Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Full Frame Digital body - Canon 5D Mk2 or Sony A900 ???
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:36 am    Post subject: Full Frame Digital body - Canon 5D Mk2 or Sony A900 ??? Reply with quote
OK, I'm not really serious about giving up my 5D Mk1.............

BUT, if I wanted a "better" (for which read "newer" ?) full frame camera while keeping all my manual lenses (the majority of which are M42) what are the thoughts on the pros and cons between the Canon 5D Mk 2 or the Sony A900 ????

They seem to be around the same price at the moment.

So, does it come down to the Canon winning on high ISO perrformance and the fact that I already have the adapters for the Canon? Or does the Sony edge it with in-body IS and pretty good IQ at low to medium ISO?

Anyone got any direct experience/opinions?


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
why not stay with the MKI until new FF bodies come out

no liveview in the sony would be the limiting factor for me

dpreview wrote:
Noise reduction settings applied to raw as well as JPEG files - cannot be 'turned off for raw but left on for JPEGs' (as is normal practice)
Relatively high levels of noise at anything over ISO 400 (ISO 6400 is of very, very limited use)
Destructive noise reduction on high ISO JPEGs removes too much detail
Default color settings can produce red clipping (very saturated)
No live view
Intelligent preview of limited use in the real world (cannot check focus, for example)


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
why not stay with the MKI until new FF bodies come out

+1 and current bodies will be cheaper then - used or new.

For me the difference in IQ between mkI and mkII is not so big. But in the end I decided to keep mkII because of these features:
- sensor cleaning
- auto ISO. I can use something like AvTv priority Pentax mode with MF lenses on mkII. I set aperture on lens, preset Tv on camera (ususally 1/200 - 1/250) and let the camera change ISO. Very useful when shooting handheld and reportage style.
- LiveView
- better display - not because of bigger, but much better colors.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
why not stay with the MKI until new FF bodies come out

Ah, yes, but when ?????..................

poilu wrote:

no liveview in the sony would be the limiting factor for me

I cannot believe that I missed that vital drawback! Many thanks. That has swayed it (along with the quote from dp review), in that the Canon has to win on better ISO noise and inclusion of live view. Plus I already have the adapters!

Thanks for your help Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
poilu wrote:
why not stay with the MKI until new FF bodies come out

+1 and current bodies will be cheaper then - used or new.

For me the difference in IQ between mkI and mkII is not so big. But in the end I decided to keep mkII because of these features:
- sensor cleaning
- auto ISO. I can use something like AvTv priority Pentax mode with MF lenses on mkII. I set aperture on lens, preset Tv on camera (ususally 1/200 - 1/250) and let the camera change ISO. Very useful when shooting handheld and reportage style.
- LiveView
- better display - not because of bigger, but much better colors.


So, as a 5D Mk 2 owner, you would recommend it? Has it any bad points?


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm waiting for a 5D III or even a 5D Classic with a better screen Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I'm waiting for a 5D III or even a 5D Classic with a better screen Laughing


Ah yes, but the latest rumours are early 2012 "maybe". As always, I want it now Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would definitely go for the 5d MkII!!

I have shot with both the MkII and an Alpha 950.
And I loved the MkII and was shocked by the high ISO performance of the 950. (I don't know about the 900, though.)

The only "alternative" to a MkII for me would be a Nikon D700 (or perhaps its successor).
Although it is an "older" cam already (silly, isn't it?), I loved the images I shot with it at the Photokina 2008.

Furthermore, you can use more manual lenses on the 5D MkII than on an Alpha cam!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm invested in Minolta/Sony gear but should the day come where I could choose between the 5DmkII and A900 I would buy the 5DmkII simply because of Live View that also can be tethered and the larger amount of MF lenses that fits EOS mount.

Though I have to add my thoughts about high ISO - this is mainly for measuring performance in reviews like @ dpreview, dxo etc. But in real life this rarely makes the final photo better, composition and good lighting is key and ISO, MP etc. doesn't help with that but things like LV will IMHO. BTW: dxo rates the two cameras sensor equal with the A900 better in dynamic range and less so in ISO.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I would definitely go for the 5d MkII!!

