, but a lot of successful action shooting comes down to your own skill in anticipating key moments rather than blasting away and hoping to catch whatever surprise might happen next (all the more so because any camera's AF tends to lose track of things during continuous bursts).</p>

<p>A few other points that may affect your assessment of some of the models you mentioned: A new firmware update just came out last month for the a850 and a900, which apparently substantially improved the AF speed of both cameras. There are a few errors in some of the online reviews of the a33 and a55, partly because many of us still have difficulty understanding exactly what has fundemantally changed with the new mirror, EVF and autofocusing video combination - and what hasn't. One of the most detailed reviews that discusses these aspects and corrects some of the errors is <a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2010/12/11/alpha-55-in-depth-pros-and-cons/">here</a> in photoclubalpha.</p>

<p>As far as I understand the a55 will operate fine with all alpha mount lenses, including Sigma lenses. The only limitation for the future is (again as far as I understand) that most of the earlier lenses (including many budget Sigmas) have very noisy AF action, so video shooting with sound captured by the built-in microphone will result in much better audio when using SSM lenses or other truly silent autofocus technologies.</p>

<p>Three provisos: Firstly, Sigma's 70-300 came in many different versions and some of the earlier ones had very weak plastic AF gears that don't hold up well to the more powerful screwdrive action of DSLRs compared to film bodies. I'm not sure whether the a55 and a580 generation comes with even more powerful screwdrive motors, but just to be sure you might hold off putting your 70-300 apo on whichever new alpha body you might buy, until you've found definite confirmation that there is no problem with gear stripping from other owners of the exact same 70-300 version and alpha body. Secondly, some of the very very earliest Sigma autofocus lenses have chips that are not fully compatible with the alpha mount's data protocols, and as a result those lenses won't work on any later Minolta film bodies or any Minolta/Sony DSLR. If your Sigma lenses work fine on your a100 then that is no concern with your lenses. Thirdly, the locking slot on Sigma's alpha mount lenses is sometimes just a tiny bit too narrow and won't quite fit the mount locking pin of some Sony camera bodies (I had an a100 and Sigma 50 2.8 macro combination with that problem). This may prevent the contacts from fully touching, and prevent any communication between lens and body. In that case the solution is to take out your dremel and widen the slot on the lens or shave off just a tiny little bit from the pin on the camera. If you don't have such problems with your Sigmas and a100 then chances are that will be no concern either, although this seems to be more of an issue specific to tolerances on individual lens/body combinations so you never know until you try.</p>

[isaac_leung]

<p>parv has a point. The A580 has got sufficient capability for it to last you five or so years of shooting, as long as you don't go on an online wanderlust.<br>

But you know, with Sony's current strategy being to flood the market with units, yes, the A580 will be considered an obsolete product in 2 years. But you'll still be shooting with it, hopefully.<br>

I do not recommend getting a refurbished A700. You will find the A580 has superceded the A700. The A550 came close but the A580 nailed it in terms of features.<br>

An upgrade to a FF Sony camera does not currently make sense, as you have already figured.<br>

Switching to Canon or Nikon is a possibility but if you are attached to LiveView in terms of how Sony does it (and it's a beautiful implementation), keep in mind that their DSLR LiveView modes are much more clumsy.<br>

While I don't think I have been in a situation like yours, I recently came into some extra money and bought a Nikon D700, but am keeping all my Sony gear (including a number of Minolta gems), all of which run on my A550. I am loving the handling and capabilities of the D700 in situations where the A550 would not perform well in, but I think Sony has a lot of potential in terms of innovations. The greatest pain is waiting for it to come to the consumers.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>I must say that I find it amusing that you have hung on to using your A100 for so long and yet are worried about upgrading to a new camera and worrying about whether that new camera will be any good.</p>

<p>Personally I found the A100 whilst it made decent images, it was quite irritating to use for many of the reasons that you mention and I couldn't wait to get rid of it for a higher end body. And to be honest, I haven't looked back since. Any higher end body will be streets ahead of what you are used to on the A100 and there will be no comparison in image quality and handling.</p>

<p>As to the question whether it will be worthwhile to change systems, only you can ultimately decide whether it is worth the money and more importantly, whether you want to go through the process of learning to use a new system. In terms of lenses, you don't have that many and most of them aren't amazing lenses.</p>

<p>Personally I think that at the end of the day all the systems have their merits and no major manufacturer makes a bad dslr. And secondly I think that the Sony system still has a cost advantage (for the bodies anyway) over Canon and Nikon if that is important to you.</p>

[murtyjr]

Question raised by Yiannis is also on my mind. Currently I have an a100 and am happy with its performance. I am in the process of upgrading and have been comparing Sony with Nikon and Canon with their features and prices. Any recomendations will he helpful.

