canon 5d mk2

[douglasf13]

Very Interesting about the A900 AF.
I had a good long go on the A900, at Photokina under the hall lighting, and I can tell you the AF on the Sony is not good at all. I was a main Minolta dealer in London for nearly 20 years, and I can tell you this AF is next to no improvement on the 7D, The Minolta fit lenses are still by far the slowest focusing of the main brands. 
On paper you can make anything look good but in practice it is often something else.
I tried the 16-35mm 2.8 , the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 All of which where nice lenses well made and great optics, but the focus speed on the 70-200mm 2.8 was very slow, and not very accurate. the other two were better but no match for the Canon or Nikon systems.
Apart from that I thought the Sony was a really top grade Semi pro Camera, that handles very well and seems well put together with a very high spec, and certainly worth looking at as an alternative to the Canon.

Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  I don't doubt your experience, and I appreciate the feedback, but something isn't adding up.  There must have been a problem with the camera, because the massive increase in focus speed is a major reason why many Minolta 7D users purchased the A700.  There is a focus "SLOW" setting for the Alphas in the menus, and I'm beginning to wonder if that was switched on by someone prior to you using the camera, because the A900 (which current users are saying is slightly faster than the A700) should blow the 7D out of the water.  Strange indeed.

[innesfoto]

Hi there and thanks for your post,
I can not say for sure that that is not a possibility that the slow focus was engaged, as I didn´t have that much time with it due to the huge queue of people behind me waiting to get their hands on it as well.  Certainly I found it to be slow and not very precise. But if there are people out there who have also done a hands on I would love to hear what they think.  
What I can say about the Alpha is it has a very nice feel, great viewfinder, and very nice lenses. What I didn´t like was lack of weather sealing, very basic top display, and very cluttered layout.  But if it´s true that Nikon will have the 24MP Sony chip in the new D3X
and they retain the D3 layout and spec with an anti dust feature, at a sensible price. Nikon will rule the roost.
Also the Sony is well over priced, It is considerably more expensive than the 5D mk2,
Yes it has 24MP and not 21MP, but that is frankly next to nothing. And the 5D MK2 blows it out of the water on spec. What I don´t understand is why it took Sony so long to get this camera on the Market, and why they think they can market it at more than the leading brands, if Sony had come in to the Market with the A900 at €1800.00 they would have a very salable product, but €1000.00 more than that is just stupid. Also they are charging a massive premium on the lenses because they have the Zeiss name.
These are not Carl Zeiss Germany, these are Carl Zeiss Japan and made under license,
the others are all re-badged Minolta lenses. Not a bad thing, just not worth having to pay extra for.    

Andy

[douglasf13]

Hi there and thanks for your post,
I can not say for sure that that is not a possibility that the slow focus was engaged, as I didn´t have that much time with it due to the huge queue of people behind me waiting to get their hands on it as well.  Certainly I found it to be slow and not very precise. But if there are people out there who have also done a hands on I would love to hear what they think. 
What I can say about the Alpha is it has a very nice feel, great viewfinder, and very nice lenses. What I didn´t like was lack of weather sealing, very basic top display, and very cluttered layout.  But if it´s true that Nikon will have the 24MP Sony chip in the new D3X
and they retain the D3 layout and spec with an anti dust feature, at a sensible price. Nikon will rule the roost.
Also the Sony is well over priced, It is considerably more expensive than the 5D mk2,
Yes it has 24MP and not 21MP, but that is frankly next to nothing. And the 5D MK2 blows it out of the water on spec. What I don´t understand is why it took Sony so long to get this camera on the Market, and why they think they can market it at more than the leading brands, if Sony had come in to the Market with the A900 at €1800.00 they would have a very salable product, but €1000.00 more than that is just stupid. Also they are charging a massive premium on the lenses because they have the Zeiss name.
These are not Carl Zeiss Germany, these are Carl Zeiss Japan and made under license,
the others are all re-badged Minolta lenses. Not a bad thing, just not worth having to pay extra for.   

Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  I've got to disagree with you about the price.  The A900 is as good or better spec'ed than the 5Dii as a still camera, but it seems the video function of the 5Dii is glazing people over.  As far as being still camera, the A900 trumps the 5Dii in most categories:
-5 fps vs. 3.9
-1/250 flash sync vs. 1/200
-Best VF of any DSLR (and that includes 1DsIII. many who've tried them together would agree)
-24MP vs. 21MP (really not much difference.)
-AF:  your findings contradict others, so right now this is a draw
-IR AF assist light
-intelligent preview vs. live view (no conclusion here)

  IMO, the above features are more important than HD video for my work.  Sure, I would think it cool to have the video, but not at the expense of the above, because those make a real difference in my still photography.

