How much would you have to spend to get an a900 with HD video option?
Your $6500 is a laughable comparison of apples to oranges.
PS: which Canon are you refering to that costs $6500?
Was it the EOS-1Ds Mark III - becasue originally it was $8000, now reduced to $6500 msrp since it is so old 2007.
This body will be replaced with a new one approx 50mpixl with HD video in 6-12 months.
When will sony release one like that? How much will it cost?
I think the 1Ds MK III was released almsot 2 years before the Sony FF a900 released around 2009.
What would you have to of paid to shoot with a FF Sony pro body durring those 2 years?
Tariq Gibran wrote:So, going by this logic, I have an extra $3500 to spend on Sony Zeiss ZA lenses vs. Canon glass because the only other Canon body which offers a few of the a900 features I need is $6500! As many have said, it\'s really not an apples to apples comparison. There are not exact equivalents in each system so the only thing a prospective buyer can do is match up their needs to a system that offers that, whatever the individual criteria might be...camera bodies, lenses, support, file quality, etc.
How much would you have to spend to get an a900 with HD video option?
Your $6500 is a laughable comparison of apples to oranges.
PS: which Canon are you refering to that costs $6500?
Was it the EOS-1Ds Mark III - becasue originally it was $8000, now reduced to $6500 msrp since it is so old - Released in 2007.
This body will be replaced with a new one approx 50mpixl with HD video in 6-12 months.
When will sony release one like that? How much will it cost?
I think the 1Ds MK III was released almsot 2 years before the Sony FF a900 released about the first of 2009.
What would you have to of paid to shoot with a FF Sony pro body durring those 2 years?
Tariq Gibran wrote:So, going by this logic, I have an extra $3500 to spend on Sony Zeiss ZA lenses vs. Canon glass because the only other Canon body which offers a few of the a900 features I need is $6500! As many have said, it\'s really not an apples to apples comparison. There are not exact equivalents in each system so the only thing a prospective buyer can do is match up their needs to a system that offers that, whatever the individual criteria might be...camera bodies, lenses, support, file quality, etc.
How much would you have to spend to get an a900 with HD video option?
Your $6500 is a laughable comparison of apples to oranges.
PS: which Canon are you refering to that costs $6500?
Was it the EOS-1Ds Mark III - becasue originally it was $8000, now reduced to $6500 msrp since it is so old.
This body will be replaced with a new one approx 50mpixl with HD video in 6-12 months.
When will sony release one like that? How much will it cost?
I think the 1Ds MK III was released almsot 2 years before the Sony FF a900.
What would you have to of paid to shoot with a FF Sony pro body durring those 2 years?
Tariq Gibran wrote:So, going by this logic, I have an extra $3500 to spend on Sony Zeiss ZA lenses vs. Canon glass because the only other Canon body which offers a few of the a900 features I need is $6500! As many have said, it\'s really not an apples to apples comparison. There are not exact equivalents in each system so the only thing a prospective buyer can do is match up their needs to a system that offers that, whatever the individual criteria might be...camera bodies, lenses, support, file quality, etc.
Nov 26, 2010 at 01:27 AM
Previous versions of schristie11's message #9072899 « Canon to Sony?... »
