I started with Minolta AF gear in 1991 and within a year, had a 50mm and 2 Sigma zooms. Over time, I built up a respectable nature photography kit. At its peak, I had the 17-35G, 24mm, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, 200/2.8, 200/4 macro and 400/4.5 plus 1.4X TC along with the Maxxum 9 'pro' body. I changed the lineup a little along the way; by the time I was done, I had sold the macro lenses and the 200/2.8 and picked up a 3rd party 70-200/2.8 and a couple of new Sony zooms (the very nice CZ16-80 and the 70-300G) to go along with the DSLRs I bought (first, the KM 7D, then the A700). I never went out and spent a ton of money in any given year; this was all built up over time.
There were two critical points at which I took stock of my system before spending some money - once before getting the $1900 400mm and once again later on (maybe before the A700 - I can't remember) and each time, I decided the grass wasn't really greener.
But towards 2000, I became increasingly frustrated with my kit and with Sony in general. My daughter was getting a little older, doing sports, and I found the AF tracking of the A700/Sigma combo insufficient. And I figured out that I wanted to shoot Auto ISO in M mode for sports. The Sony 70-200/2.8 was a rebadge of the Minolta lens; a nice lens, but not a great lens, and certainly not at the price Sony was asking (around $1900 without IS). It wasn't particularly sharper than the Sigma wide open (though very sharp at f/4) and it wasn't particularly faster at AF, though it did at least have an AF limiter. Sony took a long time to update the A700, and I waited, and then the update was the A77 - an SLT. I was leaked early in the year, and I waited months for Photoplus to roll around so I could check it out. I wasn't philosophically opposed to the idea of an EVF camera. But when I tried it, it just didn't impress me for a $1400 camera. It wasn't "better" than my A700, just different.
So, after having thought about it for a long time, I took advantage of the next round of Nikon body&lens rebates and bought a D7000 and 70-200/2.8 VR II. Then I added a few more lenses, and I actually sat on the Sony system for a couple more years before finally selling it. Mostly because of the hassle. I knew that financially, it would be a wash - I wasn't going to end up more on the Nikon kit than I was going to get (especially considering that I was looking to spend on a body upgrade anyway). At this point, I've spent less on the Nikon kit, but haven't replaced the 400 yet (I only go up to 200 right now).
Some people will change systems like they change underwear. For me, it was a pretty big deal. It takes time to learn a system; to learn how to use it, the pros & cons of various lenses. And everything is a compromise, so even if you're looking at the benefits of some other system, you have to balance it with the downsides. My daughter has 6 more years before she's done with high school and my photographic needs may change at that point (no more school plays, concerts, dance recitals, sports) and I'll revisit things at that time. I guess that's basically the driving factor for me - does my kit meet my needs ? If not, it's worth looking at alternatives, but otherwise, the things being offered by new cameras are just fun distractions; nothing I need to spend money on.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at
http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
