Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

  1. #1

    Default FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Hi Guys,

    A few weeks ago, when the details of the 5D MkII were announced I was all for buying a 5D MkII, (once the price settled down). I already have a Canon so don't need to be told how good they are. However the Sony A900 leaves me very unsure.

    When it comes to high ISO and noise the 5D MkII wins easily, no doubt about that, but the A900 has very good image stabilisation, and much better auto exp. bracketing, which is important for me.

    I suspect, but do not know, that the Zeiss lens for the A900 will be better than the Canon lenses, but are very expensive. At the same time the standard Minolta fitting lenses are perhaps not as good as Canon.

    Prices are difficult to assess, it depends where you buy the equipment, but the A900 body seems to be cheaper.

    Has anyone been able to ignore their Canon bias and make an objective comparison of the two cameras? If anyone has any useful points to make, anything that I have missed, I'd be delighted to hear their views.

    Cheers,


    Pete

  2. #2

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    it seem like u're finding reasons not to buy canon when u've already decided on canon.
    all these sorts of comparison is never ending, and really boils down to personal preference.
    i don't think all profession photographer uses Zeiss lens, canon has its own L series of lens which i think are equally good.
    Since u're a canon user i'm very sure u're gonna stick to canon even if there are better reviews for A900

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    1,639

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Good luck when you want to sell the A900 3-4 years down the road when you want to upgrade.

    The A900 may be better in some areas, the 5D2 in other areas. But is the 5D2 that deficient for you? Good photographers can manage great photos even with an 6-year old D60.

  4. #4
    Senior Member erictan8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,885

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    since you already have a canon, i think the difference does not warrant buying a new system altogether
    unless money is no problem for you...

  5. #5

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    can't compare yet lorr...
    since 5dmkii haven't really in sale...
    as for me, i already invest in canon lens.. so i don't want to spend money spending on new brand...

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    795

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Quote Originally Posted by bugsz View Post
    it seem like u're finding reasons not to buy canon when u've already decided on canon.
    all these sorts of comparison is never ending, and really boils down to personal preference.
    i don't think all profession photographer uses Zeiss lens, canon has its own L series of lens which i think are equally good.
    Since u're a canon user i'm very sure u're gonna stick to canon even if there are better reviews for A900

    Not really, Canon is a loser on Wide Angle side. It is still far behind from Carl Zeiss.
    However, Carl Zeiss has announced the support of EF mount. Canon is actually having much more completed and wider choices of lenses.

  7. #7

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    I read somewhere sometimes ago that Sony is good for portraits (better skin tone).

    And i think i have never encountered any famous photographer using Sony. All the while is always either Canon or Nikon (like those national geographic photographers, etc.).

    One thing, i do not like from Sony is because they have hefty pricing. You can compare how much their 70-200mm costs, compared to Canon and Nikon. And yes, when upgrading, Sony camera resale price will be depreciated very much (just search the B&S forum here and you will know how much it is).

    From what i have observed, Sony is better at consumer level, but not at pro level (at least for brand image). I have encountered many many times, on people (lay men) who wanted to buy a P&S camera. They all always wanted to buy Sony camera. Even when I suggested Canon, in the end they still went for Sony. Laymen seldom know what Canon/Nikon is. They know Sony because their HDTV, CD/MP3/DVD player, etc. are Sony.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    903

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    and i am using a sony psp to browse this page and post my reply...

  9. #9

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Having found one of a very interesting review on alfa 900 in thai language, however, the picture will tell you without the need of understanding thai.

    http://www.pixpros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22984


  10. #10

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Agreed with you the A900 is enticing.. very in fact.

    only concern left is prices/availability of lens, and other accessories (esp 3rd party)

    since a full system is way more than just a camera body.

  11. #11
    Senior Member fatigue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Blk138 Bedok North Ave3
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Quote Originally Posted by XC Pictorial View Post
    only concern left is prices/availability of lens, and other accessories (esp 3rd party)
    I agree, on the bright side, since the lenses are hard to find, the value does not depreciate.
    In fact, I sold a 50mm F1.7 for $170 about 2 years ago. Nowadays, the same lens cost around $250.
    9815-1974
    FB: Hilos Camera Repair

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Many people don't seem to realise that the CyberShot series come from a totally different heritage than the Alpha series. Well, it's early days yet, so there aren't many high profile users now. (There is one local celebrity wedding photographer who was switched over to the Alpha system, though).

    Just like how the layperson always wants to go for Sony compacts, the layperson also autmatically discounts any non-Canon/Nikon DSLRs without any due consideration. From what I hear from someone who's working in Canon, they are now more "concerned" about the presence of Sony Alpha more than any other brand.

    Well, if you're already committed to a system, probably better to stick with it. Either camera would be a fine tool in its own right.
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,797
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Don't count on the reviews to make your decision, best to try the camera for yourself ......... btw, you can test the A900 at Sony Svc Centre, Wisma Atria.

