# Buying new DSLR- Sony a700 or Nikon D90?



## Idaho21 (Mar 7, 2009)

I am going to be purchasing a new camera here pretty soon. I currently have a Sony a200. I really like the Sony DSLRs, but I have started to like Nikons quite a bit recently.
Here's my choices. I am either going to buy a new Sony a700, or a Nikon D90. 

I currently have 3 lenses for my Sony a200, and spare batteries. I could sell all of this stuff if I switched to Nikon. Or I could use it if I get a Sony a700.

From what I have read, both are good cameras. My main consideration with Nikon is the popularity of them, which means a better choice of lenses and accessories.

If you own either a Sony a700, or Nikon D90, how do you like them?


----------



## Katier (Mar 7, 2009)

If your happy with the a200 system and have several lenses and reviews put the a700 as a viable option then seems the logical choice.


----------



## Katier (Mar 7, 2009)

having read the dpreview it seems to me the a700 isn't really competitive with the competition. I'm not familiar with the sony range to know if there is a better alternative but the a700 looks disapointing to me.


----------



## inTempus (Mar 7, 2009)

The D90 is an amazing camera.  I enjoyed playing with it a lot.  I wish it had the D300's frame though.  The all plastic body turned me off given the price point.  But in terms of features and IQ, I really-really like it.  I may buy one used someday just "because".


----------



## Idaho21 (Mar 7, 2009)

> having read the dpreview it seems to me the a700 isn't really competitive with the competition. I'm not familiar with the sony range to know if there is a better alternative but the a700 looks disapointing to me.



I read a few reviews of the a700, and they all gave it a great review. They wrote that the a700 is an excellent buy.

The next step up is the full frame flagship, the a900, which is a bit out of my price range at the moment.($3000 just for the body.):mrgreen:


----------



## inTempus (Mar 7, 2009)

Idaho21 said:


> The next step up is the full frame flagship, the a900, which is a bit out of my price range at the moment.($3000 just for the body.):mrgreen:


But just think how happy you will be with it in your hands.

I think you should do it.


----------



## Idaho21 (Mar 7, 2009)

Believe me, I'd love to, but that is way out of my price range at the moment. A full frame 24.6MP camera, that would be nice.


----------



## Early (Mar 7, 2009)

Idaho21 said:


> Believe me, I'd love to, but that is way out of my price range at the moment. *A full frame 24.6MP camera, that would be nice.*


That tells us what you really want.  Save up!


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 7, 2009)

Here is a question ... why are you upgrading ?


----------



## Katier (Mar 7, 2009)

I'm not sure what reviews you've read.

From dpreivew :-

Noise reduction settings are applied to raw as well as JPEG files. Would be preferable if they affected JPEG only (as is normal practice). Kudos to Sony for updating the firmware to allow you to actually turn it off at all though!
Base sensitivity isn't ISO 100, this isn't directly indicated on the camera 
Would still like to see the lowest noise reduction setting using less NR
Lack of live view will be counted against the A700 compared to the competition
No ISO display on viewfinder status bar
No top panel LCD status display

That's a pretty poor list ( I'm amazed by the lack of live view given the a300 has superb implementation - think it's the a300 - I don't rate the need for live view very highly btw but just find it surprising ).

The D90, K20D ( pentax) are both IMO based on that review much better buys. It wouldn't surprise me if sony soon replace the 700 too with a model with the a350 features but better sensor and maybe weathersealed body.


----------



## AlexColeman (Mar 7, 2009)

D90, you will love it, and the further upgrade paths.


----------



## Mgw189 (Mar 7, 2009)

Katier said:


> I'm not sure what reviews you've read.
> 
> From dpreivew :-
> 
> ...




The A700 has also been out quite a while longer than the other cameras.  The A100 (which I have) was released then the A700 shortly after that.  The A900 is the flagship of the line there are also many other bodies that Sony has released.  I am sure there are more to come too.  

My honest opinion is if you have the Sony and like the Sony keep the Sony.  What is the reason for the upgrade at the moment?  I would agree with the other poster that said save up for the A900.  Its the direction you are headed in anyway.