  As far as weathersealing, the A900 has seals on every button and for the viewfinder.  Weathersealing on all cameras is a bit nebulous, but I know of A700's being used in downpours with no problems, and I know the A900's sealing is it least as good as the 5Dii's, although it looks to be a bit better.  The problem with Sony is the lenses aren't sealed, which is unfortunate.

  Carl Zeiss ZE,ZF,ZK, and ZA are all made in Japan.  The ZE,ZF,ZE are made by Cosina, whereas Sony and Zeiss use a different plant for the ZA.  The ZA's are still designed and tested by CZ, and their QC is presides over the manufacturing.  Each lens has both a Sony and Zeiss serial number, and the ZA's are just as "Zeiss" as the others.

  For my work, I only use 2 lenses 95% of the time, so lens/system loyalty is rather weak for me, because it costs little for me to switch.  Dropping a 21MP sensor with HD video into the old 5D isn't the ticket for me, and I'll gladly pay $300 more for the A900.  Granted, the VF and higher flash sync are crucial to me, and probably influence me more than it would others.  I was actually hoping one of the cameras would do 1/300+, but 1/250 is the absolute minimum for me.  Cheers!
-douglas

[Let Biogons be Biogons]

As someone who is probably going to buy either the Sony a900 or the Canon 5D MkII and have been investigating both models closely, I think I have to disagree with some of your (seemingly biased) characterizations.

I agree that the a900 is the better featured camera -- at least from reading the specifications.  It's a good reason why the a900 is justifiably $300 more expensive.  However to suggest that the new 5D MkII is just the old 5D with a new sensor and HD video is just inaccurate and misleading.  The LCD is improved, weather-sealing is improved, the viewfinder is improved, image processing has been improved, 14 bit conversion instead of 12 bit, better user information, new Peripheral Illumination Correction, new "Auto Lighting Optimizer", and other small changes. It seems to me that there are many improvements, and is more than just a sensor and HD video.  I don't care a bit about video, but if it's there great, if not, no big deal.

However, in comparisons of the 2 bodies everything I've seen points to superior IQ  in the Canon.  Comparing Canon jpegs (all that is available) to Sony RAW files (optimally processed in ACR 4.6) that Canon appears to have much better noise characteristics.  While they are about even at 100 ISO, noise is apparent in Sony images at 200 ISO, and the differences in noise just get bigger from there.  I would say that there is at least a 2 stop difference in noise  to the benefit of the Canon.  At higher ISO use get cleaner, higher effective resolution, and greater detail out of the Canon.  Even down-sampling the Sony files to 12 mp size, the Sony appears to even have more noise than the original Canon 5D.  Once we get some RAW files from the new Canon we can see how much the 14 bit conversion means compared to Sony's 12 bit conversion.  

I certainly would like to see more samples from both cameras as well as a head-to-head comparisons.  I hope to get some time with both cameras next month and compare their handling (Canon, IMHO, typical sucks in this area, but looking at the Sony, I don't hold out much hope that it is much better -- but we'll see).  

As it stands, if you do all your shooting at 100 ISO (or anything you do over 100 ISo, doesn't matter), then the Sony might be better due to its marginally better VF, speed (the extra 1.1 fps, however, is virtually meaningless to me), and in-body IS.  However, if image quality is important to you in a full range of ISO settings, then the Canon 5D MkII, at least from what we have seen to date, is the obvious choice.  Being able to shoot relatively cleanly at 1600 and 3200 ISO, and a quite usable 6400 ISO can be a great benefit in many situations, and dramatically increases the practical usability of the Canon relative to the Sony a900 -- in a way that completely overshadows the modest body feature advantages of the Sony.

But again this is preliminary, based on a comprehensive and detailed look at what's been available to date.  It appears, so far, that the Achilles heel (relative to the competition) of the Sony a900 -- even with RAW files -- is noise.

