FF's - 5D MkII v. Sony A900

[Rashkae]

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.

Errr. You've never heard of sponsorship? Canon was the official camera sponsor at F1, as they are in many sporting events. They actually donate cameras and lenses to get that visibility. As for reliability, they have quite a few issues, such as mirrors falling out of the shutter box as well as a perennial inability to focus properly, which was an issue on the 1Ds MkIII.

Don't let marketing departments fool you into thinking a brand is more "reliable" or "faster" until you see the horror stories of the camera brand owners and their issues.

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.

Was he? Many Nikon D3 owners would disagree.

 

[weishengg]

Pay attention to the news everyday. We see 98% of the photographers/photojournalists using Canon + L-lenses. For sports the percentage is the same.

From what I see on tv, not really. Seems like Nikon is cooking up a storm lately too =)

 

[Rashkae]

From what I see on tv, not really. Seems like Nikon is cooking up a storm lately too =)

Yeah, reporters, newspaper photogs seem to love nikon. Or, at the very least, their editorial office has a lot of N gear lying around for their use.

 

[Yew Fai]

Yeah, reporters, newspaper photogs seem to love nikon. Or, at the very least, their editorial office has a lot of N gear lying around for their use.

i suspect while the canon and sony camps have gone to war over differences, the nikon camp is probably busy shooting photos. i used to get quite absorbed over such 'technicalities' but nowadays, i prefer to use the time to refine my photography techniques rather than split hair over debates over which has the larger market share. let the company directors decide that issue - their competition only serves to make bodies and lenses more affordable or better for consumers.

out of every 10 threads, there will be one thread with nikon vs canon, canon vs sony, nikon vs sony or all three involved. while the questions may sound justified from the start, most of them soon degenerate into heated debates between camps loyal to their brand. 10 years from now, such phenomenon will still be appearing.

having a d3 doesnt automatically raise one's skills to a pro. i have seen better photos and compositions done with a pns in the hands of one who has skills and creativity. but well, such is the nature of our curiosity for the 'best'.

 

[Rashkae]

out of every 10 threads, there will be one thread with nikon vs canon, canon vs sony, nikon vs sony or all three involved.

Usually it's just C vs. N. And usually I'd just be busy taking pictures. But sometimes there's someone who read waaaay too much marketing material and spreads fud about other brands. Then I feel it's good to step in and curb their blind enthusiasm.

 

[fatigue]

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

A bit OT (before the thread gets closed :bsmilie
Which camera or should I say which brand has the least depreciation value?

 

[solasido]

Hmmm... Sony 70-200 is now 2.7k.. that's quite cheap now.
I remember last year during Sony roadshow in front of The Heeren, Orchard.
I was given a brochure, where a 70-200 costs over i think more than 3k or even 4k (don't remember the actual amount, but basically much more expensive). I was really shocked at the price.

What i like from their R&D is the image stabilization that is placed in the body instead of the lense. For Canon, the IS is with the lense. So you have to pay double price for lense with IS and for every lense. With sony's IS in the body, you pay once for all lense.

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.



You can get the Sony 70-200 brand new for about 2700 SGD here. That's close to the Canon IS price.



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.

 

[nkhoo]

Hmmm... Sony 70-200 is now 2.7k.. that's quite cheap now.
I remember last year during Sony roadshow in front of The Heeren, Orchard.
I was given a brochure, where a 70-200 costs over i think more than 3k or even 4k (don't remember the actual amount, but basically much more expensive). I was really shocked at the price.

What i like from their R&D is the image stabilization that is placed in the body instead of the lense. For Canon, the IS is with the lense. So you have to pay double price for lense with IS and for every lense. With sony's IS in the body, you pay once for all lense.

Hm... Interesting argument... but then the sony 70-200 without IS or VR cost the same if not more than the canon or nikon 70-200 with IS or VR... Where is the savings?

 

[Dithiolium]

If you want CZ lenses with AF capability - Sony is it.
CZ on EF / F mount are MF with AF confirmation.

This is a big plus for Sony.

 

[FeiFei]

Pay attention to the news everyday. We see 98% of the photographers/photojournalists using Canon + L-lenses. For sports the percentage is the same.