----------



## Idaho21 (Mar 7, 2009)

I am looking to upgrade to a camera that has more capability than my a200. It is a basic DSLR. It isn't bad, just basic.


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 7, 2009)

Hmm, I am not sure what function you are going to really use by going to another camera.

I can see if you wanted more pixels ... or lower noise ...


----------



## Idaho21 (Mar 7, 2009)

Well, from what I can tell, over the a200, the a700 has
-12.2MP (a200 is 10.2MP)
-sealed controls
-an aluminum chassis and magnesium cover (not plastic)
-Faster AF with more advanced tracking
-Higher ISO range
-Higher flash sync speed
-More advanced noise reduction
-Larger LCD display
-5FPS (a200 is 3FPS)
-Faster shutter speed of 1/8000th SEC. (I think the a200 is 1/1000thsec)
These are a few of the improvements. Also a more advanced DRO(digital range optimizer). 
I have decided that I am going with another Sony, just due to the fact that I really like the way that they operate and the features that they come with.
So, here soon, I am looking to purchase a new body and two new lenses. After thinking about it for a few days, I have decided on the lenses.

A Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3, which has gotten great reviews and will replace two of my current lenses, and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC, which is a good wide angle for landscapes.

Now, thanks to you guys. I will have to think about getting the a700 body, or save for the a900(which may take a while). The a900 would be awesome though.
I am currently accepting donations for the purchase of an a900.(Just remember, donations are tax write offs):mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## Katier (Mar 8, 2009)

What about looking at the a350, due to it's newer design looks to be a better buy than the a700. As I said earlier in the thread I'm willing to bet sony will replace the a700 soon with an upgraded 350.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 8, 2009)

Sony is a horrible company that has a tendency to do really bad things to its customers like installing root kits on your computer from their audio CDs without your knowledge.

I used to be an avid Sony buyer... like if I needed something electronic, I would always buy whatever Sony had to offer.  I have been absolutely boycotting their products for a number of years now.

Just something to consider.


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 8, 2009)

Idaho, I just wanted to make sure you where upgrading for a reason rather than upgrading just because it is an option.

The sealed controls and metal would be advantageous (well at least for me ... you would understand if you read my Canon F-1 post).


----------



## adamwilliamking (Mar 8, 2009)

I love my D90.. I would only trade it for a D700 or a D3. 
From working in a camera store I can tell you that you're going to have a lot better time shopping for Nikon upgrades (lens, grip, accessories) than Sony. It also seems like you're most concerned with low noise and the D90 is pretty incredible for that even beating out the D300. Never shot the a700 (or whatever its called ) but from the (trusted) dp review.. D90. No question.


EDIT: oh.. and, 3D tracking.


----------



## Idaho21 (Mar 8, 2009)

> What about looking at the a350, due to it's newer design looks to be a better buy than the a700. As I said earlier in the thread I'm willing to bet sony will replace the a700 soon with an upgraded 350.



I haven't ruled out the a350 yet either. For the money, it seems like a very good buy.


----------



## ArntorFTL (Mar 8, 2009)

I have no frame of reference for Sony products, but I can say that the D90 is a fantastic camera that you will not regret buying. You'll have no problem finding good lens upgrades, as well as other accessories.


----------



## Heather09 (Mar 8, 2009)

Im enjoying my D90


----------



## blash (Mar 8, 2009)

eBay prices are approximate:

A200  + kit lens - $400
Maxxum 35-70 - virtually worthless (~$10)
Maxxumm 100-300 - $100
Budget for a A700 body - $1,000 (B&H).

Total budget for a new system - $1,500.

Redistribute through a Nikon system:
Nikon F100 body - $250 (used)
Nikon D40 body - $250 (used)
Nikon 18-200mm VR - $550 (used)
Nikon 50mm f/1.4D - $300 (used)

Total - $1350 leaving you with $150 left over to save for your next lens, probably a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D ($250 used).