I've got to disagree with you about the price.  The A900 is as good or better spec'ed than the 5Dii as a still camera, but it seems the video function of the 5Dii is glazing people over.  As far as being still camera, the A900 trumps the 5Dii in most categories:
-5 fps vs. 3.9
-1/250 flash sync vs. 1/200
-Best VF of any DSLR (and that includes 1DsIII. many who've tried them together would agree)
-24MP vs. 21MP (really not much difference.)
-AF:  your findings contradict others, so right now this is a draw
-IR AF assist light
-intelligent preview vs. live view (no conclusion here)

  IMO, the above features are more important than HD video for my work.  Sure, I would think it cool to have the video, but not at the expense of the above, because those make a real difference in my still photography.

  As far as weathersealing, the A900 has seals on every button and for the viewfinder.  Weathersealing on all cameras is a bit nebulous, but I know of A700's being used in downpours with no problems, and I know the A900's sealing is it least as good as the 5Dii's, although it looks to be a bit better.  The problem with Sony is the lenses aren't sealed, which is unfortunate.

  Carl Zeiss ZE,ZF,ZK, and ZA are all made in Japan.  The ZE,ZF,ZE are made by Cosina, whereas Sony and Zeiss use a different plant for the ZA.  The ZA's are still designed and tested by CZ, and their QC is presides over the manufacturing.  Each lens has both a Sony and Zeiss serial number, and the ZA's are just as "Zeiss" as the others.

  For my work, I only use 2 lenses 95% of the time, so lens/system loyalty is rather weak for me, because it costs little for me to switch.  Dropping a 21MP sensor with HD video into the old 5D isn't the ticket for me, and I'll gladly pay $300 more for the A900.  Granted, the VF and higher flash sync are crucial to me, and probably influence me more than it would others.  I was actually hoping one of the cameras would do 1/300+, but 1/250 is the absolute minimum for me.  Cheers!
-douglas

[BruceHouston]

I have the Canon Brochure here, and it only says that the AF is slightly more receptive when using 2.8 lenses in low light. Thats it. So as I said, I could detect little if no difference.
Compare it to the Nikon D700 with I think a 51 point AF system, I think this could have been a serious point for improvement for Canon.
But anyway, look at all the other great stuff its got. And who would have thought it 21MP
I would have been certain that it would be a 16MP FF body possibly using the 1ds mk2 sensor, what what a bonus!
I wonder if this means we will see an update to the 1DSmk3 at PMA, maybe an "N" version or something.  Lets face it, for that kind of money it should be running on Digic 4, have a 920,000 dot display, and a wider dynamic range sensor, just for starters.
Also if anyone can give me an answer to this one I would be greatfull.
Can you bracket expose in liveview, keeping the mirror held up for all three frames?
It´s very useful  for HDR, for minimum movement and maximum speed between frames. Maybe a 1ds mk3 or a D50 user might have the answer.

Andy

Well, you certainly CAN do what you are asking as to live-view with the 40D.  I am sure that it will work the same with the 50D.  Most of my shooting is done this way, tripod mounted.  You set the exposure bracketing steps between shots (In 1/3 ev increments, I believe within the main menu, second tab from the left).  I set mine to 1 stop instead of 2 because I may decide to take two or three series of bracketed shots for wider dynamic range.  Set drive to 2 second timer, then press set button in center of diall wheel to initiate live view.  Now, press x10 button twice to blow up the on-screen live-view image for precise manual focusing.  Now press shutter release and all three bracketed shots will fire without mirror movement.  If you need more dynamic range, change the exposure time by three full f-stops and press the shutter relasease again.

Best,
Bruce

[innesfoto]

