 |
rdgzone8
Offline
•
[X]
|
Paoletto,
I'd went with Sony, but still have the 5D, and may well need to round out a "tele-only Canon kit" for wildlife, given the cost of longer Sony lenses, now and in the future as well.
The Sony is a very good camera body, I'm interested in Landscape, currently have a Minolta 20mm, the Leica 19 with Leitax mount, a Distagon 28 2.8 Leitax converted, the Minolta 35mm f2.0, then a jump to the Minolta 200mm 2.8 with 1.4x TC. Already have a Leica 100 apo macro, currently not modified with the Leitax mount, going to get serious about selling the Leica 19, the L100apo, a L180/3.4, and a L280 apo and L1.4x and round out the landscape kit, either with a 60 Leica macro or a Minolta 100mm f2.0 if I can find one. Yes, the L100 apo is perhaps one of the very best, but its manual focus "throw" is extremely slow, using a Minolta 100 2.0 or their 2.8 macro would be faster.
I like the features offered on the Sony, and its sensor's color response somewhat better than the Canon 5D -- but currently believe that with good post processing, colors captured by the sensor are somewhat less important. The Sony 800-class full frame body at the prices currently might be hard to beat as well, although the 900's viewfinder is excellent.
Looking at your current kit, yes, a shaved mirror 5D or 5DII -- and your current lenses -- from the Pentax 15, 19, 28, 50, 85, 28-85, and the Canon 70-200 would round out a substantial kit -- the Leitax mounts, if you go to Sony, with the proper chips will add significantly to your cost, plus the Sony body.
In my own work, I'm trying to get practical, AF is a near must, not with wides, or a medium macro, but everything else, thus the Minolta AF lenses are "good enough", and downright intriguing in their own color response, sharpness and utility.
RDG
|
| Nov 07, 2009 at 04:30 PM |
| |
|
 |
quite simple really