I am looking for input from those who have gone this route.
I am wishing to shake things up a bit w/ regards to my gear... searching for inspiration and challenging my thought photographic though processes.
I am a nature photographer w/ some pretty decent Canon gear... see list:
1DsII, 7D, 300 f2.8IS, 17-40L, 70-200 f4L, and 1.4x
I am a bit of a minimalist in the nature photo world, but do pretty well w/ the limited gear that I carry. I follow this approach because I travel and hike extensively w/ my gear and do not wish to be encumbered.
I have been pondering a switch to a Sony body (850 or 900) and 3 good lenses. I shoot all things nature... wildlife, macro, landscape and environmental documentary. I exhibit work in galleries and actively blog (once a week)... see my blog, website and flicker for examples.
I looking for advice from those who have made a similar switch... are you happy? do you wish you went a different way? do you want to switch back?
What do I lose? What will I gain?
thanks for your thoughts and regards,
bruce
I have been pondering on the same thing (except I'd upgrading from a 5D1, not a 1DsII).
The A850/900 seem to be particularly loved by landscape photographers (which usually don't use high ISO).
Things that attract me about these two Sony cameras:
- great viewfinder (better than 1DsII and Nikon D3, although the A850 has 98% coverage)
- supposedly very good low ISO performance
- nice colors
- high resolution of course at 24.6MP
I've only just started to think this move might be a good one too. I was considering a Pentax K5 for it's small size and beautiful limited lenses but this camera has a nicer sensor. I'd be coming from a Canon 5D MKII.
I heard somewhere that there is supposed to be more Zeiss lenses coming in the near future too.
They don't have near the selection of super tele lenses plus the prices are a fair amount higher on most. What are you lacking with your Canon stuff that you think it's greener over the fence? I can't really see any strong positives?
I much prefer the A900 I have [over the 5DmkII], however - for its superior colour (notably hue separation, which assists with image depth and authenticity), VF, build standard, in-body IS for non-tripod work.
That is probably the most important point for me.
Lens selection is important for me too, but not I don't shoot things like wildlife, so no need for the long AF teles. The alt selection has been getting bigger with Leitax; I'm just waiting for Mamiya 645 now (adapter from Fotodiox).
I made this switch about two years ago, from a Canon 5D system to Sony a900. Overall, I'm very happy with the switch. The biggest plus is lower ISO image quality and professional built body in a relatively light, small package at a very great price (compared to say a 1 series Canon or Nikon D3). Body IS is also nice to have with all lenses. Downside is lens availability and the ease of adapting alternative lenses (as well as high ISO IQ in the a900/850 if you need that). I do know I could never go back to Canon until they put a full size, high MP sensor in a pro body the size of the 7D. So, you will gain lighter weight and size compared to your 1 Series Canon but I don't know how much that would really "shake things up" for you.
If I had a large Canon investment and was happy with my current results, I doubt I would make the switch. Most of my previous lenses were not Canon and all but one I'm currently able to easily use on the Sony. There are even a few lenses which I could not use on the Canon that I can use of the Sony due to Canon 5D mirror issues.
Did the change alter my process or give me more inspiration? Not really. I don't think a change to simply another DSLR is going to do this. Things like a change to medium (film), format (and aspect ratio), viewing method does have the potential for greater change of course.
If you don't need the speed of your 300/2.8, you may be able to skip the 300mm and 70-200mm and go for the Sony 70-400 G instead. It is a great zoom and will further shrink your kit.
I also moved from Canon (1Ds2) to Sony (A900) about 2 years ago. The difference is that I had already given up on Canon glass a few years earlier and all my lenses were adapted Contax. The only thing I regret about the move is the lack of Zeiss glass compared to the Canon mount ZE line of lenses, but the ones that are available are first class and have AF in addition, a big plus. I may be a bit biased in my opinion because I have always been frustrated with Canon's raw files and the Canon look in general. The A900 files remind me of chrome film but admittedly it is not to everyone's liking as many members here prefer the super processed Canon look. No wonder because the public has been brainwashed during several years of Canon monopoly on the market.
I've heard people describing that the A850/A900 having a more film like appearance. Although I've been in photography for mostly only the digital era I do love the look of medium format film.
