canon 5dII and the sony a900

Both cameras are priced very similiar. I was wondering what peoples opinions would be of these two cameras. The sony is supposed to be ranked near the 1Ds MIII. I would think that the sony would win out over the 5D II if that is the case. Eithor way I could see it easily being a good consideration for those who want to buy the canon. Just something to think about. ANd I know people will argue the cost of switching systems, but then you could also argue the cost of buying a 1Ds MIII for dbl the price of the sony.

Have you priced out the typical lens kit that a 1Ds3 or Nikon D3x buyer might want to own in Sony land? The wheels especially come off if you need supertelephoto range, where Canon is the cheapest in general.

And while it might not be hard to switch to Sony, switching back could be very tough if you want to down the road as the market for high end Sony lenses is simply not as big a marketplace as for Canon and Nikon lenses.

If the noise tests for high ISO are anything like they are in real life, the A900 is basically worthless, unless you don't need to worry about high ISO performance.

After seeing the noise tests on DP Review, I wouldn't consider the Sony for anything, unless I never went over ISO 200.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …s/sonydslra900/​page20.asp

http://www.dpreview.co​m …s/sonydslra900/​page21.asp

elitejp wrote in post #6856388
BoANd I know people will argue the cost of switching systems, but then you could also argue the cost of buying a 1Ds MIII for dbl the price of the sony.

I think this camera competes with the 5D more than the 1Ds MKIII. But the Canon is cheaper.

I'd rather use a 5D mk1 than a A900 even if they were the same price, and mainly cause I use high ISO frequently.

Same here. It makes me wonder how the D3x will perform. It's a Sony sensor, but Nikon has said that they made some changes to it. Seems like they're trying to distance themselves a bit from the A900.

richardchoi wrote in post #6856443
If the noise tests for high ISO are anything like they are in real life, the A900 is basically worthless, unless you don't need to worry about high ISO performance.

They're not. Rather than make unsupported or non researched statements as fact, try and search for some "real life" samples.

The A900 is fine to ISO 1600 and usable with proper exposure at 3200. It may be a bit more sensitive to the "expose to the right" mantra than less mp cameras but that's the same for all the high mp models.

The jpeg engine does it no favors either. RAW files provide the most resolution of any currently available camera.

Gene

kini wrote in post #6858956
They're not. Rather than make unsupported or non researched statements as fact, try and search for some "real life" samples.

The A900 is fine to ISO 1600 and usable with proper exposure at 3200. It may be a bit more sensitive to the "expose to the right" mantra than less mp cameras but that's the same for all the high mp models.

The jpeg engine does it no favors either. RAW files provide the most resolution of any currently available camera.

Gene

You keep bringing this up, but where are all of these properly converted high ISO samples? Basically, the samples out there show that the high ISO performance of the A900 isn't that great. It may be okay, but it does not seem to be in the same league as the D3/D700 or the 5DII in terms of detail rendered at high ISO.

Exposing to the right is an excuse for poor high ISO performance. In low light, exposing to the right is not an option.

No offense to Sony owners, but the A900 is WEAK SAUCE compared to 5D2 or Nikon D700. I even think its weak compared to Nikon D300 and Canon 50D, but thats an imo. Its only advantage is FF.

The A900 has a nice build, and a hugeee viewfinder, decent performance up to 400 ISO. Its performance in higher ISOs is acceptable but not close to the 5D Mark II and D700. It is still a fantastic camera nonetheless. Got to have one for a weekend with the Carl Zeiss 24-70 before it came out. I enjoyed it, I couldnt keep any of the pictures though. He just let me demo it for 2 days. (Have a sony friend)

kini wrote in post #6858956
They're not. Rather than make unsupported or non researched statements as fact, try and search for some "real life" samples.

The A900 is fine to ISO 1600 and usable with proper exposure at 3200. It may be a bit more sensitive to the "expose to the right" mantra than less mp cameras but that's the same for all the high mp models.

The jpeg engine does it no favors either. RAW files provide the most resolution of any currently available camera.

Gene

Actually, they are. I took your advice, and I'll admit that real life samples at ISO 3200 and even 6400 look very acceptable at a web resolution, but only after heavy noise reduction. You can probably even get great prints as long as you don't mind a little grain. But you can also buy a D700 or 5DII (arguably much better bodies with better noise performance than the a900) for a few hundred less than the a900. Unless you already shoot sony, that makes the a900 pretty much worthless.

Edit: I suppose if you're trying to print 30"x20" at 200dpi, you might want the Sony as an affordable alternative to medium format.

One glaring difference is the lens line-up offered by the two companies. Sony's does come close to Canon's.

Well, I think people underrate Sony.Granted, their lens line up may not have the appeal of Canon, but I wouldn't count them out just yet. When Sony puts their mind to it, they can produce some top-notch products. One of the problems with Sony, and it's true of all their electronic products, is you pay a premium for the name.

Have you read all the reviews out there? (I haven't). Research a little. Then, just get whatevery YOU feel like getting

Gotta go with Jeffrey, Richard, and Brian here.

a) Lens lineup. Canon's is the best bar none. Nikon's is close, but pricey and missing a lot of stuff.
b) High-ISO performance, from what I've seen, the A900 doesn't even come close. I haven't used one though, but there doesn't seem to be much debate here.

brianch wrote in post #6859118
The A900 has a nice build

Really? That's a surprise! I haven't tried an A900 but every other Sony DSLR I've handled has had utterly crap build quality, they feel like toys. Good to hear they upped it with the A900.