Upgrading... one step at a time or bite the bullet and spend the big bucks?

[DznyFan]

I can give a big thumbs up to the 16-80. Really one of my favorites and I have some other nice lenses. It brings something extra to the pictures - it's sharp and great colors and the focal length is so perfect on the crop cameras. I played around with the A550 last week while I was looking at a lens - wow! Some great features and I thought it was a very comfortable to use. I kept trying to figure out how to justify getting it but am still working on that part. DH says I'm an electronics junkie and I think I may have to concede the point.

One thing I'll point out is that the 16-80 is a DT lens so if the pull of the A850 starts again you will not be able to use it as a full frame although it could still be used in crop-mode. However it sounds like you've found in the A550 the camera that will suit you well. 7 frames per second is very cool indeed!

Excellent choices IMO - have fun with the new gear!

Thanks! yeah, I'm still dreaming of the CZ, and it would be a great lens for MOST of my Disney shooting. DD is a CM so I do a lot of stalking from distances/between heads with the big zoom.
I thought that the A550 felt really nice in my hands - very comfortable, nice weight. I had to locate some of the controls that have moved, and the menu/displays were all remarkably similar. I did note that the 16-80 is a DT lens, so basically my choice will have to hold me for a few years. They didn't have the 850 in stock, which was probably a good thing. Yeah, I know about the electronics junkie thing... but fortunately I don't have to justify since it's my treat to me, and HE has an equally expensive shooting habit! I would like to ask, though, what other lenses you have that you like.

OK, now I understand what you are looking for, and it all comes together. Take a look at DXOmark and see how much higher a rating the full frame models get for high ISO, since that is what you are after then those models are for you. Big pixels are good pixels, it's just a shame they are so much $$$!

And I won't go into how impatient DW gets when I wait for yet another monorail to go by!

OMG - thanks, Bob! Like I needed to see the information at that website! If I'd been born wealthy or could win the lottery, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Wow. (thank you, really)
So.... do you get the tapping foot? Heavy sigh? He blows through the parks at the speed of sound and I'm yelling STOP! I SEE something! And nighttime, break out the tripod, try to find the PERFECT spot and set up? fugettaboutit.

 

[Groucho]

A couple points...

1. Who said FF is the only way to upgrade? If you're got an entry-level body now, all the manufacturers make fairly high-end APS bodies. The 12mp Nikon FFs are certainly the high-ISO kings but the newest APS-sensored DSLRs like the K-x and the 7D can give the other FF DSLRs a serious run for their money in the noise department.

2. If you're just making the jump forward and aren't sure, I would not go FF yet. A higher-end APS body will give you all the extra controls and in many cases, all the extra performance of a FF body for a lot less money. By the time you think that you've outgrown that body, there will be newer FF bodies (and probably APS bodies, quite possibly with better ISO performance) and if you'd bought FF in the first place, you'd probably still be pining for a new one!

Anyway, sounds like the decision has been made already, best of luck! If you're looking at 70-200s, check out the new(ish) Tamron, too; from what I've read, it is sharper and lighter than the older Sigma 70-200, and is probably solid competition for their newer one, too.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thanks! yeah, I'm still dreaming of the CZ, and it would be a great lens for MOST of my Disney shooting. DD is a CM so I do a lot of stalking from distances/between heads with the big zoom.
I thought that the A550 felt really nice in my hands - very comfortable, nice weight. I had to locate some of the controls that have moved, and the menu/displays were all remarkably similar. I did note that the 16-80 is a DT lens, so basically my choice will have to hold me for a few years. They didn't have the 850 in stock, which was probably a good thing. Yeah, I know about the electronics junkie thing... but fortunately I don't have to justify since it's my treat to me, and HE has an equally expensive shooting habit! I would like to ask, though, what other lenses you have that you like.

Thankfully I don't have to justify my purchases either although DH does like my pictures so maybe I'd get away with it! But even for me I haven't gotten there with the A550 b/c I have the a700 and purchased the a850 in late Sept. I can think of so many shots with the articulating screen and then the 7 fps! Instead I'll just have to climb up on things and get on my belly for the time being and "make due" with the FF. lol

For favorite lenses - I have the Sony 70-300G and I think I've used that most of all since buying it. Great lens and sharp! Another favorite for my a700 is my Minolta 135mm 2.8. Love that little lens. The jewel is the Sony 70-200mm 2.8 that DH bought me for my BD just after I got my camera. Nothing to not like about that lens except it is a bit heavier so it's not always the first one I reach for. Still, that's gotten a lot of use as well. It's fast and has very nice bokeh IMO. And of course the 16-80mm CZ which used to do most of my Disney shots. That's the one I'm bummed about losing with the a850. In addition I've picked up a few Minolta lenses that I like for various reasons and the wide angle for landscapes.

