Sury, Henry & Pako,
Many valid points in the last few posts. We all strive to get the best possible image quality with the gear we have and then we see someone elses shot which is better. We then start to question our equipment quality and look for options to better it hence the A900/A99, CZ/G lens route. Sury, you are not alone in this quest for the ultimate in IQ and handling. I also fall into that fold, once even stating to the wife that full frame was not in my planned upgrade route then 6 months later buying an A99. Fortunately I had the 70-200G and 70-400G by that point, I just lacked the wide option but did have a 16-80Z for the A77.
I think there are many advantages to some of the more compact 4/3 sensor offerings but having just returned from a 2 week trip to Japan, I can say that l fared better than one of my friends using Nikon (yet I did have a little equipment envy). I took the A99, A77, 16-80, 28-75KM, 70-300G and 70-400G leaving the 70-200G at home. There was only 1 occasion where the 70-200G would have been a better option but the 70-400G managed just fine although I find the handling poorer than the 70-200G (in particular the zoom). The 28/75 was put in my suitcase on arrival and it stayed there.
Before my A99, I bemoaned missing the true 70-105 gap in coverage and on several occasions wished I had a Sigma 50-150 f2.8. Since addng the full frame body I found that to be honest I didn't really miss it as much as I thought and because I mainly shoot aircraft, I really missed the longer end. So now I mainly use the A99 with 70-400 and if desperate for reach, replace with the A77. I've pretty much decided to sell the 70-200G as this year it has remained in the cupboard for far too long. I've decided that IQ wise, the 70-400G is a stellar lens and is without doubt the best investment I have made in A mount.
I discovered that an A77 with 16-80Z and A99 with the 70-400G is quite a good pairing, but for travel I now covet a full frame wide-tele lens. I'm thinking the new Tamron 28-300 might fit the bill when it is eventually released for A mount. Admittedly I'll sacrifice some of the IQ but I look at it this way, better a reasonably framed image at 80% IQ than a dot with the 28-75 (eventually deleted). I always ran out of focal length just when I needed it but expect only to be using the 28-200 range. The 28-75 is another lens which will be offloaded shortly I think along with a few other odds and sods. I did contemplate a Minolta 35-200 but the power zoom and lack of 28 option put me off.
The 70-300G proved its worth on the trip, mainly on the A77, as it handles much better than the 70-400, IQ is not quite as good but it is smaller and lighter with a lovely zoom action.
On my return I was generally pleased with my overall choice. My friend was using a D800 with grip and the new 80-400, a huge and heavy combination. It made my A99 with 70-400G look small. For wide shots he used a DX18-200 so lost some of the advantage of the 36mp. The 3rd guy used a pair of D7100s with grips, a Nikon 18-200 and Sigma 150-500. Heat haze negated the use of the 500 end on a DX sensor. My only real gripe was battery life. I often had to swap batteries by mid afternoon where he had the same pair in the grip lasting 2-3 days and he only charged just in case we had an intense day to follow. I was charging every night.
My A99 must be on 25,000+ frames (anyone know how to check?) and I'm very happy with it other than the rather small coverage of the focus sensors in the frame and the images lacking initial punch (mainly contrast) but that is what I have LR for. The processed images, in particular with the 70-400G, were excellent except where my excitement induced camera shake overcame the SSS.
Well that's my personal experience to go with Sury's, I hope you find it interesting.
Some Sony stuff and now some Nikon stuff (shock horror). Sony cannot supply what I want so rightly or wrongly I'm branching out to someone who does.