Moving from A900 back to Nikon?

[ptomsu]

Currently I find myself thinking over and over again to sell my A900 and some lenses in order to buy back into Nikon FF. I switched to Sony a year ago, was happy with the results, but cannot get friend with the system and the A900.

Knowing that this is always costing tons of money, but would like to invest only in some lenses I would really use, like the new 16-35, 70-200 VR2, 24-70 and maybe the 1.4/24 and 1.4/50. Camera most probably the D3s or wait for the D800 in autumn.

Must say this is rather a long term thing, as I survive pretty good with my H3D39 for high res shooting and the EP2 and some glass for my P&S. So there is no hurry involved.

What do you think?

 

[ecsh]

Nothing personal, but it sounds like you are bored with the A900, and want to try something else. Sony has all the lens you listed except the 24, and i may say that they are better than the Nikon counterparts. I came from a D3 and those lens to the Sony myself.
But, as you say, it will be costly, and it is your money.
YMMV

 

[ptomsu]

Nothing personal, but it sounds like you are bored with the A900, and want to try something else. Sony has all the lens you listed except the 24, and i may say that they are better than the Nikon counterparts. I came from a D3 and those lens to the Sony myself.
But, as you say, it will be costly, and it is your money.
YMMV

Agree to some extent, also I could not say that the Zeiss glass for the Sony is really better than the comparable Nikon glass. Have the feeling that Sony (Zeiss) are a bit slow with developing new interesting lenses.

I would have expected the new 2.8/300 be a Zeiss design, instead it is Sony (Minolta). As will be the new 500. Also expected a bit more fast primes from Zeiss, come on this cannot be so difficult, they have these designs ready long time (from Contax times) and adopting them for the Sony Alpha mount is a real no brainer.

I have the feeling what we see here (some also suffer like me) is the marketing department hesitating. Unfortunately. Have the feeling that Nikon as well as Canon became more active in these areas.

Also thought that HD video would become an option for the A900, which is not and this is really remarkable, as it is a Sony, who should know how to implement this.

Also see no evolution of their AF system - not that I need all those fancy AF stuff from Nikon and Canon, but some improvements in speed and sensitivity would be really appreciated for the A900 (or whatever will come as replacement).

So I am actually a bit bored with the innovations from Sony in the Pro segment - maybe my fault was to expect too much in too short time.

 

[Paratom]

Peter
I am a back and forth swicher like you and here is my opinion:
Ask yourself what you really miss regarding the Sony, think about specific things not general things.
Which Nikon lens or feature would you want which is not offered by Sony?

Do you miss better AF, do you miss better high ISO, do you miss any of the special lenses like new T/S lenses or do you miss a maybe slightly better flash system?
If all this is not the case, then why should you give up the resolution, big viewfinder and nice lenses of the Sony?

Me I was Nikon, sold the d3x because it was too big for me and because I didnt use it enough to have so much money bound.
Though about Sony but wanted fast AF and more lens options, decided for the 7d Canon (because of the many options in the telerange and because I though nice and very fast camera with quite good resolution plus HD)-however allready have second thoughts about the 7d.
Good thing I did not sell any Nikon lens and I now believe Nikon D700 + Nikon lenses is the best compromise for me personally.
I have to figur out what is hoing wrong with my Canon 7d but I guess I was too optimistic what a 1.6crop 16MP sensor can do.

So yes, I think I will be a Nikon guy in a long term, even though I guess (but this only from what other people say) that if it is only about IQ the Sony might have a slight edge.

 

[jonoslack]

HI Peter
Like you I switched from Nikon to A900 . . . apart from the 70-200 VR2 I had all the lenses you're contemplating.

Don't imagine that they're better than their Zeiss counterparts (although there are, of course, more variants).

As for the new telephotos being Sony rather than Zeiss . . . . . they're designed by the same old Minolta crew, who made some of the very best telephotos. Lots of people would say that the Minolta lenses are better than the Nikons as well.

BUT

if you want:
Better high ISO
faster autofocus (not better, as I find the Sony entirely accurate)
more lenses
more elaborate flash system

Then go for it, but if you want better colour and glass and files which have a special zing about them, then I'd say stick to Sony.
I still remember the hours I spent trying to get the colours for evening shots even half way to where I wanted . . . whereas with the Sony they're just right. (Nikon skin tones are great though).

