This sounds like a Sony Blog, I cannot believe what I am hearing. Everyone was waiting for Canon to release the 5D Mark II, now they have, with better features than any of us could have imagined. If someone would have told you that you would be getting all of the features in the 5D Mark II for $2699.93, no one would have believed it. Why can't we just wait and see for ourselves, how the mid range camera's perform. I read the articles, but the reviewer is going to lean the way that best suits his situation. I have Canon DSLR gear, but I own three Sony HDTV, a pair of wireless Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround headphones with a gyro for head tracking, I own Sony HD Camcorder, Etc. So I am not a Sony hater; However if Sony ever gets to the top in DSLR's watch the prices jump 10 fold. Sony will also make there cameras, use only Sony products. A few years ago Sony only offered 90 Day warranties on there camera's. I do not believe that you can have to many features. If you do not like the HD Video, don't use it. I wonder out of this group how many people make over $100,000 with there camera's each year. When you start making more from photography, then the company you work for will decide what camera you use. All I am saying guys is lets be fair and wait to see. Also there is an external Stereo microphone that you can purchase to get great auto using the hot shoe.
For the studio lab test shots, this is not the case. They always use a Sigma 70mm lens with all bodies:
"Now let's compare the Sony A900 to the Canon 1Ds Mark III. I shot both with a Sigma 70mm f/2.8, the lab lenses we use for SLRgear.com testing to get more reliable results."
Furthermore, they also used the Sony Zeiss 24-70 2,.8 for a lot of their non lab test general samples. Finally, the lab tests are not underexposed according to the histogram in Aperture, at least the low ISO shots. I have not looked at the high ISO shots. Go take a look yourself.
douglasf13 wrote:
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. .
tonyakins wrote:
This sounds like a Sony Blog, I cannot believe what I am hearing. Everyone was waiting for Canon to release the 5D Mark II, now they have, with better features than any of us could have imagined. If someone would have told you that you would be getting all of the features in the 5D Mark II for $2699.93, no one would have believed it.
Are you serious? Other than the sensor, the Digic 4 chip, sensor cleaning (already in their cheaper cameras) and the ability to do (silent) HD video, the new 5D is not all that different than the old 5D. Further, people all over the web have been, for over a year, anticipating just such a feature set -- if not more features than finally arrived with 5D MkII. This camera with its features and price point was widely "imagined" and anticipated, so I really don't know what you are talking about.
As for me, I've been knocking and discounting Sony every which way since they got into the DSLR business. However, I've got to say that in an initial comparison with the new Canon 5D MkII, they have a potentially competitive product (more so than any of their other DSLR's). A lot of people justifiably interested in this product and want to know more. The a900 deserves to be compared and scrutinized and it just may meet the needs of some better than the Canon.
At the moment, it would appear that Sony is actually putting great price pressure on the competition regarding fundamental still camera features in the FF segment of the market. Hard to imagine that somehow they will increase this price 10 fold! Beyond the batteries(and Canon is going with proprietary batteries as well), you can still use industry standard CF cards. Sony tried shackling people to just their memory sticks early on in some of their lower end digital cameras and they quickly found out that the market would not have it. Had Sony not came out with its apparently much better body and huge 100% viewfinder, then yes, a 21MP 5DII would have been impressive. Competition is a great thing!
tonyakins wrote:
This sounds like a Sony Blog, I cannot believe what I am hearing. Everyone was waiting for Canon to release the 5D Mark II, now they have, with better features than any of us could have imagined. If someone would have told you that you would be getting all of the features in the 5D Mark II for $2699.93, no one would have believed it. Why can't we just wait and see for ourselves, how the mid range camera's perform. I read the articles, but the reviewer is going to lean the way that best suits his situation. I have Canon DSLR gear, but I own three Sony HDTV, a pair of wireless Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround headphones with a gyro for head tracking, I own Sony HD Camcorder, Etc. So I am not a Sony hater; However if Sony ever gets to the top in DSLR's watch the prices jump 10 fold. Sony will also make there cameras, use only Sony products. A few years ago Sony only offered 90 Day warranties on there camera's. I do not believe that you can have to many features. If you do not like the HD Video, don't use it. I wonder out of this group how many people make over $100,000 with there camera's each year. When you start making more from photography, then the company you work for will decide what camera you use. All I am saying guys is lets be fair and wait to see. Also there is an external Stereo microphone that you can purchase to get great auto using the hot shoe. ...Show more →
Canon have stuck to the original 'philosophy' of the 5D - put a top class full frame sensor (the most important part of the camera IMO) into a descent body and offer it at an incredibly low price by cutting a few corners with some of it's other features. Thank you Canon . Granted the Sony does look good though and they have managed to make a competitor to the 1ds3 for the price of the 5D2 which is obviously going to be interesting....we are living in interesting times indeed!