It seems like you like the ZA Zeiss lenses edwardkaraa? Do you think they're every bit as good as the ZE/ZF/ZS series? Do they still have that great Zeiss look?
Regarding lenses and a decision to switch...
I am quite dependent on the 300 f2.8 lens as I like the compression and narrow depth of field that long tele's have to offer. I've seen Minolta AF High Speed G (non SSM varieties) going for about $2500. I figured that I could sell my lens for $3000... a bit on the low end of the 300 f2.8IS's, but its been used a lot in the field... and while not beat up, it shows more than average wear (Ex- condition.. KEH scale).
My 1DsII is about the value of an alpha 850, and my other lenses and bodies should be able to get my the 24-70 Zeiss and 100 macro. I thought that this might be a good entry into the system. Alternatively, I could pick up a Sigma 300 f2.8 in the Sony Mount (new $3000 or so) and wait on the macro lens.
regarding the grass is greener and synergy of new gear.... I'm not unhappy w/ my canon gear, I'm looking for a bit more resolution and a camera to take me into the future. I have my 1DsII for sale/trade on the Buy-Sell Board, but have not had any trade offers yet. If I got a bite, I'd probably jump in and make a total switch.
I would say they have the contemporary Zeiss look vs the classic Zeiss look of the Z*
My observation is that the ZA have great microcontrast and 3D, but the improvement over the Z* is in the bokeh department. I like to say, (and I think Tariq probably agrees with me here) that the ZA have the Zeiss look plus the Leica bokeh.
The ZA zooms are great but I sold both because I simply prefer using primes.
The ZA 85/1.4 improvements over the earlier Contax and Z* versions are the closer MFD (85cm), floating elements with better image correction at closer distances, very high IQ wide open to f/2.8 that makes the lens fully functional at these apertures, nicer bokeh, less vignetting, circular aperture blades...etc.
The ZA 24 is better than the Z* 25 in almost every department, except the extreme corners at infinity, as you may have seen in the thread that Tariq linked to.
The ZA 135 has no equivalent in the Z*, but if you believe the PZ test, it is better than the Canon L equivalent in every tested aspect, plus it can go as close as 1:4 magnification ratio (67cm MFD) with great IQ.
My 1DsII is about the value of an alpha 850, and my other lenses and bodies should be able to get my the 24-70 Zeiss and 100 macro. I thought that this might be a good entry into the system. Alternatively, I could pick up a Sigma 300 f2.8 in the Sony Mount (new $3000 or so) and wait on the macro lens.
thanks for all of the thoughts,
bruce
Bruce,
If you don't need 1:1 magnification, I would skip the 100 macro altogether. I have been using it for 2 years for jewelry shots, and while certainly an above average lens, it has nothing special. The ZA 135 is a must have and it goes to 1:4. At this magnification, believe it or not, it outperforms the macro. I would highly recommend it.
The Sony 300/2.8 is one of the crazy items in the alpha line up. I could never understand how can it be priced as it is
I made the switch you're talking about. I had an original 5d and 24-105L and did some good work with them but was never truly enamored. I actually sold them both to a friend and reverted to a Rebel t1i for a while before making the jump to a Sony 850. I borrowed another friend's 5d2 for an intensive weekend and just didn't like the files it produced at low ISO's. I felt like I could see some "splotchiness" or color noise in shadows at ISO 100 and 200.
I've been shooting since '97 and "grew up" with canon bodies and then Mamiya 645/67 with Fuji velvia/provia film. I do like the files from the sony. They seem reminiscent of provia, and can look similar to velvia with only a little post-processing.
If at all possible, rent one of the 850's and some good glass. Or take a trip out to central Utah and borrow mine for an afternoon. Or I can send you some RAW files. The sheer resolution of the Sony is delicious: probably 90-95% of the way to my Mamiya 67 rangefinder (which itself was sometimes said to be 80-90% of the quality of 4x5" -- how's that for an inflammatory statement?).