98% ??

 

[calebk]

Hm... Interesting argument... but then the sony 70-200 without IS or VR cost the same if not more than the canon or nikon 70-200 with IS or VR... Where is the savings?

Sony has in-body stabilisation? :dunno:

 

[nkhoo]

Hmmm... Sony 70-200 is now 2.7k.. that's quite cheap now.
I remember last year during Sony roadshow in front of The Heeren, Orchard.
I was given a brochure, where a 70-200 costs over i think more than 3k or even 4k (don't remember the actual amount, but basically much more expensive). I was really shocked at the price.

What i like from their R&D is the image stabilization that is placed in the body instead of the lense. For Canon, the IS is with the lense. So you have to pay double price for lense with IS and for every lense. With sony's IS in the body, you pay once for all lense.

Sony has in-body stabilisation? :dunno:

The argument of no IS on sony lens, so their lens is cheaper doesn't seem to hold much water... :bsmilie:

 

[Rashkae]

Hm... Interesting argument... but then the sony 70-200 without IS or VR cost the same if not more than the canon or nikon 70-200 with IS or VR... Where is the savings?

Well, we're not talking about savings, but rather cost and feature set. With how many other brands can you get an image-stabilized prime lens?

And the 70-200 can be considered costly since it has no built-in IS (since it doesn't need it), but it's a solid piece of quality optics.

The high manufacturing costs still stems from the design; it's a Minolta-era lens, and back in the minolta days was 100% assembled by hand. At least Sony now made this lens widely available, and the price is dropping to "sane" levels too.

 

[nkhoo]

Well, we're not talking about savings, but rather cost and feature set. With how many other brands can you get an image-stabilized prime lens?

And the 70-200 can be considered costly since it has no built-in IS (since it doesn't need it), but it's a solid piece of quality optics.

The high manufacturing costs still stems from the design; it's a Minolta-era lens, and back in the minolta days was 100% assembled by hand. At least Sony now made this lens widely available, and the price is dropping to "sane" levels too.

Well, do correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought back in the days of Minolta, their 70-200G SSM lens was a lot cheaper and better (creamy bokeh) than the 70-200 of canon or nikon? It was only after they stopped production of their lens, did the price went sky high. When sony came into the picture, i guess they like the price to remain high (profit margin). So i would think that the current line of of lens by sony is way OVERPRICED....

 

[Rashkae]

Well, do correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought back in the days of Minolta, their 70-200G SSM lens was a lot cheaper and better (creamy bokeh) than the 70-200 of canon or nikon? It was only after they stopped production of their lens, did the price went sky high. When sony came into the picture, i guess they like the price to remain high (profit margin). So i would think that the current line of of lens by sony is way OVERPRICED....

The Minolta G design was carried over by Sony. When sony first re-launched the lens (with the same awesome bokeh), it was way expensive, especially in SG.

But Sony's already adjusted prices, and now it's back to Minolta-era prices. In fact, when you consider inflation, it's even cheaper than in the Minolta days!

 

[Rashkae]

Anyway TS, sorry for the OT.

Back to yur initial question: There's no doubt that both of these FF cameras will give you good pictures. Each has features that the other doesn't. it's up to you to decide which features matter more to you. Do you want to shoot videos (no matter how cumversome a dslr may be for that)? Will you frequently be shooting at ISO 3200 or 6400? Do you need LiveView? Then maybe the Canon is for you. Do you want autofocus Carl Zeiss lenses as well as access to G lenses (equivalent to Canon's L)? In-body stabilization that works with all lenses? Class-leading resolution? Then maybe the Sony is a better choice.

My main tip would be to try and hold each of them, feel them in your hand, see which one has better ergonomics for your hand. In the end, it will be *you* who will need to hold the camera for hours, not anyone on this forum. So your own comfort matters the most.

 

[solasido]

Yup.

It is very interesting. Last time about a year ago, when i visited, they had a demo kit at Bugis Junction Sony Showroom showing how the IS works in the body.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review

Sony has inherited Konica Minolta's anti-shake system, which is now called Super SteadyShot. This is a CCD-shift style system, which moves the sensor itself instead of a lens element. That means that you'll get image stabilization on nearly every lens you attach to the camera. Image stabilization systems compensate for "camera shake", which can blur your photos (especially at the telephoto end of the lens). By reducing this shake, you'll be able to use slower shutter speeds than you could on an unstabilized camera.