Yes, the Canon has a built in mic as well as an auxiliary input. There is an input for an external mic but not a heavy duty, XLR type input for balanced cables. Looks like a mini plug. HD recording is limited to 12min and 4GB. In no way will this compete with a dedicated video camera.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
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?
Lotusm50 wrote:
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.
Sony's ace-in-the-hole are the new CZ lenses. The ZA 24-70, 135/1.8, 50 Macro and 70-300G are already more attractive than anything the competition has. The 85/1.4 is up there with the best (ditto the 'Minolta' 200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8), and we might reasonably have very high hopes for the new Zeiss 16-35 which surely will be at least as good as the Contax 17-35N. When the mooted fast wide prime arrives, that's a top-notch lens for just about every occasion (though I'd like to see a better fast 50 in the mix).
My reservation lies with the bodies: the AF is fast, but not smart. The control system is great but the vertical grip is a disaster. The price is good, but the sensor looks noisy. In-body SS is a revelation with short, fast lenses – but it's not as quick or effective where you most need it: in longer FLs.
I think we're all very comfortable with what the 5D II and 1Ds III can do. The only legitimate gripe has been with certain Canon lenses, but to Canon's credit they have given us more than we asked for: a better 14mm; a better 24mm (the speed and utility of which remains under-appreciated) and – with luck – long-overdue 24-70L IS. When the 50 / 85 and 135 L's get IS, I literally can't think what else we could ask for.
shirozina wrote:
How about the much needed 24mm TS-E MKII?
...and a wide zoom to match the performance of nikon's 14-24..only when they give us this and the above mentioned updated 24mm shift lens will canon have really provided the full range of lenses to match their very very good bodies...top notch wide zoom from 14-24 for the really wide sub 20mm stuff, zeiss ZE 21 and 28mm primes, canon new 24 prime and new 24tse...now there is a great lens line up to to do what it says on the tin.
If the new nano thingy technology and new design being used in the new 24mm L lens gives it a huge improvement over the old, then we would hope to expect the same new versions of the 24tse and wide zoom.
hubsand wrote:
Sony's ace-in-the-hole are the new CZ lenses. The ZA 24-70, 135/1.8, 50 Macro and 70-300G are already more attractive than anything the competition has. The 85/1.4 is up there with the best (ditto the 'Minolta' 200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8), and we might reasonably have very high hopes for the new Zeiss 16-35 which surely will be at least as good as the Contax 17-35N. When the mooted fast wide prime arrives, that's a top-notch lens for just about every occasion (though I'd like to see a better fast 50 in the mix).
I tend to agree with you, at least in part. But we don't know yet how well the ZA 24-70 and ZA 16-35 will perform on full frame sensor, or have a good idea of what their other characterisitcs are like. The ZA 135/1.8 is definitely an attractive lens, the ZA 85/1.4, from all reports to date, distinctly less so. I don't know of a ZA 50 macro -- I don't think it exists. And while a couple of the "Minolta" lenses are potentially competitive, no one is going to be basing a system change decision on them. Your optimism may be warranted, but I think I need to see a lot more evidence before I put a dozen or more lenses on the market and jump ship.
It's not going to be long before we know. The samples taken with the A900 and the Zeiss lenses on Dpreview look very promising. I'm sure we'll see all kinds of comparisons and lens tests in the very near future. The only doubts I have is how much Sony is willing to invest in Zeiss lenses and how extensive the lens line-up will be. I personally don't like the Minolta look, so the ZA are the main attraction for me.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I tend to agree with you, at least in part. But we don't know yet how well the ZA 24-70 and ZA 16-35 will perform on full frame sensor, or have a good idea of what their other characterisitcs are like. The ZA 135/1.8 is definitely an attractive lens, the ZA 85/1.4, from all reports to date, distinctly less so. I don't know of a ZA 50 macro -- I don't think it exists. And while a couple of the "Minolta" lenses are potentially competitive, no one is going to be basing a system change decision on them. Your optimism may be warranted, but I think I need to see a lot more evidence before I put a dozen or more lenses on the market and jump ship.
