Sony A55 or Nikon

I know Sony bought Minolta (Konica-Minolta) so I think the Minolta lenses use the same bayonet mounting system. If you have a lot of lenses and accessories, I can see where that would be attractive. (I got a couple old Minolta film cameras myself; loved my Minoltas. I might be tempted to get a Sony for that reason.)

But Nikon has always had 'the name' as well as an edge in technology -- at a $$$ premium, too. My brother is a Nikon fan; would never consider anything else.

Go to a shop and get the feel for the Nikon. See if you gotta have it.

If you just gotta, you could always sell your old Minolta gear.

You need to talk to Yuval and masu...I'll go get them...

I have the Canon EOS 550 and am happy with it.

I had all sorts then moved to Nikon: I never bought all sorts since. The answer is simple: Nikon is slow in getting those new whoopee-do features out, but they usually get them right. Nikon is very reliable, solid and will last the distance. Nikon lenses are not only good, but they retrofit and are usable with all new models (even a 1970 lens will shoot on a digital (albeit with some obvious limits)! I had an old (new then) Minolta SRT101 and loved it, but Nikon is more consistent in it's manufacturing QA and standard philosophy. The Sony looks like a great camera too, but I would wait for the Nikon: I can trust Nikon to make it a better job in ergonomics, lens compatibility and testing before jumping into manufacture.

There are no bad cameras now, and photographers are now better too, even without much formal training.

I currently own Minolta (9xi, 9000, 7000) and Rollei (Rolleiflex and Rolleicord TLR's) gera and I have used Nikon, Cannon, Hasselblad, Contax, and Leica gear. The all are great and all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I always come back to my Minolta and Rollei gear because it reminds me of how much fun I have when I go out and shoot.

My two cents: unless you are making a livelyhood (i.e. good money) off of your photography or you desperately need some must have functionality which your current gear doesn't offer (or you can work around) then start to think about moving to Nikon or Cannon. Otherwise stay pat with Minolta or at the most move to Sony so you can at least try and use some of the lenses you own.

I am not a professional photographer but consider myself an advanced shutterbug who has had the fortune to have some of my work published. Shoot for the joy of it first and foremost as you continue to hone your skill, vision, ideals, philosophy, etc.

Many tout how great one camera is better than another but in the end they are all just the same thing, light tight boxes.

Thanks, I had the most fun and took some of my best with a Sears (Pantex 105) 20+ years ago. The number of times my 7xi decided to change a setting I thought I had locked in or paused to re-focus and made me miss the shot made me swear I would buy an ALL MANUAL camera of any sort! I think I have setteled on the Sony, but still thinking. I am wanting to do just what you said, go out and fill a couple of memory cards just for the fun of it! -- JHF

I can't provide an honest comparison, but I can tell you that I transitioned from Contax/Zeiss range finders in the days when Zeiss lenses fit Nikon bodies, to Nikon SLRs, and currently use a D700. Don't discount the backward compatibility of Nikon lenses. I still use some 50 year old lenses and am glad that I stayed with the Nikon system. I have had professional photographers, whose employers give them their equipment, tell me that they wish they had access to equipment like mine.

You present a valid perspective, however, if you want to practice astrophotography, macro, or micro-photography, you need to be able to couple your camera to other instruments, I have found this difficult with the cameras you suggest.

Right, but if you take this venue a bit further you may find that both astronomy and microscopy have their own dedicated take-up modules specifically designed for their respective application, rather than having to resort to coupling a limited-format camera as an impro for a take-up module.

It's all up to the level of dedication and professionalism you aim your transcription for.

Your point is well taken, however, the factory supplied "take-up" modules often don't provide the precision or flexibility of a dedicated DSLR body. I have had countless photographers with access to these modules, ask me how I obtained a particular result with my Nikon body and some simple adaptors..

As someone with older Minolta AF lenses, I'm also looking at whether to purchase a Sony DSLR body or not, and have considered the A55.

From my perspective it would depend on the lenses you have. If you have good quality Minolta glass, you should consider a Sony DSLR body to increase the versatility of your existing equipment. Minolta made some quality lenses in their time, and just moving over to another system for the sake of it makes little sense economically.

I recently came across a few older Minolta AF prime and zoom lenses and discovered these as now selling for decent money on eBay due to their quality and direct comptability with Sony Alpha Mount DSLR bodies.

But, if you've always wanted a Nikon but purchased a Minolta instead, then...

:o)

To the best of my knowledge, Minolta no longer produces cameras and lenses. Their last model shipped out in 2006.

The revived corporation now called Konica-Minlota, is involved in R&D, design and the production of photocopiers and lab equipment.

Some of their (relatively) old equipment is still being sold in places such as Amazon

A sad story, really. Minolta was the first company to usher the photography world into the new digital age, and introduced Auto-Focus to the global market in their ground-breaking Maxxum camera, back in 1983.

I just bought a Nikon D-90 after going through what is out there. Theoretically it's obsolete, but it's still the 'economy' professional model in terms of 'operator control'.There are a number of 'smarter newer more expensive models' than the D-90, but, so far, a program is not quite the equal of a 'good eye'.

I'm still learning the capabilities, but:

A. it will let you tell it what to do - without arguing.

B. with the 18-105 1.35-5.6 Nikkor lens, the balance and reflex action are "wondrous" and "beautiful".

C. on auto it doesn't 'stop and have a little think about it', then shoot that 'unexpected split second' later.

I know this may be considered off topic but I had to just put my 2 cents in.

A few years ago I decided to change from stills to video shooting and got the Song XR500 because of the low light ability. I do most of my camera work underwater and the chip, at the time was the best on the market. I've gotten shots that when I was shooting, the water was so dark I could hardly see what I was looking at but the footage came out crisp and clear.

This may not be a big issue on land with a still camera with a flash but for me the Sony will always have a place in my hart.

I expect my next camera will be a 3D capable one but at the moment they are just not reliable and getting underwater cases for them is still almost imposable.