The body. By far the best of the Alphas (ignoring A900). Unlike the 200/3XX/5XX it has a depth of field button - I find this critical for macro work, eye-start focusing does't activate unless gripping the camera, MLU, better ergonomics, and, frankly, just a better camera.

One of the better sub-500$ lenses available. Excellent walk-around lens - I'd rather have a constant f2.8 than a longer reach in most cases. I originally obtained a bad copy - sent it Tamron and they repaired it - the lens is sharp and fast. The Sony alternative is the Zeiss 16-80 (excellent, but not 2.8) APS-C

I've not used this lens. May be the better option to the Tamron, but it's heavier and a bit more expensive. Buy the APO version, not the cheaper one. In light of reviews, I'd probably buy this one over the Tamron, but either are good choices and most of the negatives with the Tamron won't be noticed in a printed photo. There are reports of gear stripping on this lens. FF

I now own this lens - very impressed. It is heavy and silver/platinum (don't let amazon fool you), but it is an awesome piece of glass. I wonder if I would have been better off with a 70-300G and the tamron 200-500 combo, but decided a ones lens solution (despite the weight) was preferable. SSM is completely silent.

If the Bigma is too heavy, this is the other top 500mm zoom contender. Reportedly sharper than the Bigma... I've seen drool worthy samples from both.

A great lens for macro, but I frankly don't see enough quality difference between it and the 90mm Tamron to make it worth it. You can probably find an old Minolta 100mm for cheaper as well - I use an old Minolta, which is fantastic. Note: the Sony has a much better focus ring than the old minolta I use. FF

This is probably the better choice over the Sony 24-105mm with the extra reach. Haven't found enough direct comparisons to be confident. Not a bad walk-around lens; although, if you aren't going full frame, I'd probably just buy the 18-250mm. FF

Battery life is excellent, but it is always good to have a spare.

If you are shooting raw, you are going to want a large card. 4 GB at the min. If you shoot raw+jpeg, it is absolutely needed.

This is my standard bag now. It has a slim profile, but can still fit the 70-400 w/hood. The tripod mount makes things difficult, but still doable. The battery grip on the a700 makes things fit very tight. I also can fit in the 17-50 and 100mm macro. It also has a tri/monopod carrier. The other good option (lowepro) is the Fastpack 200, which has space for lunch and other goodies on the top.

You basically have three choices for an extreme wide zoom (something I want to try): Tamron or Sony 11-18mm, Sigma 10-20mm, and Sigma 12-24mm. Only the last is full frame. Reviews suggest that the Tamron sharper and has fewer distortions than the Sigma. But either are probably excellent choices. There's a new 10-24mm Tamron coming out (eventually)-should be an improvement over this lens. APS-C

The old minolta 50mm f/1.4 usually sell for $200-250 (and going up) on ebay now. Lens is sharp and fast. Everything you should expect. The 17-50mm Tamron when stopped down can gives me pretty good quality shots at 50mm so I'm not in a hurry on this one, but I don't shoot a lot of low light. FF

The Sigma version. Has HSM and you can use Sigma's optical stabilization on the lens (vice the SSS on the camera). Reportedly faster and sharper than the Tamron and Sony. Also suffers from some correctable CA.

It's got good reviews. It's cheaper than Sony ($1800). Should be a worthy replacement of the Beercan (minolta 70-210mm f/4) if you don't mind the weight and not having SSM. FF

Excellent fast, prime lens. Less awkward on APS-C cameras (everything except A900) than the 135mm Zeiss. FF

What is there to say? Constant f/2.8. Full frame and wide. SSM. Zeiss. This covers about 24-52mm on APS-C. Again, love to have, but a lot to put out. FF

A head for the tripod or monopod. This or the 488 would be my choice. The quick release works very well and it is easy to attach and release the camera.

Yeah. Right.

The big difference between this and the A550 is the megapixels, higher frame rate, and better lcd on the A550. Worth $200? Your call. Has some very interesting features I'd like to try and am looking forward to Sony including on the A700 update whenever that happens. Right now I'd be very torn between buying this and the A700 if I was starting new, but I certainly would not trade my A700 for this.

Powerful and well liked and I found it a bit more powerful than Aperture, but I find the interface not very intuitive if you haven't used Photoshop before and the help section is abysmal (though there are significant forums to turn to for help).