Just a correction about Aperture and A900 raw conversion. There is no support yet. I had accidentally selected the jpg version. BUT, the just released beta version of ACR does support the A900. You can download this via a link over at dpreview.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The only doubts I have is how much Sony is willing to invest in Zeiss lenses and how extensive the lens line-up will be.
Indeed. One can only remember the fits that Zeiss had Kyocera in with respect to lenses for Contax (probably one of the reasons Sony more completely controls lens development and production). What is the process involved for Sony to get a new lens, with the Zeiss name attached, made? What additional lenses are planned? The system could use quite a few more Zeiss primes (a fast 50mm, a 100mm Makro, a 21mm, fast 35, 28, 24mm lenses, etc.). How long will we have to wait? Why can't Zeiss put a Sony/Minolta lens mount on the ZF lenses?
edwardkaraa wrote:
... the ZA are the main attraction for me.
I would say, at this point in time, the ZA lenses are the "potential" main attraction.
At least two of the mock up lenses which have been going around the trade shows for the past year have still to be revealed. Two are thought to be ZA's a 24mm f1.4 & 35mm f1.8 ZA perhaps Sony will confirm these lenses & more at Photokina next week.
ACR 4.6 beta supports the A900 but the people who are currently using the A900 like the owner of Dyxum have been asked by Sony not to post any raw files just jpegs for the time being.
Here is a link to a jpeg from an A900 user in China
Lotusm50 wrote:
I tend to agree with you, at least in part. But we don't know yet how well the ZA 24-70 and ZA 16-35 will perform on full frame sensor, or have a good idea of what their other characterisitcs are like. The ZA 135/1.8 is definitely an attractive lens, the ZA 85/1.4, from all reports to date, distinctly less so. I don't know of a ZA 50 macro -- I don't think it exists. And while a couple of the "Minolta" lenses are potentially competitive, no one is going to be basing a system change decision on them. Your optimism may be warranted, but I think I need to see a lot more evidence before I put a dozen or more lenses on the market and jump ship....Show more →
We don't know how the 16-35mm will perform at all yet, but it's a new Zeiss design which is usually something to get excited about. Optically, the ZA85 is certainly on par with the Nikon, Canon and Contax 85mm: they share similar strengths and weaknesses. The 50 Macro is a Minolta, but one of the very best.
On film and APS-C bodies, the ZA 24-70 looks great; naturally 24MP FF will present a stiffer challenge, but from my experience, I would place it a clear notch above the Mark 1 24-70 L. Here's hoping for a Mk II IS version . . .
Regardless of my optimism for Sony (Zeiss and Minolta lenses, accurately) the 50D and 5D II + 24 L II have done enough to cement my relationship with Canon for another few years, regardless of the temptations of the Minolta 135 STF.
hubsand wrote:
...
My reservation lies with the bodies: the AF is fast, but not smart. The control system is great but the vertical grip is a disaster. The price is good, but the sensor looks noisy. In-body SS is a revelation with short, fast lenses – but it's not as quick or effective where you most need it: in longer FLs.
...
what's your gripe with the grip? I think my A700's grip is great, it duplicates every operation you'll need from the body and has a good feel. The A900's is similar, although as I understand it, not interchangeable with the A700's which is a pity.
hubsand: I was wondering when folk would get around to the *other* most important part besides the sensor: compatible lenses. I expect the new ZA 16-35 will perform very well. Will it do as well as the 14–24/2.8? We'll see.
No-sound HD video? Who cares? As an ex-director of current affairs shows, silent video is next to useless, and all pro cameras spend as much time and money providing 16bit stereo sound inputs, these days: the information and emotion is carried on the sound track.
People will put up with appalling video quality IF the sound quality is good. To be honest, I really have no idea why manufacturers are providing this 'feature'. Can someone illuminate?
As an aside, I reckon the A900 looks good, in a rugged, Burt Lancaster kind of way!
. 
. Granted the Sony does look good though and they have managed to make a competitor to the 1ds3 for the price of the 5D2 which is obviously going to be interesting....we are living in interesting times indeed!