I'm a landscape photographer (but not wildlife; I come from a background in geology) and very minimalist: one body, tamron 28-75/2.8, sony 70-300G. A lot of my favorite work comes from backpacking or hiking. I really like the sheer operation of the sony: I have a separate button to engage one-off autofocus, and usually shoot in aperture-priority with the front dial controlling the aperture and the back dial controlling the exposure compensation. All of the important controls (including mirror lock-up) are accessible via a single button push, not hidden in menus. It's very nice for landscapes.
But: the resolution of the 5d2 isn't really that much lower. Especially with the Contax N lenses. The real question is the character of the files, in that elusive non-quantifiable way. I do think that the Sony has better character at low ISO's. You may or may not agree.
I've gone out shooting a number of times with that friend who has the 5d2, and there are certainly times that I envy his ability to crank up to 800 and 1600 ISO and not worry about it, as a tripod doesn't help against the wind.
I will say that I kept a good complement of Canon lenses, on the off-chance that they get back to a landscape-appropriate camera once they've gotten over their current crush/flirtation with video. I would love to see them put out a full frame camera in a light, small body with micro-focus adjust and killer image quality from ISO 25-1600. We can dream, can't we?
I would love to see them put out a full frame camera in a light, small body with micro-focus adjust and killer image quality from ISO 25-1600. We can dream, can't we? - mhespenheide
+1, including in my "wet dream" is the weather seal/proof. As of now, I am thinking about the Pentax k-5 for 2 reasons: weather seal and a light body - instead of upgrade to 5DII. I can keep my 5D until it's quit on me first!
Sam tran wrote:
+1, including in my "wet dream" is the weather seal/proof. As of now, I am thinking about the Pentax k-5 for 2 reasons: weather seal and a light body - instead of upgrade to 5DII. I can keep my 5D until it's quit on me first!
Don't forget, you also get pretty decent sealing against dust and moisture with the Sony's. I would not put it under water but rain, cold, snow and dust are no issues, unlike say a 5DII.
Sigh. I wish my Sonys were half that tough. All of mine (A100, A700, A900) control wheels have severe skipping problem. The joystick on my A900 has stopped working in one direction. On a personal level, I can't say it has good build.
It could be a coincidence but none of my equally used Canon 5D/40D/D30 and Nikon D50/D2H have the control wheel skipping problem.
I came from shooting minolta film cameras and moved up to Sony. Like others here, I love the Sony's IQ and prefer its low ISO IQ over my 5DMKII but I am not so sure if I would move to Sony if I was shooting Canon or Nikon.
debuggerus wrote:
Sigh. I wish my Sonys were half that tough. All of mine (A100, A700, A900) control wheels have severe skipping problem. The joystick on my A900 has stopped working in one direction. On a personal level, I can't say it has good build.
It could be a coincidence but none of my equally used Canon 5D/40D/D30 and Nikon D50/D2H have the control wheel skipping problem.
I came from shooting minolta film cameras and moved up to Sony. Like others here, I love the Sony's IQ and prefer its low ISO IQ over my 5DMKII but I am not so sure if I would move to Sony if I was shooting Canon or Nikon....Show more →
Hmm, maybe I have just been lucky with that control wheel issue. I have heard about it with the a700 and had read one other report of it on an a900. Never heard of the joy stick problem before.
Neither have i. I have had my 900 for over a year now because of Tariq, its his fault, .
Still lovin it though. Had a D700, and the colors were just not there. They are with the 900.
i had the wheel issue on the a100 after a year, but it was managable. my a900 is 25 months old now, it's been through torential rain & white out snow storms and frigid -0°F conditions. not one issue yet.
I would say they have the contemporary Zeiss look vs the classic Zeiss look of the Z*
That's a great way to put it.
It looks like they're every bit as good as they should be then. I was worried it was just a marketing ploy of Sony to put the Zeiss logo on their lenses and that seems to not be the case.
With any luck they'll be bringing more Zeiss lenses out, I'm hoping for something like a 35mm and 50mm. I can't find the 24mm ƒ/2 in stock anywhere but I could get it here from B&H for around $1500 but they don't have stock either.
Ah well, I still need to think about it. I don't know if we want to trade the small, rugged and light aspects of the Pentax K5 with the better image quality of the Sony A850.
How well built is the Sony A850? Is it comparable to a Nikon D700?
.