Sony has in-body stabilisation? :dunno:

 

[peteloud]

Hi Guys,

When I started this thread it did not expect it to get so much attention. Thanks for your views, you are helping to clarify my thoughts. Most of the points made had already occurred to me but hearing them from others, with perhaps a slightly different twist, allows me to put my thoughts in perspective. Please keep your views coming in, It seems that I am not the only person interested in this comparison.

I have still not come to a conclusion. Much will depend upon the prices once the novelty value of these new models eases. Hopefully discounts will appear in a few months. In the past I have bought Sigma lenses for Canon at Orient Photo and have been happy with their prices and service. However since studying the prices in the Canon Forum I now realise that the place for me to buy to get best prices is Bangkok. (HK might be cheaper, but it's more hassle to go there). I have to admit that ClubSnap is my best source of info. on camera trends & personal assessments, thanks

A number of the comments have made the point that Nikon & Canon are by far the favourites of professionals, and by implication the best. While this may be true, one must bear in mind that the Sony A900 has not been available until now. I think this particular camera could shake up the market in a big way.

Someone commented that for such cameras that you need top quality lenses. One very good comparison of FF v 1.6 sensors said the opposite. The guy claimed that an old ordinary lens on a FF camera does noticeably better than a very good lens on reduced sensor camera.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm . On this basis I might be able to produce very good results using cheap second hand Minolta lenses. Combined with the A900 body being cheaper than 5D MkII it could be a very cost effective high performance system. I am unfamiliar with Minolta lenses so I'd be delighted to hear any comments on this aspect.

Over the past few months most of my photography has been panorama photography, http://www.peterloud.co.uk/photos/SEAsia_07-08/Singapore_panos.html
(my apologies if you've seen them before), using an Sigma 8mm or the 10-20mm lens on a 350D. So I am much more interested in ultra-wide & fisheye lenses than long lenses.

Many of my panos are taken inside buildings which can be quite dark, on this point the 5D MkII with very low noise has a great advantage, but I normally do not go beyond ISO 800.

After some of the comments I am feeling that the A900 image stabilisation is a very important benefit. I like to think that I can hold my camera quite steady but now that I use a tripod for almost everything and can examine images at pixel level of detail I find I'm not as good as I thought :-(

Keep your comments coming, Thanks,

Pete

 

[Rashkae]

I am unfamiliar with Minolta lenses so I'd be delighted to hear any comments on this aspect.

Minolta lenses are very good; there was a time when they designed lenses for Leica as well. There's a very good database of lenses for Sony/Minolta here:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Many of my panos are taken inside buildings which can be quite dark, on this point the 5D MkII with very low noise has a great advantage, but I normally do not go beyond ISO 800.

High ISO is the Achilles' heel of Sony, but that's only once you start talking about 1600 and up. If you never shoot above 800 anyway, then you're much like me. I fully respect and admire the great high-iso quality of the Canons, but I don't need it.

 

[solasido]

Yup, rent a unit and try shooting for about 1-2 weeks might be a good idea for you before buying. Once you have bought one, it will be costly to jump wagon to another brand.

Anyway TS, sorry for the OT.

Back to yur initial question: There's no doubt that both of these FF cameras will give you good pictures. Each has features that the other doesn't. it's up to you to decide which features matter more to you. Do you want to shoot videos (no matter how cumversome a dslr may be for that)? Will you frequently be shooting at ISO 3200 or 6400? Do you need LiveView? Then maybe the Canon is for you. Do you want autofocus Carl Zeiss lenses as well as access to G lenses (equivalent to Canon's L)? In-body stabilization that works with all lenses? Class-leading resolution? Then maybe the Sony is a better choice.

My main tip would be to try and hold each of them, feel them in your hand, see which one has better ergonomics for your hand. In the end, it will be *you* who will need to hold the camera for hours, not anyone on this forum. So your own comfort matters the most.