I read a lot of the forums and this one seems to be a good source of information, so I’m posting my question here. I am still primarily a film user (67); my major interests are landscapes and I like to print big. I have a Pentax K20D, but use it mostly for snapshots. I am considering converting to all digital. I can’t justify a MF digital; I don’t like the idea of being confined to APS-C, so it’s one of full format 35s with as much resolution I can get for a reasonable price.
Choice A: Sony 850, 24-70 Zeiss and the 75-300 G or 70-400 G or
Choice B: Canon 5D II, 70-200 F4, 300 F4 or 400, a Zeiss wide angle and my old 50mm F1.4 Pentax.
The Sony is attractive, but I am hesitant to invest in a relative newcomer and although it has in-body SR, I know from this forum that the number of lenses which can be used is limited (unlike Canon). I have no great investment in Pentax 35mm lenses (since all the good ones were stolen!); I do have a good selection of 645 and 67 lenses which could be used on either system.
Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks
Tom
although it has in-body SR, I know from this forum that the number of lenses which can be used is limited (unlike Canon).
That statement is the wrong way around, surely? All the lenses you put on the Sony (that were designed for a-mount) will have fully working SSS (bar a special and extremely rare macro). M42 lenses aren't stablised, no, but then they're not in any camera other than some Pentax models that allow you to set the aperture & focal length... but then, chipped adapters are cheap now.
If you like to do some casual landscape photography, as well as some more organised stuff, you will appreciate having all lenses stablised. I've taken many of my landscapes handheld with SSS (I use the A700 - www.rharris-images.com ) but I of course prefer a tripod. With the Canon, you pretty much have to take a tripod with you.
I see the Canon as being a better all round machine, but for pure landscape photography you can't really do any better than the Sony set up (for the price) in 35mm/FF. I also wouldn't worry about Sony being 'relatively new'. They have came a very long way in such a short space of time and, of course, have support from forma Minolta workers... so they do have the history of the a-mount in mind. With Sony being such a global company, I can't see them backing down any time soon.
You will hear a lot of different theories, and the truth is, both are good cameras but far from perfect. I would actually want to have both, the Sony for the film-like rendition and exquisite Zeiss AF lenses, the Canon for the high-iso performance and the ability to use ZE lenses.
ricardovaste wrote:
That statement is the wrong way around, surely? All the lenses you put on the Sony (that were designed for a-mount) will have fully working SSS (bar a special and extremely rare macro). M42 lenses aren't stablised, no, but then they're not in any camera other than some Pentax models that allow you to set the aperture & focal length... but then, chipped adapters are cheap now.
If you like to do some casual landscape photography, as well as some more organised stuff, you will appreciate having all lenses stablised. I've taken many of my landscapes handheld with SSS (I use the A700 - www.rharris-images.com ) but I of course prefer a tripod. With the Canon, you pretty much have to take a tripod with you.
I see the Canon as being a better all round machine, but for pure landscape photography you can't really do any better than the Sony set up (for the price) in 35mm/FF. I also wouldn't worry about Sony being 'relatively new'. They have came a very long way in such a short space of time and, of course, have support from forma Minolta workers... so they do have the history of the a-mount in mind. With Sony being such a global company, I can't see them backing down any time soon.
m42 lenses are stabilized with Sony cameras, but a chipped adapter optimizes the stabilization by giving focal length info to the camera. Stabilization works with my m42 Zeiss 135mm, but it works better when I used a chipped adapter. I believe that the default setting for SSS without a chip is 50mm.
With these two cameras you need to see the difference yourself.
The Canon is much more versatile, but the colors aren't "popping" as they are with A850 and Zeiss lenses or Minolta G lenses.
Both cameras represent serious, but completely different compromises:
A850 pro's:
- Color, SSS (IS), viewfinder
- Zeiss lenses
A850 con's:
- High ISO noise (>= ISO 800), massive mirror slap
- no lifeview !!
5D Mk II pro's:
- High ISO, body, USM lens drive
- unquestioned future.
5D Mk II con's:
- Mediocre DR at low ISO resulting in unexpected noise (banding).
Why don't you wait for the rumored Nikon D700X or D900, you have been waiting for so long?
Both are great camera systems and both have their strengths and weaknesses which only you can personally assign weights to each one and come to an overall decision based on your shooting styles and aesthetic preferences.
Sony has the richer, more vibrant color fingerprint than the Canon.
Canon has better high iso performance.
There is the Sony in-body IS versus Canon's in-lens IS differences.
Ideally I would like to see both in a camera system in the future.
I hope Canon would introduce IBIS in their next 1ds4 as a better way not to have to sacrifice low iso performance for low-light shooting ability, provided your subjects are not moving of course.
I think Canon has a larger selection of lenses in the tele range including a lot more big tele primes, but Sony maybe working on introducing their own soon.
Sony has the advantage of the finest AF Zeiss zooms at the wide and mid focal lengths, 16-35, 24-70.
Both have excellent portrait primes at 85 and 135 focal lengths.
Canon has a line of T/S lenses which Sony doesn't right now.
Canon has Liveview and Sony doesn't. This helps greatly in focusing manual focus lenses and seeing what parts of a scene are in the DOF.
Sony has a slightly larger/brighter viewfinder than 5d2, I think.
M645 lenses can be adapted to Canon, not sure about Sony though.
A850 and 5d2 are both slower fps cameras, but with A900 you get more fps, a nice plus for Sony.
Canon benefits also from all the fine Zeiss ZE primes, of which only a couple are made in ZS mount for Sony.
Have fun choosing, both are great.
Tom, may I ask what are your present MF lenses you may want to use on an FF DSLR?
In the 'limited lens lineup' argument, what are your 'must have' focal lengths, and what does Sony/Minolta lack for you? You have access to chipped Leica R and Zeiss (CY) primes with a pretty easy mount change to complement the class-leading portrait ZAs.
LV would be good, but not really necessary for most landscapes...unless you are doing something unusual requiring one compositional element to be in perfect focus at a very wide aperture. The in-body SS is a winner, however, as is Sony colour - very close to E6 rendition, especially if you use the much hated Sony raw coverter, IDC, which clips blacks like E6 but delivers outstanding colour fidelity and tonality.
The Sony body appears to be more robust with excellent ergo. The shutter/mirror actuation is loud but has little impact on image quality, even handheld. If, like most MF/LF guys, you are chasing maximum performance you would not be much interested in very high ISO...why use a setting willingly that will degrade output, unless forced upon you by circumstances that seldom occur?
Sony reportedly has about 13% of the DSLR market worldwide (less in US, more in Europe), heading upwards; and are not likely to be going out the back door anytime soon. I doubt resale will suffer much even if that happened. Lots of Minolta diehards out there...and BTW, lots of wonderful Minolta lenses, like the 200mm f2.8 APO and its APO TCs. Good luck with either, both work very well indeed in these good times..
If you can't justify MF digital due to price AND you already own a good selection of Pentax 645 lenses, you would likely be the ideal candidate for the upcoming Pentax 645 Digital body. It may be that when you add up potential lens costs for either the Canon or Sony system plus body, you may be very close to the cost of the forthcoming 645 Digital body since you may already own the lenses you need. PMA is in a few weeks and Photokina in September so you may wish to see what shakes out. At the very least, Sony should finally introduce a wide angle ZA Zeiss prime which may alter the equation for FF digital FF landscape. Just a thought.
Either camera is pretty good - I think you should really take a look at what lenses you'd use before committing.
As for a newcomer - I don't think Sony's going away any time soon in the DSLR market, so I wouldn't worry about it. Though, I must admit, the "comfort" of having a large DSLR manufacturer is appealing.
--
I personally went with Sony A850, 24-70 and 70-400G and I'm happy. It's not a perfect camera, but nothing is really.
Although it really dislike Canon controls, I was tempted by the 5dmk2 and 17-40 f/4L, but eventually the Sony color and IBIS won me over more than the 5d2's high ISO performance, as I rarely shoot over ISO 800 anyway. Also, I don't care for video or live view, two otherwise "plusses" in the Canon column.
I would take a look also at how you intend to use the cameras -- If you're primarily a landscaper, I would assume you'd be on a tripod? If so, the Sony's IBIS isn't that big of a deal...though having MLU integrated with 2sec timer might be.
What is the difference in register distance between the two? If one is planning to use adapted and/or converted lenses, this could be a major factor, no?
helimat wrote:
What is the difference in register distance between the two? If one is planning to use adapted and/or converted lenses, this could be a major factor, no?
0.5mm, it's not a significant difference. The problem with A mount is that the mount is of insufficient diameter to allow use of adapters for bayonet-mount 35mm lenses. EF mount is larger diameter and thus can accept these adapters.
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies; it reinforces some of the impressions I already had. I like the look, and based on what I’ve read, the viewfinder (might be revealing my age here, can’t warm up to live view, although the implementation in the K20D is not so hot) and rendering of the SONY and I don’t need high ISO. Canon, on the other hand, has much more availability of new and used lenses. The 70-200 F4 and the 300 or 400 are about all I need at the long end and my impression of these is they are about as good as it gets. At the wide end I have some alt lenses (M42) that I know are easy to adapt.
I was disappointed to hear a chipped adapter is required to get focal length information to the Sony with manual lenses (the K20D just asks you what the focal length is); however, I’m sure I could get by with the two zooms (24-70, 70-400) and maybe some used Minolta lenses.
I guess what it’s coming to is the I’d like the Sony 850 with the Canon telephotos and Canon’s ability to mount other lenses.
The MF lenses I would use are the Pentax 645 35mm and 120mm macro and maybe the Pentax 67 300 and 400mm ED lenses. I often considered getting a Zoerk shift adapter for use with the 35mm.
Tariq: I’ve been waiting for the 645D since it was announced (enough said). I’ll see what happens this year, but I’m prepared to switch to 35mm FF. BTW did you almost buy a 645 from me a few years ago?
Tom
The way I think about cameras these days is that bodies are like computers in that they depreciate and new models come out fairly frequently whose performance trumps the prior models. Lenses, on the other hand, usually stay "current" for a long time relative to bodies and are usable in some cases, for ever. So for Canon versus Sony (versus Nikon for that matter) if you don't like the current body, just wait a while and something better may come along. Nikon was playing second fiddle to Canon for years and now they appear ahead in the body department. This may change again in the future, who knows? What won't change nearly as fast is the lens selection. I would weight the lens selection higher, therefore, than the current crop of digital bodies. Good luck in your decision. The good news is that the choices are better than ever before irrespective of what you choose.
It seems that Sony is being criticized for lacking some optics. While this is definitely true, whatever is available is top class. Four Zeiss lenses covering the 16 to 135 range, and two outstanding G zooms covering the 70 to 400 range. Add to that a very good 1:1 macro, while not a Zeiss, nevertheless undoubtedly better than the Canon L equivalent. All what is missing is a few luminous wide primes in the f/1.2 to f/1.4 range and a Zeiss macro. Probably coming soon.
