All this talk about how much better the IQ of the 5DII is. How can you tell? There are little to no credible samples.
Absolutely ZERO comparisons in the same conditions with the same processing.
It\'s a know fact the Sony has a relatively poor jpeg engine and these jpegs are what are showing up.
I currently shoot with a 40D, 24-105 and 70-200/2.8. I\'m seriously thinking of moving to a FF for a variety of reasons.
Unfortunately the 5DII does little to make me want one. The build/feel is not there. It\'s kind of slow feeling- the responsiveness apparently hasn\'t changed from the original.
5fps is 25% faster than 3.9%. 25% is kind of a lot- no?
The AF module on the A900 most likely will be much better than the 5D/5DII. The A700 focus tests are pretty good- equal to or better than the 30/40D in most reviews.
Inbody IS is much more important to me at this point than a so-so movie mode.
100% VF is important to me. Not having one is one of the more annoying aspects of the 30/40/50D.
Again, the jury is still out on the absolute IQ characteristics of the A900 and the 5DII.
As is stands I\'d give up a stop or stop and a half for the better AF, better VF (not only 100% but bigger and brighter), better build and inbody IS.
A900 85/1.4 at ISO 1600 and 1/15 will beat the 5DMkII at 85/1.2 ISO 6400 at 1/80 (give or take).
I never thought I\'d say I wanted a Sony DSLR, but I\'m thinking really hard on it.
The only thing giving me pause is all the Canon gear being sold, driving prices down.
Gene
Oct 06, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Previous versions of Il Medico's message #6246788 « Some better A900 samples »
