Comparisons between Alpha 900 and 5D MKII


Status
Not open for further replies.

MachIII

New Member
Mar 8, 2009
143
0
0
Hangar
#1
Hi all,

What do you guys think of Sony A900 and Canon 5D MKII? Both are very good camera which are capable of making nice shots. Here are my comparisons of both hot shots.

Sony A900

+ Good handling and feel
+ Smart features like the Preview and secondary sensor on the hot shoe area
+ Integrated Image Stabilizer
+ Exact battery lifespan
+ Good contrast in colours
- Slightly bulky
- Small LCD on top of camera with little configurations
- No Live view and Video

Canon 5D MKII

+ Good handling and feel
+ Easy to use features and accessibilities
+ Great looking and soft colours
+ Large LCD on top of camera
- Non detail battery lifespan
- No integrated Image Stabilizer
- Expensive lens

Maybe your personal thoughts will be better as both seems rather on par.

Thank you very much.
 

mahojazz

New Member
Nov 20, 2007
175
0
0
#2
Well, it depends on whether you are new into photography or you already have a dslr and a series of lenses.
Something to add.
Sony A900
+ accepts both APS-C lens and FF lens

Canon 5D Mk2
- only accepts FF lens

with the above comparison, if u are using canon APS-C dslr + some APS-C lenses, going to 5D Mk2 = getting a totally new system. u need to upgrade body + FF lens. = high entry cost
But if you are already a Sony/Minolta user and with some APS-C lenses, u can get a few more FF lenses and still enjoy ur photography experience with A900. coz all your lenses will still be supported.
As for IQ, Colour, camera size, etc. its very subjective as diff user will have diff experience.
 

navlem

New Member
Sep 16, 2007
881
0
0
#3
A900 has better build also, survived Antartica, Dakar and many other rough situations before.
 

MachIII

New Member
Mar 8, 2009
143
0
0
Hangar
#4
Thanks a lot guys for your valuable inputs.

I have experience with DSLR before and currently do not have any systems of Sony and Canon. So it will be a new entry for these 2 make.

I have meddled with both systems before and the user experience is great. My intention of use is mainly for travelling and portrait use. So i will say an all rounder will be much appreciated. I understand there are basically no such thing as an all rounder camera. But both cameras really attract me. ;p

Getting both will be :bigeyes:.
 

mummum

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
263
0
0
#5
Thanks a lot guys for your valuable inputs.

I have experience with DSLR before and currently do not have any systems of Sony and Canon. So it will be a new entry for these 2 make.

I have meddled with both systems before and the user experience is great. My intention of use is mainly for travelling and portrait use. So i will say an all rounder will be much appreciated. I understand there are basically no such thing as an all rounder camera. But both cameras really attract me. ;p

Getting both will be :bigeyes:.
When you are in such a pinch, try to look otherwise, like the lens offering and their pricings.

Personally, i like Sony in-body IS, and Canon primes.

Bottomline, both DSLR can make superior photos in the right hands.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#6
Well, both systems have their strenghts and weaknesses.

The Canon has much cleaner high ISO noise.
The A900 has ridiculous amounts of detail.

Personally, I tend to shoot landscapes for travel and portraits for fun. So I rarely go above ISO 400, or even 800. I usually shoot at ISO 100-400. So the Sony A900 with the CZ 135mm is wonderful for portraits, and with the CZ 24-70 or Sigma 12-24 is great for landscapes. :D

If you already have Canon lenses, it may be good to continue there. If you need long fast telephoto lenses, like 600mm and up, Canon has a better selection. Or if you think you'll be shooting in dim lighting situations without flash a lot and need ISO 1600-3200...

But for the standard range, like 24-70, the Sony carl zeiss lens is really hard to beat.
 

MachIII

New Member
Mar 8, 2009
143
0
0
Hangar
#7
Thanks guys for your valuablable inputs.

I have found a link which has a comparison between 5D MKII and A900.

5D MKII & A900 comparisons

It seems that 5D MKII performs much better in terms of noise reduction. It seems more are incline towards Canon.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#8
Thanks guys for your valuablable inputs.

I have found a link which has a comparison between 5D MKII and A900.

5D MKII & A900 comparisons

It seems that 5D MKII performs much better in terms of noise reduction. It seems more are incline towards Canon.
Yup, at the cost of detail though.

Like I said in my previous post, it depends on your needs. At low ISOs the A900 is hard to beat. At higher ISO the Canon is better (but softer).

In a studio or daytime / landscape / ambient light photography, or if I might be caught in bad weather or freezing conditions, I'll take the A900.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#9
Thanks guys for your valuablable inputs.

I have found a link which has a comparison between 5D MKII and A900.

5D MKII & A900 comparisons

It seems that 5D MKII performs much better in terms of noise reduction. It seems more are incline towards Canon.
Oh, and one more thing... any so-called "review" site that compares high-end full frame cameras based on JPEG rather than RAW, and cannot provide accurate figures, is really not one I take seriously.
 

ManWearPants

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2008
4,198
6
0
Singapore
#10
CZ lenses costs more than L IS lenses. There are more lenses and accessories for Canon.