[yiannis_roussos]

<p>I have to say I am flattered! Thank you all for your responses and I will try to address some of the issues raised, to what has, IMO, become an inspiring discussion.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5184751">parv .</a> exinct means outgrow in terms of performance AND technological updating. the way they release new technology in photography is faster than the blink of an eye. in no time, we will be shooting raw picts and drinking coffee from the same machine (if you know what i mean!).<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2358586">Paul De Ley</a> thanks for so many good points. Wearing Off means totally outgrown it, and arriving at a point where the camera feels like a plastic toy! I bought it in 2006 brand new, and was my first digital camera. Before I was shooting with a Minolta Dynax 7 (film) which was my first camera, bought in 2003. Selling any of these two cameras is not an option. Even when replacing them, I would like to have them with a working lens - even as a souvenir!<br>

I am on the same mindset about fps - 5 is the best weighted option, I am not looking for 7 (a580). However, I feel that Sony full frames are a bit of a dissappointment (please free to disagree with me). Further, I have understood from reviews that Sigma lenses need an extra chip to work with SLTs - which frankly cannot have it done where I live (Cyprus). Therefore, the only option would be a580 - and a550 now that you mention it.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5268887">Isaac Leung</a> thank you for pointing out that a700 would be a dissapointment comparing to a580 - I was tempted last night for one!<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1717037">Jiun Der Chung</a> Since you have been in my shoes (metaphoricaly) and ditched a100, what are you shooting with now / are you satisfied / recommending it ? I know that my lenses aren't that great, however, I have a complete range for shooting anything I would want, and to a great image quality - one that has given me awards and praises in FIAP salons. You are correct in that Sony provides a cost advantage, plus the image stabiliser in the camera itself, I believe, is money in the bank! However, I personally think that it lacks the clarity of a picture by a Nikon D300 / D700 or a Canon 7D.<br>

I know I am still to share my picts on photo,net , but feel free to visit my webpage to get a better picture of what I am shooting <a href="http://www.yiannisroussos.com">http://www.yiannisroussos.com</a> . Mind you, it has not been updated since 2008.</p>

[tom_montemarano]

<p>I have both an A100 (converted to IR) and an A700. I chose the A700 because it had a similar User Interface to the old Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7 (my favorite camera) and the KM7D (almost identical UI to the 7, but with some omissions and quirks.) When I use my A100-IR, the difference in features and and UI is very obvious and somewhat uncomfortable.</p>

<p>With that as background, regarding the differences between an A700 and an A550/A580 and my recommendation -- If you had an A700 and used its features and really wanted its UI, then the only thing available would be a used A700 or an upjump to the A850/A900. </p>

<p>But since you are coming from the A100, the 5 series cameras would be a good bet and offer you LV. However, you should really compare the features of your A100 against the 5 series. Some features of the A100 were not included in the A550. Check the dpreview reviews and specs and download the operating manual to compare with how you use your camera. If you can't find a feature described in the manual - assume it doesn't exist. Only you can say if the missing features would be an issue or not, and if the addition of the newer features are what you want. Some of the removed features were returned with the A580, but there appear to be some flash quirks (slightly longer delay from shutter press when using any flash) which may or may not bother you. There has also been a very recent thread on dpreview where an A580 user had some problem with a Sigma HSM lens in a specific LV mode on the A580. He was going to follow up with Sigma to see if they knew if a chip update would fix the problem.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I am in the position of having been spoiled by the Minolta/KM/Sony 7 series cameras and take advantage of the features and UI (actually I was slightly disappointed with some of the UI things that Sony changed on the A700 compared with the 7 and 7D, but they also fixed some of the issues with the 7D). So if I had to replace my camera there is no easy path for me to take except Sony FF.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision</p>

<p>tom</p>

 