I have shot with both the MkII and an Alpha 950.
And I loved the MkII and was shocked by the high ISO performance of the 950. (I don't know about the 900, though.)



Shocked where did you get a 950 from? Shocked I thought this was still offically a rumour?


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
I would definitely go for the 5d MkII!!

I have shot with both the MkII and an Alpha 950.
And I loved the MkII and was shocked by the high ISO performance of the 950. (I don't know about the 900, though.)



Shocked where did you get a 950 from? Shocked I thought this was still offically a rumour?


Ooops, sorry! I thought the 24 MPix cam I shot with in 2008 was named "950", but I just checked and realized that I confused the names (900, 950, 850, 800, 700...). It, of course, was the "900".

So make it: I was disappointed by the Alpha 900 and don't know about the 950. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Having owned both I would rather die than go from the 5D mkii to the 5D relic classic. IQ was good, but it just seems like an antique.

I get angry just thinking about it. I need to go and break something...back later.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
why not stay with the MKI until new FF bodies come out [...]


+1, my strategy exact! Then, I will probably be looking for a 5DII.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 for waiting for 5dIII and the price drop of older models. A 5D2 below 1k euro would be very cool. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
So, as a 5D Mk 2 owner, you would recommend it? Has it any bad points?

My only complain goes to high red chroma noise of the camera, even at low ISOs (ISO100). In absolute terms, at low ISOs, red noise is higher than on 5DmkI, but in the final image the noise vanishes in megapixels.
One nice side effect of upgrade is, that mkII is even slightly faster with AF lenses than 5D classic.

BUT the IQ is very, very similar to 5D (except resolution of course) and I was slightly dissapointed at first, but above mentioned features convinced me to stay with mkII.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A900


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
A900


Reasons?


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
Arkku wrote:
A900


Reasons?


Well, I assume that you have already looked at the specs of these cameras so listing them here would be a waste of effort. The thread just seemed to be turning into a popularity contest so I thought to point out that not everyone would pick Canon out of the two. =)

I was also hesitant to post this since it will undoubtedly provoke some, but in my opinion for my uses the Canon is utterly out of the question. It has video and 1 stop better high ISO, neither of which I need (and the high ISO comes at cost of low ISO which is, for me, far more important). That's it. Everything else is basically the same or inferior. (As an M42 user the mirror clearance issues alone would rule out the Canon for me. On the other hand if you are a C/Y user then you probably won't go Sony anyhow as you'd need to get a conversion kit for every C/Y lens.)

As for the A900: user interface, feel, etc are certainly subjective but in my opinion Minolta did them best and the A900 inherits directly from there. The viewfinder is superb, and there's an official manual focus replacement screen (which I use). In-body image stabilisation. Colors. etc


In any case I don't think I can or should “convert” you or anyone here. Try both cameras with an open mind and pick the one that "does it" for you. =)

Last edited by Arkku on Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
martyn_bannister wrote:
Arkku wrote:
A900


Reasons?


Well, I assume that you have already looked at the specs of these cameras so listing them here would be a waste of effort. The thread just seemed to be turning into a popularity contest so I thought to point out that not everyone would pick Canon out of the two. =)

I was also hesitant to post this since it will undoubtedly provoke some, but in my opinion for my uses the Canon is utterly out of the question. It has video and 1 stop better high ISO, neither of which I need (and the high ISO comes at cost of low ISO which is, for me, far more important). That's it. Everything else is basically the same or inferior. (As an M42 user the mirror clearance issues alone would rule out the Canon for me. On the other hand if you are a C/Y user then you probably won't go Sony anyhow as you'd need to get a conversion kit for every C/Y lens.)

As for the A900,User interface, feel, etc are certainly subjective but in my opinion Minolta did them best and the A900 inherits directly from there. The viewfinder superb, and there's an official manual focus replacement screen (which I use). In-body image stabilisation. Colors. etc

In any case I don't think I can or should “convert” you or anyone here. Try both cameras with an open mind and pick the one that "does it" for you. =)


I'm not here to be converted Smile

I asked for honest opinions, which you have given and I hope we are all grown up enough to not be provoked by one persons view, should it deviate from our own. I thank you for pointing out what matters to you.