 

[DznyFan]

Kat, thanks for the info. Just this thread has been cause for me to step back and reevaluate things. I went and took a peek at that Sony 70-200 2.8 that you mentioned, and *drool*. Although I can't find a way to even begin to squeeze that in the budget it's nice to look at! LOL! I'm going to go look at that Sigma again tomorrow and play with it some more. I have read some good things about that Sony 70-300 you mentioned but dislike that it's an f/4.5 lens. I think that I'll stick with the Carl Zeiss, the big Sigma, and maybe a 30mm f/1.4. Sure it's only 200mm, but I've got the 70-300 f/4 and I can't afford a 300mm 2.8 with everything else I'm replacing. I undertand they're APS-C lenses, but I DO have my old Sigma (which still shoots better than the new budget 70-300). and APS-C can only get better, right???

 

[ford91exploder]

Personally, I've been shooting for 30+ years some of those professionally I have 20+ year old lenses which I am STILL using on my digital bodies as well as my film bodies.

Your choice of DX or FX really is dependent upon your personal style, Do you shoot sweeping panoramas and/or large groups of people. Then I'd recommend a FX as there are really no truly wide angle lenses for the DX format. Even the Nikon 12-24DX mm shoots a narrower angle of view on a DX that the 17-35 shoots on a FX

Or are you a wildlife/nature/sports who isolates a single element of your photo in that case DX is appropriate as the 'magnification factor' works to your advantage.



If you want an inexpensive FX camera body the Kodak 14n is a great camera and it is generally available for under $1000 it was a market failure due to some incredibly stupid moves on Kodak's part but it's based on the Nikon N80 body and works quite well.

If DX anything in Nikon or Canon works well and choice there is what lenses do you have and what is your personal preference.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Kat, thanks for the info. Just this thread has been cause for me to step back and reevaluate things. I went and took a peek at that Sony 70-200 2.8 that you mentioned, and *drool*. Although I can't find a way to even begin to squeeze that in the budget it's nice to look at! LOL! I'm going to go look at that Sigma again tomorrow and play with it some more. I have read some good things about that Sony 70-300 you mentioned but dislike that it's an f/4.5 lens. I think that I'll stick with the Carl Zeiss, the big Sigma, and maybe a 30mm f/1.4. Sure it's only 200mm, but I've got the 70-300 f/4 and I can't afford a 300mm 2.8 with everything else I'm replacing. I undertand they're APS-C lenses, but I DO have my old Sigma (which still shoots better than the new budget 70-300). and APS-C can only get better, right???

You're welcome! I've heard good things about both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 2.8's and would have gone that route myself if DH hadn't floored me with the Sony. He got that recommendation from a friend of his so I made certain to thank him! Since you have the Sigma 70-300 then I agree there isn't much need for the Sony. Just mentioned it b/c it is one of my favorites and lives up to all the good things written about it. I wouldn't mind if it were faster but then it would be bigger, heavier and way more expensive too and I have the 70-200 2.8 for lower light conditions.

I also agree that APS-C won't be going away and will only get better so buying those lenses isn't really a gamble. And if you ever do decide on the FF the nice thing about lenses is they can be sold to get what will work next for you! I think you're putting together a great kit!

 

[DznyFan]

Kathy, I was off work today, so went to our other local camera store where they had the Tamron, Sigma and Sony 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, and he set me up with three different bodies so I could play with them side by side. Tamron is eliminated. For not much more I can have the Sigma with the HSM, and the Tamron just hunted too much and was too noisy. I didn't feel like I was upgrading much from my OLD Sigma in it's handling characteristics. I didn't care much for the plastic housing, either. Absolutely a fan of the Sony. He mentioned that Sony recently OKed sales of demo units and said he should be able to get it to about $1200 for a demo unit. It's not that much more than the Sigma at that point. Full price, I'd have to either give up the Zeiss or the Sony, and I don't think I'm willing to give up a new good walkaround all purpose lens.
Only disappointment... I can't fit either one of the new zooms in my bag!

 

[jann1033]

haven't read the last 20+ posts so it may be a totally different topic by now but i'd go with the better lenses and keep the mid-level camera for a while. with digital, the body is going to change rapidly. in a few yrs the bells and whistles of today's will be on the cheaper cameras but your great lenses will last longer. i'm not totally convinced full frame is still that much of a "plus" even now.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Kathy, I was off work today, so went to our other local camera store where they had the Tamron, Sigma and Sony 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, and he set me up with three different bodies so I could play with them side by side. Tamron is eliminated. For not much more I can have the Sigma with the HSM, and the Tamron just hunted too much and was too noisy. I didn't feel like I was upgrading much from my OLD Sigma in it's handling characteristics. I didn't care much for the plastic housing, either. Absolutely a fan of the Sony. He mentioned that Sony recently OKed sales of demo units and said he should be able to get it to about $1200 for a demo unit. It's not that much more than the Sigma at that point. Full price, I'd have to either give up the Zeiss or the Sony, and I don't think I'm willing to give up a new good walkaround all purpose lens.
Only disappointment... I can't fit either one of the new zooms in my bag!

That's great! I'm sure you'll enjoy both those lenses!!! And the new camera bag. It was over a year before I had a bag that really could fit that lens.