Why this? You'll love fooling around with film - the F100 is a very capable body that has a heavy, metal, professional feel to it, and it's better to invest in glass rather than a body. The 18-200 is the professional walking-around lens and there's a good many people who are happy with it - and the 50 f/1.4 lens (although it won't autofocus on your D40) has legendary optics and bokeh and will help you capture images in very low light.


----------



## ffd796 (Mar 8, 2009)

I love my D90 and a very good friend of mine shoots a A700 Sony..... Like I said I love my D90


----------



## Katier (Mar 8, 2009)

blash said:


> Redistribute through a Nikon system:
> Nikon F100 body - $250 (used)
> Nikon D40 body - $250 (used)
> Nikon 18-200mm VR - $550 (used)
> Nikon 50mm f/1.4D - $300 (used)



Interesting idea but I feel not the best use of funds. A second hand D40 for example is a bad buy really given the options. Even a Pentax ist is a better buy, K100D even more so with it's in body SR.

The OP is most likely best off looking at an upgrade to his sony system due to the fact he's already invested in it. If he hadn't invested in it then Nikon would be a good option but given he'll probably get poor return for his Sony investment selling them and rather OTT pricing of Nikon's I don't think Nikon is a viable option.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 9, 2009)

Starting on film nowadays seems almost crazy, unless you have a very specific need to do so, or some focused desire (like the development process).  Kind of like the guy who builds furniture using only tools that were available in the 1800s or whatever.


----------



## designlucas (Nov 22, 2009)

Katier said:


> I'm not sure what reviews you've read.
> 
> From dpreivew :-
> 
> ...



Katier, all you did is copy the 'cons only' from dpreview.  You can do that for any camera!  If you'd bothered to read the full review, you would realize that it's an extremely positive review overall!

Furthermore, you can't compare the a700 to the D90 because they're not in the same bracket - the Sony a700 is a pro-sumer level camera with a much higher MSRP than the D90.  Since the a700 has been on the market for longer (and rumored to be discontinued) it is available for a price close to that of the lower-spec D90.

My opinion is the a700 - I just upgraded to one form a Minolta 7D and think they're wonderful cameras!


----------



## skieur (Nov 22, 2009)

Idaho21 said:


> Believe me, I'd love to, but that is way out of my price range at the moment. A full frame 24.6MP camera, that would be nice.


 
The Sony A850 is full frame and cheaper at $2,000 AD versus the $3,000 of the A900.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 22, 2009)

Katier said:


> What about looking at the a350, due to it's newer design looks to be a better buy than the a700. As I said earlier in the thread I'm willing to bet sony will replace the a700 soon with an upgraded 350.


 
They already have an upgraded 350...the A550.

skieur


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 22, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Sony is a horrible company that has a tendency to do really bad things to its customers like installing root kits on your computer from their audio CDs without your knowledge.
> 
> I used to be an avid Sony buyer... like if I needed something electronic, I would always buy whatever Sony had to offer.  I have been absolutely boycotting their products for a number of years now.
> 
> Just something to consider.



I am not a huge fan of Sony either. I have an A-200 right now because it was in my price range and I have been satisfied with my purchase. As far as Sony Laptops, and TV's etc go, I find them to be overpriced.  But, keep in mind that Sony BMG doesn't really have anything to do with the quality of their Cameras. I understand they put root kits on CDs, but that doesn't really reflect on the quality of their DSLR line. 

And plus, wasn't there some guy that used a Sharpie to black out the root kit part on the Sony CDs? So much for DRM...


----------



## skieur (Nov 22, 2009)

Apparently a Sony A750 full frame 14.6 megapixel camera is coming out shortly, that would seem to be an interesting upgrade from the A700.

skieur


----------



## designlucas (Nov 22, 2009)

skieur said:


> Apparently a Sony A750 full frame 14.6 megapixel camera is coming out shortly, that would seem to be an interesting upgrade from the A700.
> 
> skieur




Yes - the a750 will be awesome!!


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Nov 22, 2009)

D90 all the way!


----------