    After you have tried it, we will see if you still want a Sony A900 ......
    Nikomi Canpen Zenten :eek:
    Not exactly 100% Natural but definitely the closest you can get to it

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eastern Singalalapore
    Posts
    561

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Quote Originally Posted by Russ View Post
    Good luck when you want to sell the A900 3-4 years down the road when you want to upgrade.
    heh heh, if resale value of A900 3-4 years down the road is bad, then its not too bad a time to be buying old bodies/lenses too isnt it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Russ View Post
    The A900 may be better in some areas, the 5D2 in other areas. But is the 5D2 that deficient for you? Good photographers can manage great photos even with an 6-year old D60.
    if someone can manage great photos with a 6 year old camera, then why even bother buying a new camera?
    Snap snap away!

  15. #15

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    When you want to buy something-1 thousand resaon.
    When you do not want buy something-1 thousand excuses.

    so buy or not to buy, switch camp or not to switch camp, it boils down to personal needs and wants .As we human's thirst and desire for new technologies are endless.So, what ever decision we made, we have to embrace the consequence or side effect that come with it.

    Some time , I bought things in impulsiveness(Buy first and regret later) so I had to make myself think positively, if not my life will be miserable.

    So , brother, you really got to think hard before you made any tough decision.

    God Bless.

  16. #16

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Hi


    The answer to a one who has a Canon for assurance. Pay attention to the news everyday. We see 98% of the photographers/photojournalists using Canon + L-lenses. For sports the percentage is the same. Everywhere, you will find "White" lenses. This speaks for itself that Canon is by far more popular as it is faster and more reliable. Another testimony is when you visit www.f1.com. You will see in all the post-race videos that as far as I can tell, all are Canon's with there "Red Ring" "L" leses. This is my 2-cents worth.

    Thanks.

    I was deciding between Nikon and Canon and a good friend who uses a 1DS Mark II told me I can't go wrong with Canon. He was right.

  17. #17
    Member OldFlower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Jurong West
    Posts
    392

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    For me, I chose SONY Alpha bodies because I was from the Minolta camp and all my lenses are Minolta mount. So obviously, when I decided to go digital from film, there was only SONY to turn to since they took over Minolta's camera division.

    Inarguably Canon is in the lead in terms of popularity. However, now that SONY has taken over Minolta, I believe & through the past year's developments from SONY's Alpha range of DSLRs, it is going to catch up FAST and status quo of Canon will change.

    I believe in SONY's R&D - they aren't and haven't been on their laurels since they took over Minolta, and this is for sure.

    Those who begs to differ, I won't argue with you, just wait and see.

  18. #18

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    the main draw of the sony A900 is the body stablization.
    canon will be better in noise ctrl definitely

    other than that will have to wait for the actual usage before we can come to any conclusion
    头可断,血可流,倩女不可不追求 carpe diem,when in doubt, hoot first,apologise later:p GALLERY

  19. #19
    Member OldFlower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Jurong West
    Posts
    392

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    I wonder, what was the argumental comparisons back in the film days about Noise Control?
    Why do people harp so much about Noise these days? In film days you simply load in the appropriate film speeds for the subject matter you intend to shoot. Today, I see people are fussing over Noise Reduction advancements and what nought; what happened to abilities of todays photographers to produce clean noiseless shots by virture of practical techniques and not technologies?

    A700, A900, A-whatever, I still use ISO100 most or all of the time. I don't worry about Noise neither do I even turn on the Noise Reducation feature in all my Alphas. Unless noise and grain is what I want to produce or be visible in my shots, do I crank up ISO speeds.

    This is similar to how locals in Singapore are now so dependant on the use of a Maid to do household chores. I mean, think about it people.
    Last edited by OldFlower; 26th October 2008 at 05:26 PM.

  20. #20

    Default Re: FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

    Quote Originally Posted by solasido View Post
    I read somewhere sometimes ago that Sony is good for portraits (better skin tone).

    And i think i have never encountered any famous photographer using Sony. All the while is always either Canon or Nikon (like those national geographic photographers, etc.).
    National Geographic usually receives boxloads of cameras from their sponsor... Like Canon. However, Mike Yamashita shot an assignment with the A900 and really loved it.

    Quote Originally Posted by solasido View Post
    One thing, i do not like from Sony is because they have hefty pricing. You can compare how much their 70-200mm costs, compared to Canon and Nikon. And yes, when upgrading, Sony camera resale price will be depreciated very much (just search the B&S forum here and you will know how much it is).
    You can get the Sony 70-200 brand new for about 2700 SGD here. That's close to the Canon IS price.

    Quote Originally Posted by solasido View Post
    From what i have observed, Sony is better at consumer level, but not at pro level (at least for brand image). I have encountered many many times, on people (lay men) who wanted to buy a P&S camera. They all always wanted to buy Sony camera. Even when I suggested Canon, in the end they still went for Sony. Laymen seldom know what Canon/Nikon is. They know Sony because their HDTV, CD/MP3/DVD player, etc. are Sony.
    Who cares about brand image when you're trying to get good pics? And many pros used Minolta... That's Sony's Alpha line now.
    Alpha

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •