Yea, I think some here need to find a reason to bash the A900. It's already well known the JPG's out of the camera aren't the best, but they keep using them as a reference for the cameras ability
pdmphoto wrote:
Yea, I think some here need to find a reason to bash the A900. It's already well known the JPG's out of the camera aren't the best, but they keep using them as a reference for the cameras ability
Agreed. I end up having to be the Sony defender. lol. I keep getting sucked in! BTW, why is this thread in the Alternative lens/gear forum?
Guys, take it easy, I'm not bashing the A900. I'm not going to buy the 5D2 for sure, but I'm seriously considering to buy the A900. Raw or Jpg, this camera has been shown imho to have nicer color and worse noise than it's competitors. You can chose to see differently, it's your right. But for me, noise is not such a great issue, and luckily for other people as well, otherwise, noone would buy a MFDB.
1) Keep my 30d, keep having fun with it, accept its iso-shortcomings and lack of weathersealing and other stuff, spend some of my saved money on a 135 2.0 and keep shooting, having fun.
2) Sell my 30d and all my crop lenses, get the 5d mkII (this is my plan, I do have it preordered.. ), get a 135 2.0 and have a 24 1.4, 50 1.4, 58 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 and 70-200 2.8 lineup.
3) Sell all my canon stuff, get a nikon d700, 14-24 2.8, 35 f/2, 50 1.4, 55 1.2 AI, 85 1.4 and 135 2.0
4) Sell all my canon stuff, get a sony a900, wide prime(?), 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 135 1.8
It is hard for a simple guy like me to choose :P I realize that nikon won't accept my rokkor or most of my other alt lenses, but on the other hand it has the nice 55 1.2 AI that works natively (mf of course) and the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are good. The a900 doesen't have the iso capacity of the 5d mkII and d700, or... so far, hard to tell conclusively. I won't get to use my rokkor 58 1.2 fully due to mirror clearance issues, and I do not want to shave my mirror (warranty issues etc)..
Okay, I've finally made up my mind. I will be buying the 5D2. Part of me wants to wait till next year to see if Canon bring out a cheaper full frame body, but another part of me thinks that I should just get the 5D2 and get on with my life. I've been toying with the idea of getting a Nikon D700, but the Nikon lens lineup isn't comprehensive enough IMHO, Canon are the brand with a full pro lineup.
If I just needed AF then I would get a Canon 5D, but for my work I need Live View.
ulrikft wrote:
For me, the alternatives are several..
1) Keep my 30d, keep having fun with it, accept its iso-shortcomings and lack of weathersealing and other stuff, spend some of my saved money on a 135 2.0 and keep shooting, having fun.
2) Sell my 30d and all my crop lenses, get the 5d mkII (this is my plan, I do have it preordered.. ), get a 135 2.0 and have a 24 1.4, 50 1.4, 58 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 and 70-200 2.8 lineup.
3) Sell all my canon stuff, get a nikon d700, 14-24 2.8, 35 f/2, 50 1.4, 55 1.2 AI, 85 1.4 and 135 2.0
4) Sell all my canon stuff, get a sony a900, wide prime(?), 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 135 1.8
It is hard for a simple guy like me to choose :P I realize that nikon won't accept my rokkor or most of my other alt lenses, but on the other hand it has the nice 55 1.2 AI that works natively (mf of course) and the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are good. The a900 doesen't have the iso capacity of the 5d mkII and d700, or... so far, hard to tell conclusively. I won't get to use my rokkor 58 1.2 fully due to mirror clearance issues, and I do not want to shave my mirror (warranty issues etc)..
bobbytan wrote:
Welcome back David! Life is too short. Let's enjoy our journey here .... with the 5D II.
That's my perspective as well. I waited a year and passed on the 1DsIII because it was (a) too heavy, and (b) very expensive. I'm glad I waited. But for another $250 - $500 or less price drop that may happen with the 5DII in or about mid-2009, I'd much rather buy it now.
I've always felt with the original 5D that it was close to the perfect camera, for me and that it would be even closer to perfect, for me, if it (a) had 18-20 megapixels (i.e., about 50% more pixels than the 5D to have a noticeable incremental increase in detail), (b) sensor shake/cleaning (albeit imperfect sensor shake/cleaning, and (c) more custom function settings. With the 5DII, Canon has included everything I wanted, and a lot more.
moire wrote:
Eh ? 85 1.4 135 1.8 and zeiss 16-35 2.8 and that prototype that was showed at last PMA, There are ONLY AF primes for A mount. the zooms got ssm too.
Okay .... my apologies .... I was thinking about the ZE lenses.
I'm seriously considering just getting a d700 + 50 1.4 tomorrow or something, trying it out until november/desember when the 5d mkII comes, if I like it, I'll keep it and sell my canon stuff, if I hate it, I'll sell the nikon with a small loss and consider it a learning experience
I was very tempted to try the D700 and 14-24 lens .... until Canon announced the 5D Mk II .... and Zeiss announced their ZE line for EOS bodies. Now I am firmly grounded on the Canon side, and can't wait to place my order for the ZE 21 Distagon ... as I know it will be an awesome combo for landscape photographers!
), get a 135 2.0 and have a 24 1.4, 50 1.4, 58 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 and 70-200 2.8 lineup.