As for trying them out, this is a nice idea, but to do it for any length of time would either mean buying both and then selling back the one I don't like, or hiring them both. Finding a shop which stocks both will give initial impressions, but not a lengthy appraisal. Thats why I have asked for experience and views here. Everyone has something to offer to such a debate and I for one am open to listen. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

I don't mean to preach or sound offensive. I am honestly asking, not to start a war, but to gather evidence to inform a potential decision. Again I thank you for setting out your evidence.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Having owned both I would rather die than go from the 5D mkii to the 5D relic classic. IQ was good, but it just seems like an antique.


+1 from me on that score. These people I hear talking about using a 5DII but keeping a 5DI for some reason or other, it seems to me, are not making full use of the 5DII's capabilities. So full frame with AF lenses suited to FF but why would you go back, ever, to the 5DI if you wanted to shoot:

high ISO
MF lenses using Live view

or, perish the thought, Twisted Evil video.

Okay so maybe there's less to worry about shaving the mirror of the older version to help with getting infinity DoF with MF lenses but to walk away from live view at 10x? Nah!

I've given this some thought along the lines that I might buy a 5DI just because but frankly I don't know that I'd find a use for it.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course the Mk II is a better cam than the 5D classic.
But as long as my 5D classic works well, I would never upgrade, rather invest in better lenses - if I wanted to spend some money.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Of course the Mk II is a better cam than the 5D classic.
But as long as my 5D classic works well, I would never upgrade, rather invest in better lenses - if I wanted to spend some money.


+1, I tried the 5D II and decided it wasn't actually that different! What I would love is the newer screen though. I really don't use liveview unless I'm at home shooting things on tables. There's only been a couple of occasions where I've needed better ISO 3200, so I've just not needed to move.

The a850 / a900 is an interesting alternative, but I wouldn't want to convert all my C/Y lenses. I'm sure it's a nice camera though, I've never disliked any of the Sonys I've owner (a100, a200, a450).


PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:16 am    Post subject: Re: Full Frame Digital body - Canon 5D Mk2 or Sony A900 ??? Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
OK, I'm not really serious about giving up my 5D Mk1.............

BUT, if I wanted a "better" (for which read "newer" ?) full frame camera while keeping all my manual lenses (the majority of which are M42) what are the thoughts on the pros and cons between the Canon 5D Mk 2 or the Sony A900 ????

They seem to be around the same price at the moment.

So, does it come down to the Canon winning on high ISO perrformance and the fact that I already have the adapters for the Canon? Or does the Sony edge it with in-body IS and pretty good IQ at low to medium ISO?

Anyone got any direct experience/opinions?


I'm a satisfied owner of A900 using many of legacy lenses.
The biggest advantage compare to others are very wide dynamic range and smooth tonal gradation.

This sample using Rodenstok 150 mm (+ bellow)


the cropped on above picture


Last edited by zuikoku on Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I went from a 5D to an A900 and I've never looked back (actually, the poor Canon is just there, collecting dust). The UI is soo much better, the colours, the handling… It's true that you can't adapt as many lenses, but then the ones that you do want adapted can be often converted, so it's not a major drawback. Liveview, yes, it is a drawback, I guess, but then I just don't shoot an A900 and avoid the best Optical viewfinder in a digital camera. If I wan't liveview, i go with the NEX (to which all manual lenses can be adapted. Granted, it's APS-C, though). High ISO is not a problem with Lightroom, but video is, being totally absent, so if you're interested in trying, you just have one option.
It's a sort of religious war, out there, but I would recommend trying them both and see how you feel with them.

Xavier


PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
llumiombres wrote:
I went from a 5D to an A900 and I've never looked back (actually, the poor Canon is just there, collecting dust). Xavier

Hi Xavier.
How much for your 5D ? Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2