In my view, both bodies have their own strength. Somehow, Sony gives me the feel that they started from PnS to the dSLR, hence are more user friendly (easier to take good vibrant photo off the camera). Canon have evolved from SLR to dSLR. It gives me a more technical feel to them (harder to use and requires post processing).
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#11
CZ lenses costs more than L IS lenses. There are more lenses and accessories for Canon.
Actually not really... The only real equiv. CZ to L comparison is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, which is about the same price but has no IS.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#12
Hi MachIII

Go to the shops and handle both. U cannot go too wrong with either.

Ryan
 

zj2000

New Member
Mar 10, 2007
1,465
0
0
#13
The a900 is noisier at high iso than the 5dmkII even at the raw level before any noise reduction is introduced. So no it is not true that the 5dmkII is cleaner at the expense of detail. The 5d mkII is cleaner period. If you read dpreview's review of a900 and 5dmkII you'll get an idea how bad the sony is at the raw level at high iso. So I guess you need to balance the availability of inbody SSS with the ability to shoot at high iso. If SSS allows you to hand hold at 3 stops slower shutter speed but the 5dmkII can shoot at 1.5 stops higher iso and produce the same image quality then the advantage of the sony over the canon is reduced to 1.5 stops of hand holding ability. This is before taking in to account that 1.5 stops higher iso is better suited to shooting moving objects than any amount of SSS.
 

zj2000

New Member
Mar 10, 2007
1,465
0
0
#14
Btw, canon users will tell you to get the canon and sony users will tell you to get the sony so you will hardly get an unbiased answer here. Very soon someone will come in and tell you to get a d700. I am a canon user as you might have guessed already.

Some people will ask you to go to the shop and try out the cameras and buy the one that feels the most comfortable. This is bad advice as far as I'm concerned. What if the best camera out there has the worst grip? Most of us will adapt to our camera's grip. Many people lament that the 350d grip is terrible / small / cramped but now you can find many long time 350d users who feel perfectly comfortable using a 350d.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#15
Right zj2000. The best camera is what is best for u.
I am a 5DMk2 user as well, but I am not here to hardsell my satisfaction or sway decisions.

Whatever the case, I think the TS has lots of background knowledge on the two camera systems already.

Ryan
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#16
The a900 is noisier at high iso than the 5dmkII even at the raw level before any noise reduction is introduced. So no it is not true that the 5dmkII is cleaner at the expense of detail. The 5d mkII is cleaner period. If you read dpreview's review of a900 and 5dmkII you'll get an idea how bad the sony is at the raw level at high iso.
Yes, and nobody's denying that the A900 is noisier at high ISOs, so calm down and relax. However, at low ISOs, the A900 beats the 5DMkII in resolution, and most importantly (to me), in Dynamic range.

That's why I said it depends on your needs. If you need to shoot high ISO (1600 and higher) frequently, by all means, get the canon. If you are more of a low-iso shooter, do studio work, or landscape, ambient light photography, the A900 will give a higher resolution and dynamic range.
 

yannh

New Member
Dec 10, 2007
577
0
0
Woodlands
#17
In my view, both bodies have their own strength. Somehow, Sony gives me the feel that they started from PnS to the dSLR, hence are more user friendly (easier to take good vibrant photo off the camera). Canon have evolved from SLR to dSLR. It gives me a more technical feel to them (harder to use and requires post processing).
Yes, Sony is a newer brand in DSLR market, that's why most people still talk about N & C.

If you do not know, Sony DSLR does not evolved from PnS, but inherited Minolta DSLR technology. Check the mount type and you'll know. Minolta has many great SLR technology breakthrough in the past, including started AF system before N & C did.

And if you do not know, Sony has been a major DSLR image sensor manufacturer all these years, way before Sony DSLR appear.

As for these 2 body concern, both are very good camera. The consideration should be more on the system selection + cost/value selection.
 

bEnd1ck

Senior Member
May 10, 2008
2,199
2
0
behind the viewfinder
www.flickr.com
#18
Btw, canon users will tell you to get the canon and sony users will tell you to get the sony so you will hardly get an unbiased answer here. Very soon someone will come in and tell you to get a d700. I am a canon user as you might have guessed already.

Some people will ask you to go to the shop and try out the cameras and buy the one that feels the most comfortable. This is bad advice as far as I'm concerned. What if the best camera out there has the worst grip? Most of us will adapt to our camera's grip. Many people lament that the 350d grip is terrible / small / cramped but now you can find many long time 350d users who feel perfectly comfortable using a 350d.
First para, very true. haha. :D
Second para - Well, I guess sometimes when people say "the one that feels the most comfortable", it is not restricted to hand holding comfort. The ease of handling and assessing functions, the buttons, the interface and of course 'comfortable' with the pictures produced (colours,dynamic range, noise, sharpness,details etc), are loosely included. ;) To some extent, clicking shutter sound included. haha. I'm from the canon camp as well. But when I hear Rashkae's A900 firing next to me, omg, I love that clicking sound. haha.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom