shirozina wrote:
And a set of new lenses to go with it I hope
There's the rub.
Even with the soon to be available Zeiss lenses in the canon mount I really feel more replacement lenses are very much needed from canon, especially of course a 16-35 or similar.
I've been adding up the cost of high quality wide lenses for a canon body from say 14 to 28mm for work where you really need edge to edge sharpness and that means a full set of zeiss primes and a canon 14mm prime...and that set ain't cheap!
That is one of the attractions of nikon at present..with the 14-24mm covering a lot of those focal lengths when supplimented with a zf 28mm prime.(and even still with say the new 21mm zf thrown in to the set)
Now the new 24mm comes with some kind of super new nano coating..is this similar, I wonder to the stuff used by nikon on their new lenses...how great will this 24mm lens be...and if it really does cut the mustard as no canon wide has done before, just how long will it take canon to replace their wide zoom with a similarly specced lens of the highest image quality also?...oh for canon Lens roadmap for the next 12 months.
And thats why I'm waiting to see what Nikon are going to do - they have the glass I want in the 24mm shift and 14-24mm but the 12mp bodies are not enough to make me abandon the Canon platform. Quite frankly I've not been overwhelmed by their recent lens upgrades - the 16-35II was not the lens it should have been and neither it seems is the 14mm II.
shirozina wrote:
And thats why I'm waiting to see what Nikon are going to do - they have the glass I want in the 24mm shift and 14-24mm but the 12mp bodies are not enough to make me abandon the Canon platform. Quite frankly I've not been overwhelmed by their recent lens upgrades - the 16-35II was not the lens it should have been and neither it seems is the 14mm II.
Yes, that is the unknown quantity in this. How does Nikon respond, if at all. The D700 is now a couple hundred more than the 5DMkII and "only" 12 mp. A D700 with a 21-24mp sensor (the projected D900) could be quite attractive. Given that the D700 only recently arrived, how long do we wait for the D900? Is it another year away? Will sales of the D700 suffer significantly in the meantime?
If Zeiss come out with 28mm shift or Canon updates their painfully underperforming 24mm TS-E I could be tempted to stay with Canon. Infact a better 28/24 shift on my existing 5D would be better than the current 24 TS-E with a 5D2.
We just don't know yet about the sensor differences of the A900 and 1dsIII. My bet is that, in RAW, the A900 is slightly better at low ISO, and the 5Dii is slightly better at high ISO. Either way, here are the facts about the cameras that make the A900 a better camera, IMO.
Canon has live view, movies, lower cost
Sony has bigger, better VF with shutter, two card slots, more fps, higher flash sync, more AF points, AF illuminator, in body IS
Hmmmm.....
With this price, Sony clearly isn't gaining too many former Canon shooters, but Sony is starting from the ground up with a better camera.
Lotusm50 wrote:
OK, now that the Canon 5DmkII is out, when do we get the comparison with the Sony a900 that is screaming to be made?
I was ready to dump everything an buy into an a900 and ZA lenses, but now I'm not so sure. I'd really like to see a competent comparative shakeout done -- competent being the operative word, but I'm not sure it will come. Maybe this is something for diglloyd.com to consider doing.
Sony has shown nothing to indicate that the a900 will produce a better or higher res file. But as you know some of the specs for the a900 are better.
For whats available, the 5DII looks much better. But everyone is posting camera jpegs. Canon has done a lot of work on their jpegs. But I assume most people are interested in shooting RAW for comparison.
Imaging Resource shoots that studio setup. They've done it already with the a900. That's my favorite for comparing cameras. In terms of file quality I don't think a written review means anything. Show me the files.
I hate to say it, but there is something about the 5DII which just leaves me cold. Even if the image quality lives up to the original, the camera just seems boring, like an old Ford Taurus or the color beige. There is just nothing physically exciting nor tactile there to really lust after. Stupid perhaps and perhaps its just the familiarity of having owned the original 5D.
The question that might need to be asked of Son or one of the alternative lens wizards is if the 5DII's mirror box remains unchanged, or has Canon thrown a bug in the ointment and made it more difficult to use alternative lenses, or even that the new mirror would make some of the protruding lens mounts and optics work on the 5DII? I'm sitting on a collection of Leica R lenses, wonder how may times I'd have to multiply the 5DII's street price to buy an R10?
Lots of reasons to smile however, if our dollar is worth anything at all this time next month!!!!
rdgzone8 wrote:
The question that might need to be asked of Son or one of the alternative lens wizards is if the 5DII's mirror box remains unchanged, or has Canon thrown a bug in the ointment and made it more difficult to use alternative lenses, or even that the new mirror would make some of the protruding lens mounts and optics work on the 5DII? I'm sitting on a collection of Leica R lenses, wonder how may times I'd have to multiply the 5DII's street price to buy an R10?
Lots of reasons to smile however, if our dollar is worth anything at all this time next month!!!!
I just discovered that the most recent Apple RAW update for Aperture includes support for the Sony A900. Thus far, this offers the best conversions I have seen. Very impressive! The images I am looking at are the lower ISO RAW studio test images from imaging resource.
Please, remember that the Imaging Resource test of the A900 used a 100-300mm zoom lens, had high Iso NR turned on for RAW, and, according to Iliah Borg, the files were underexposed. Other than that, they're a great reference. .
At the current prices, a new 1Ds can get you an A900 with ZA 16-35 and ZA 24-70. Very tempting imho. I'm even considering dumping my 1Ds2 and adapted Contax lenses in favour of Sony FF and Zeiss lenses.
edwardkaraa wrote:
At the current prices, a new 1Ds can get you an A900 with ZA 16-35 and ZA 24-70. Very tempting imho. I'm even considering dumping my 1Ds2 and adapted Contax lenses in favour of Sony FF and Zeiss lenses.
I hate to say it, but I like the look of the A900. Must be that old-school prism design. The ZA lenses certainly make Sony a more attractive option as well. The prices, on the other hand...
StevenPA wrote:
I hate to say it, but I like the look of the A900. Must be that old-school prism design. The ZA lenses certainly make Sony a more attractive option as well. The prices, on the other hand...
I admit it that I like the design too
Prices, as far as I'm concerned, since my only interest is in the ZA lenses, are not far from Canon's L equivalents.
Re. the 5DII's HD capacity—can it record sound? If so, can it use balanced cables? Stereo? No XLR connectors?
Video, no matter how good IQ-wise, is nothing without good quality sound. In the old days (film) sound was recorded on a separate system. Back to the future?
Call me old fashioned, but I feel uncomfortable buying a camera that can record videos. I know I don't have to use this feature, but knowing it's there, if you see what I mean. I know in the future it is going to be difficult to find DSLR without video. I hope Canon will spare us this in the 1D series.
Edward, I feel the same way. But I know I'd use it every now and again if I had it. For me, the inclusion of really quite gadgety functions is a double edged sword. However, I would gladly sacrifice all the R&D money that went into the video function for a body that cost $2000-$2200, or for a body that cost the same but had some features and functions that are exclusively 1-series like 100% viewfinder.
I don't normally get too worked up about what upgrades have or don't have, but Canon's product differentiation is really starting to get on my nerves.
shirozina wrote:
If Zeiss come out with 28mm shift or Canon updates their painfully underperforming 24mm TS-E I could be tempted to stay with Canon. Infact a better 28/24 shift on my existing 5D would be better than the current 24 TS-E with a 5D2.
At the glacial rate Canon is updating lenses I wouldn't expect a 24 TS-E update for another 3-5 years and I think that's optimistic.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Call me old fashioned, but I feel uncomfortable buying a camera that can record videos. I know I don't have to use this feature, but knowing it's there, if you see what I mean. I know in the future it is going to be difficult to find DSLR without video. I hope Canon will spare us this in the 1D series.
Just set the appropriate CF for live view and forget all about the video capture.
PJ's wanted this feature so you can bet you bottom dollar it will be in 1 series probably with the 1D IV in as little as 6 months (PMA) IMO.
edwardkaraa wrote:
At the current prices, a new 1Ds can get you an A900 with ZA 16-35 and ZA 24-70. Very tempting imho. I'm even considering dumping my 1Ds2 and adapted Contax lenses in favour of Sony FF and Zeiss lenses.
Edward, I think I am with you on this. I do wish that there were more Zeiss lens choices for the Sony. There are other unanswered questions, though, and I don't think I am going to switch until they get good answers.
How good, really, are the 2 Sony-Zeiss ZA zooms? Are they effective substitutes for say the ZE/ZF lenses? Will be see more ZA lenses -- whether AF with Sony, or manual focus clones of the ZF lenses? How much of a differences does the extra 2 bits (14 bit vs.12 bit) of the 5D MkII matter over the a900? Sensor aside, the Sony a900 appears to have a superior body, but I'm not sure how much those advantages matter to me. It comes down to the lenses, sensor, and image processing. The jury is, however, still out on this issues. I am am just hoping the the Court can find a competent and unbiased jury to decide the case.
. 