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.
I think it was released 2-3 years before the Sony FF a900.
What would you have to of paid to shoot with a FF Sony pro body durring those 2-3 years?
This strain of discussion is really getting tiresome (it\'s going nowhere). Who are you trying to educate here?
I just don\'t get the point of stating the obvious over and over. Where are you going to buy a Canon with IBIS, now or in the coming years? You think this is useful discussion?
Tariq\'s comparison isn\'t laughable. The 5Dmk2 isn\'t an acceptable alternative for the A900 if you want the pro build quality, viewfinder size and superior sensor (in resolution and low ISO quality). Only the 1DsmkIII fulfils the first two criteria.
Nov 26, 2010 at 01:34 AM
Previous versions of AhamB's message #9072903 « Canon to Sony?... »