- you'll be spending a hell of a lot of money for a trade off in functions. I should think you need to be very sure that they are actually functions you need more!

my humble opinion of course

 

[Engreeks1]

A thing to quickly consider - rumors have it a new major firmware upgrade for a900/a850 may come out soon. That might increase the resale value of the camera if it does anything major (d3x matching high iso?).

One other thing is the a700 replacement might cause a flood of a850 users to sell their bodies and go back to aps if the a7xx is something special. In that case resale values would drop .

Wouldn't you miss SSS in every lens? I certainly would!

 

[jonoslack]

Wouldn't you miss SSS in every lens? I certainly would!

I forgot to mention that . . . funny how you just get used to having it.

Mind you Peter
Maybe you just fancy a 'change of scene' and if you can afford it, why the hell not?

 

[ptomsu]

Folks,

thanks for your inputs and feedback so far. Started thinking again and still not finished, but at least came a bit further.

1) what I really miss - I mean really only better high ISO performance and some fast primes (Zeiss). A 1.4/50 and a 1.4/35 would be really cool. On the other hand the Zeiss zooms are pretty good, although a bit big, but all 2.8 zooms are big in one or the other way.

2) what I would like to have: HD video, as I would like to use this camera as my all in one multimedia tool. Of course I also can do it with the EP2, but would be appealing to have it in the Sony DSLR. And I am talking about Full HD!

3) some more sophisticated long tele zooms - like the 4/200-400 from Nikon. On the other hand I will not use these so often, so I most probably will end up with a Sigma or Tokina zoom anyway, which will do it for what I need.

4) IS - well definitely the in camera IS is a big advantage, so here the Sony has a big PLUS!

5) faster and more sophisticated AF - do not need this.

What I definitely do NOT want is again a body size like D3 or 1DsMKxyz - far too big to carry around the whole day or on Safari etc. And if one really needs then the hand grip will do the job. What I also do NOT need is a more sophisticated flash system, as I am normally never using flashes.

Hmmm - maybe I am really bored?

I think what I am missing is any announcement or future direction from Sony WRT their top end Pro DSLRs. What sensors they are working on, what higher ISO performance we can expect, will it be EXMOR sensors also in FF DSLRs etc etc. ???

Will give this some more weeks or months, especially as I do not have a need to change right now.

Does anyone have a roadmap (planned) for the Zeiss lenses to come for Alpha?

 

[Paratom]

As much as I like Nikon - if I were you Peter I would stay with the Sony.
You say AF and flash is fine, so it would be just the higher ISO.
Are there no sophisticated long tele zooms available from Minolta/Sony?
If it was about long Tele I believe Canon would be the leader not Nikon.

I have one in common with you - after using the "pro"-size bodies for some years I now am happier with the D700/7d-size bodies. Not so much because of the weight more about the attention one draws as a casual hobby photographer.

If I want attention I have the MF camera

 

[ptomsu]

As much as I like Nikon - if I were you Peter I would stay with the Sony.
You say AF and flash is fine, so it would be just the higher ISO.
Are there no sophisticated long tele zooms available from Minolta/Sony?
If it was about long Tele I believe Canon would be the leader not Nikon.

I have one in common with you - after using the "pro"-size bodies for some years I now am happier with the D700/7d-size bodies. Not so much because of the weight more about the attention one draws as a casual hobby photographer.

If I want attention I have the MF camera

Agree, and I made my decision to stay with Sony! There is currently no other offer of 24 MP with such good IQ at normal ISO in such a small and excellent body as the A900.

And I am going to buy a Sigma 150-500, this is for €900.- a no brainer and will do the job for some wildlife photography. Maybe meanwhile Sony will come up with some more interesting tele zoom - sorry to say but I find their 100-400 not what I want.

Maybe Sigma will also bring the 2.8/120-300 in Sony mount, which would be a fix starter for me - such a wonderful lens.

And also the mechanical quality of Sigma is not such a big issue, as I am using these lenses only occasionally and for that their build should be ok.

Correct, if I want attention I use my H3D