The body. By far the best of the Alphas (ignoring A900). Unlike the 200/300/350 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. APS-C

I've not used this lens. It may be the better option than the Tamron, but it is heavier and marginally more expensive. Make sure you buy this version (APO) and not the cheaper one. In light of the 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. FF

First $1000 plus lens I'm seriously considering. I suppose part of the question now is whether to go with the 70-300G and then the Tamron 200-500mm as a two lens compromise that gives G quality to most of the range but still have 500mm in the kit.

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. I'm waiting till the Sony 70-400mm G comes out before buying a super long tele now. FF

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. 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.

Good bag for a walk around town. With the grip things are cramped, but workable. Doesn't look like a camera bag (plus for me). Fits the A700 and three lenses easily - not G or the larger constant f/2.8 lenses though (70-200)...

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. Of these, I'd probably buy the Tamron - reviews suggest that it's sharper and has few distortions than the Sigma (cheaper than the Sony). There's a new 10-24mm Tamron coming out - 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. FF

Tamron version of the Sony lens or Sony version of the Tamron - I'm not sure. The ultimate for "walking around". It won't match the quality of a specialty lens, but it is probably the best generalist. APS-C

It's out. It's got good reviews. It's cheaper than Sony ($1800) - shocker I know . 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

G, f/2.8, SSM... Sigh. Both Tamron and Sigma have versions, though the Tamron doesn't have the SSM/HSM. FF

What is there to say? Constant f/2.8. Full frame. 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.

I'd prefer this over the A350. It is cheaper (even with the kit lens) and 10mp is more than enough. The VG-B30AM is the vertical grip for the A200/A300/A350

The Flagship of the Sony line. It's expensive compared to the A700, but Full Frame. I'm perfectly content with my A700.

Yeah. Right.