Another switcher here, best move I've made since the film days. Honestly.
As with Ed I was never really happy with the Canon raw files (and by trade I was a digital retoucher and photo finisher back then) but used the Canon 5D as a means to get to adapt vintage lenses.
With the Sony A900 I felt I got back into photography by having a tool/camera with an excellent viewfinder that would not leave me wishing for live view, excellent build quality and RAW files that I find superior to the Canon files in almost every aspect. Sure, the A900 does not do high ISO like Canon or Nikon but it does do well enough. If you are dependent on high ISO you might want to look elsewhere but for base/low/medium ISO Sony is up there with the best. In body IS works fine for me with both chipped lenses and Sony/Minolta glass though some users have reported anomalies with vintage glass.
Ergonomically the A900 suits me much better and I had a long hard look at the 5DII before comitting to Sony. I'd never thought I'd go that route but I am happy I did.
I see excellent work from people using all brands so I cannot assure you that Sony will do "it" for you but I find the camera is not limiting my skills a bit. As a former medium format film shooter I find the A900 a viable replacement.
EDIT: The Canon 135/2 L lens kept me with the 5D for some time and I think it is a great lens. I found a ZA 135/1.8 lens for a bargain price (!) and was surprised to find that it was even better than the Canon lens, I would have settled for as good as.
Thanks to all who have posted their response to my original question.
If I were to make the move to Sony, I would need to find a 300 f2.8 that would match nicely to the A900 or A850 body. I have a thing for 300 f2.8 lenses and have owned various Tamron, Sigma, NIkons, and Canons. I currently use a canon 300 f2.8IS... I love the lens, but would be willing to sacrifice the IS feature if I could retain the sharpness.
I have looked at the reviews from the Sony Dynax and Dyxum forums to see how the older Minolta G "high-speed" lenses perform. Lot's of people offer letter or number grades, but I have not seen a lot of good/great photography from these older lenses.
I definitely will not be able to afford the current (or older Minolta) SSM lens... too much money for this lowly educator.
If I make the move, I'd be looking at getting an A850 or A900, 300 f2.8 (Minolta?), Zeiss 135 f1.8 and Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 SSM. I currently carry only three lenses and two bodies... simple kit that covers a lot (1DsII, 7D, 300 f2.8IS, 70-200f4L v1, 17-40L, & converters). I'm willing to sacrifice the second body to make the move, but I'm not willing to take a bath financially.
Anyway, thanks for all of the great info and if you have seen some great work w/ the older High Speed 300 f2.8s, point me there.
regards,
bruce
Sony gets a lot of flack for its lens lineup, but there are some great old lenses in the Minolta stable to augment it. The 200mm APO HS is another one, they go for $US1000 or so in EX+ con.
I also felt the 70-300G was a good prosumer lens but lacked the sparkle etc. the CZ lenses give, but it is still better than the Nikon equivalent IMO. The 70-400G along with the 70-200 are extremely well regarded. Some say they are overpriced - maybe so, but...
I just checked the cheapest price for the A850 - it comes in at $A1760 buying from this country (A900s are about $A2400). What a deal. Nikon's D700 runs to $2050 at present, with the 5D2 at $2200. , all in A dollars. So there is between ~$300 and ~$450 towards lenses compared with the competition...oh, and Nikon's D3x goes for $A6700, perhaps a better comparison. That must hurt Nikon users wanting high res for their work, guys like Thom Hogan..
Regarding buyers, Sony adopters tend to be very experienced, very often ex-medium format or large format users, who generally know a good thing when they see it. They also tend to have tried other brands' offerings and found them wanting for various reasons, including output quality. Very few of these quite discriminating people are disappointed with the FF Sonys performance, be it ergonomics, body reliability, functionality (no Nikon menus) and of course results.
New entrants are always going to meet with some resistance, few enthusiasts like to admit there is likely a better option that arrived in the market, kinda like you drive for Ferrari and Red Bull shows up. Market power counts for a huge lot, though: momentum, public perceptions, generally great media support, celebs use your stuff, you are reconised as legitimate. I think Sony have done very well thus far, and we all benefit. Nikon and Pentax certainly benefit, sensor wise.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think both the D3 and D700 use non-Sony sensors. However they are not manufactured by Nikon either, just outsourced somewhere else.
I'm 99% sure this is not true.
There was some colaboration around the sensors but they were nikon made, not sony made.
Nikon tough Sony the right way to get it done in a camera body.
Sony got the most benefit from the collaboration to use with the tech and patents they bought from Minolta and their own goodies.
I don’t mean this as a cut, but most consumers who buy Sony cameras are not that educated or experienced.
Yes, some famous professionals chose Sony for their own reasons.
However, don’t buy into the hype Sony surrounds every product with, that their answer is the best you are going to get.
The truth about camera systems is that they are a "system" that works towards a goal, and each MFG has somewhat a specialty goal that separates them from the others.
Canon has their thing, Nikon, and Sony, and Olympus, and Pentax all have their own take on the system.
Do not just look at the body; the price and options of the body and lenses that are available is what makes up the "system".
You could also throw in some things like HD video and remotely controlled flash lighting as important features to different systems.
Sometimes a type or size of lens does not exist in one system, or the quality is lacking in a certain brand/model.
It is important to outline your goals and analyze which system makes sense in the LONG run.
schristie11 wrote:
I'm 99% sure this is not true.
There was some colaboration around the sensors but they were nikon made, not sony made.
What's not true? That the D3 and D700 use non-Sony sensors? Perhaps you misread something.
What we do know is that the flagship Nikon D3X and the Sony a900/850 share the same Sony sensor, but slightly modified for the D3X.
I don't think you can lump in the average Sony a900/850 user with the lower Sony model users. Completely different group of experienced users who are on the most part brand agnostic.
I can lump anything, since it is my experience I’m talking about. lol
I meet mostly Sony users who are new people, and Nikon users who are experienced, and a mix from canon owners.
I been in many camera stores where the sales person is busy convincing a first time SLR buyer to go Sony 900 or 850.
They promote Sony though since the built in body IS was an easy sell, and they make more profit on the lenses after the fact.
Even my mom did! lol
I have only met one guy who swiched to Sony, he said it was so he could buy good old manual focus lenses that he wanted and keep modern IS.
Interesting though, the people who work at those stores almost always use Nikon or Canon and say they prefer it.
I have been on many photo club shoots where new photogs buy Sony with never any experience.
They usually ask us for help, and we are glad to assist.
Additionally, the professionals at the clubs usually using canon or Nikon.
In an article published by Rob Galbraith, Nikon quoted the following:
The Nikon D3X’s 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor was developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony.
