View Full Version : What do you prefer Body Only or Kit

02-18-2008, 06:57 PM
I just want to ask the experts here in buying a camera,
1. is it good to get the kits ( camera that comes with a lens )
2. or the body only?
I ask this because I was thinking the Sony A700 that I ordered from an online store is not BRAND NEW co'z the box is not sealed. I may return it depends on your suggestion here.
3. Return or Do not return?

Thanks guy's

02-18-2008, 07:34 PM
I just want to ask the experts here in buying a camera,
1. is it good to get the kits ( camera that comes with a lens )
2. or the body only?

Kits are suggested for preople who really do not have a clue for what they are looking for. It's an easy choice and pretty affordable. If you get frustrated with using a DSLR ... you conveniently have something to blame it on.

"Damn kit lens ..." <- a mutter overheard just before witnessing a shooter throw his lens skyward and yell out, "PULL!"


I've never been a big "kit lens" (the 18-55/70-type) fan, but hey, when you have an entire army of photographers on a forum to assist you in your lens choices, offering reasons for this and that ... this question seems a little ... less important (how's that for PC?). Basically, you are way ahead of the game with the A700 and a TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical lens, than you will be by settling for the SONY 18-70 kit lens. You will instantly have more light to use in your images, sharper image quality and excellent focus speed. It covers a lot of ground compared to a kit ... and why waste that $100 on the kit lens when you will have to eventually get this better lens or something near it, sooner or later? You tend to notice your images look like ... well, they could look a lot better.

Good photography begins when you pick up the camera and the optic attached to it. Are you going to wait a year before you begin to take better images? What are you going to miss during that time? Ask yourself this: "How can I take better images if I'm shooting through lesser glass?" Oh, I'm not talking about immediately buying the $1000+ lenses ... just better third-party ones. There are several. Also, this "better" glass is fully transferable to your next camera choice (provided it is made by the same manufacturer as the previous one) so that getting it right up front is not a disservice, but a benefit.

That's just my take on it ... have a nice day.


02-18-2008, 08:46 PM
How are the Quantaray line of lenses. I heard they wewe made by Sigma.

02-18-2008, 09:51 PM
Yes, Sparkie ... they are. If you are interested in SIGMA lenses, I recommend buying them as SIGMA lens ... not some off-beat name from Wolf/Ritz Camera. The prices are going to be strikingly similar.

TAMRON lenses come with a six-year warranty, which is pretty cool. I used that warranty to get an four-year old SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 lens updated from "analog" focusing to "digital" for free. Had it been any other brand, I'd have been stuck paying for the upgrade myself. I feel it is a consideration.

02-19-2008, 03:38 PM
i always buy the kit..that way you can sell your older alpha with a lens..lol

02-19-2008, 10:11 PM
I would not buy a kit lens. Also, an open box does not necessarily mean not new. Stores must sell returned items that were only "looked at".

02-24-2008, 04:42 PM
Stores Open Returns To Make Sure Things Are As They Should Be..

02-25-2008, 09:27 PM
Look ... here is the quick comparison.

Yeah ... I got a picture . . . . vs . . . . Wow, now that's a picture!


SONY DT 18-70 f/3.5-5.6 . . . . vs . . . . TAMRON SP AF 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di-II LD

It's worth the difference ... because, simply put, you will see it. :D