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>I too was in a quandry about how to upgrade from my a100. I waited a long time for an upgrade to the a700, which did not happen. My primary intersets are landscapes and wildlife. I decided to keep the a100 with a 200-400mm lens for wildlife (which I use primarily with manual focus) and buy a Canon 5D (original version) with 24-105mm L lens in excellent used condition for landscapes. The price of the used Canon with lens was about the same price as a new a850 body, for which I could use none of my original a100 lenses full-frame. So far, this approach works great. The cost of buying a suitable wildlife lens for the Canon, say a 400mm or 600mm Canon IS lens, would be many times what I could sell the a100 and lenses for. If I decide that I want live view, and can afford it, I can always upgrade to a Canon 5D Mark II.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>I upgraded from a100 to a700 and was extremely happy with the latter until it needed to go in last month for warranty repair (after about 100,000 trouble-free clicks and three visits to the tropics, so not without quite a bit of wear and tear).</p>

<p>If you've used your a100 for four years before reaching the point of disenchantment, then that a700 tempting you before may actually be worth a second look, as it could very well suit your needs for the next four years. At least if the price is right = under 700 $ or euros or so. The control layout between the two is fairly similar, yet the a700 really lays it on in terms of build quality, versatility and completeness of functions. Plus my a700 always struck me as a "deep" character that keeps popping very pleasant surprises out of its hat during post processing, while the a100 was more up front but by comparison what it showed you during reviewing was pretty much all you could expect out of it.</p>

<p>Two provisos: as you know with an a700 you would miss out on live view; also while the a700's AF is clearly better than the a100, it does have a number of quirks and limitations that definitely put it behind the speed and accuracy of the a5xx series and the a33/a55. I've compared with an a290 and an a500 in recent weeks and the latter is capable about half the time of tracking birds moving straight towards me, as well as picking out a moving subject correctly against a cluttered background - which are two things the a700 hardly ever gets right.</p>

<p>I don't have enough experience with photography of small children to have a good idea of how comparable the challenge might be between running/jumping kids versus camouflage-colored and wing-flapping birds, but I'm guessing the latter is even more challenging to autofocus algorithms than the former. In terms of high iso it is true that the a5xx series are better, but the newer raw processors can also do great things with a700 firmware v4 output up to iso 1600 at least, so that is less of a real issue (to me at least).</p>

<p>One way to cut through the dilemma is to just follow the bargains: if you find a real discount price on an a5xx series body then go for it, whereas if someone insists on selling you a new or like-new a700 for a really good price then just go with that. If neither occurs then hold out for a few more months and presumably by then we will FINALLY get some truly tangible facts from Sony about the what, when and how much of the ever shifting mirages of a77 and/or a7xx.</p>

[yiannis_roussos]

<p>Thank you all for your contribution. Whilst all points raised are true (especially Glenn's manoeuver to get the Canon 5D - I actually had a friend who proposed that some time ago) (oh and Tom's issues with tracking moving objects with a700), I am holding to Paul's ultimate and final words - get a bargain or wait for a few months - maybe until then Sony might have something to look up to.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Like you I Yiannis I came from (and still use) the Maxxum 7 and so was used to the amazing handling, ergonomics and functionality of a near professional camera. So to me the A100 felt like a backward step including image quality.</p>

<p>I went from the A100 to the A700 to the A900 and I have to say that each step was a major improvement in handling and image quality (a slight handling improvement from the A700 to the A900). I certainly didn't regret each move and do not regard them as buying into any way an inferior camera (compared to the competition).</p>

<p>As I said in my earlier post, the A100 is so far behind the current offerings of ANY manufacturer that any new dslr you purchase will be a major step up. I can't help but find it amusing when ever people agonise and hold off about buying the latest Sony offering because they worry whether there will be a better one down the track and whether other manufacturers offers a better one, when at the same time they continue to use a vastly inferior camera. I understand the concept of wanting to get the best value for money by purchasing the best available camera (within your budget) at the time. But the reality is that there is ALWAYS a better camera available down the track if you wait long enough. Furthermore manufacturers tend to leapfrog each other every time they bring out a new offering.</p>

<p>Just my personal opinion but I tend to prefer to have a camera in hand right now that I enjoy using and takes images that I am happy with rather than to worry about what might come in the future.</p>

[yiannis_roussos]

<p>Well, Sony announced the replacement of a700, with SLT technology..... (just a small update on the discussion)</p>