Thanks for the posting Bruce.
That was helpful and I will give it a shot if I go with the 5D mk2.  As for the previous posts, I was very interested to read the comments on the Alpha 900.
To be honest I really think it is too early to tell which is better, There where very good points made as to the origin of the lenses which were all quite correct.
And while I agree that the Zeiss lenses produced for the Sony are not the same as the ones produced for the Zeiss Ikon, they are also not the same as the Ones
produced for the Rollei /Sinar / Leaf ( Format difference aside) I don´t know if it still stands but all lens tests were compared to a West German Zeiss Plannar as the benchmark of quality.
Now I don´t know this for sure, but it is my guess that which ever factory was producing the zeiss lenses for Contax is proberbly the ones still making them for Sony.
And I can tell you that the Contax plannar was no where near the quaility of the ones made in Germany.
Not that any of this really matters as the lens technology is changing at such an incredible rate that everything that was made a few years ago is well out of date, and has probably been superseded.
As far as the Sony Body is concerned I have the brochure here and it says in very small text that the body is NOT water proof or splash proof. Now I don´t know about you but I don´t think I want to invest that kind of money in a body that isn´t even splash proof. My guess is that it will be sealed to a certain extent but Sony don´t want to have a load of them coming back from people who were using them in the rain.
Where as the Canon does say that the Camera is weather proofed against  several liters of water per minute.
I agree also that a video is neither here nor there to me either, I am interested in a stills camera and nothing else, and to be honest if I could, I would love to have a Camera without all the crap added on.
So Hail to the Leica S2 which would be my choice in a flash if it were not for the astronomical price.
As for the handling on the Sony it is much nicer than the Canon, and has a very well designed grip and vertical Grip. and sits really well in the hand. Also very nice little extras like the VF shutter for closing out stray light on long exposures. I will be very interested to see the comparisons between the two in image quality, and especially Noise, In that I think the Canon will have more than the edge.    
As fo my earlier comments on the AF system in the Canon, it would seem to be the case that canon have left in the same AF system as was in the 5D MK1, This they say is because a new one would eat up more space and would affect the cameras size. "So! make it bigger then Canon, we want something good not something small" My opinion is that they need at least something to give the remaining 1DS mk3´s a chance of selling before they upgrade it. weather sealing and AF is all thats left to the poor old chap.
Check out this link to see an interview with the bods at Canon telling the interviewer all about it.      

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302...oninterview.asp
 
It also looks like there is a good chance of the Nikon D3X putting in an appearance in November, if this should happen, I reckon we will see a replacement to the 1DS mk3 by the time PMA starts next year.
And this will be a real Pisser for anyone who forked out full price on a Mk3  because they will have to sell off the remaining stock at a knock down price meaning your investment just took a major dive.
This, I think will not be the case with the 5D MK2, I think it is fairly future proof, at least for the coming 3-4 years. which  should also be of serious consideration when buying a new camera. As to what its worth will be in its future resale.

Andy

[douglasf13]

As someone who is probably going to buy either the Sony a900 or the Canon 5D MkII and have been investigating both models closely, I think I have to disagree with some of your (seemingly biased) characterizations.

I agree that the a900 is the better featured camera -- at least from reading the specifications.  It's a good reason why the a900 is justifiably $300 more expensive.  However to suggest that the new 5D MkII is just the old 5D with a new sensor and HD video is just inaccurate and misleading.  The LCD is improved, weather-sealing is improved, the viewfinder is improved, image processing has been improved, 14 bit conversion instead of 12 bit, better user information, new Peripheral Illumination Correction, new "Auto Lighting Optimizer", and other small changes. It seems to me that there are many improvements, and is more than just a sensor and HD video.  I don't care a bit about video, but if it's there great, if not, no big deal.

However, in comparisons of the 2 bodies everything I've seen points to superior IQ  in the Canon.  Comparing Canon jpegs (all that is available) to Sony RAW files (optimally processed in ACR 4.6) that Canon appears to have much better noise characteristics.  While they are about even at 100 ISO, noise is apparent in Sony images at 200 ISO, and the differences in noise just get bigger from there.  I would say that there is at least a 2 stop difference in noise  to the benefit of the Canon.  At higher ISO use get cleaner, higher effective resolution, and greater detail out of the Canon.  Even down-sampling the Sony files to 12 mp size, the Sony appears to even have more noise than the original Canon 5D.  Once we get some RAW files from the new Canon we can see how much the 14 bit conversion means compared to Sony's 12 bit conversion.  

I certainly would like to see more samples from both cameras as well as a head-to-head comparisons.  I hope to get some time with both cameras next month and compare their handling (Canon, IMHO, typical sucks in this area, but looking at the Sony, I don't hold out much hope that it is much better -- but we'll see).  

As it stands, if you do all your shooting at 100 ISO (or anything you do over 100 ISo, doesn't matter), then the Sony might be better due to its marginally better VF, speed (the extra 1.1 fps, however, is virtually meaningless to me), and in-body IS.  However, if image quality is important to you in a full range of ISO settings, then the Canon 5D MkII, at least from what we have seen to date, is the obvious choice.  Being able to shoot relatively cleanly at 1600 and 3200 ISO, and a quite usable 6400 ISO can be a great benefit in many situations, and dramatically increases the practical usability of the Canon relative to the Sony a900 -- in a way that completely overshadows the modest body feature advantages of the Sony.

But again this is preliminary, based on a comprehensive and detailed look at what's been available to date.  It appears, so far, that the Achilles heel (relative to the competition) of the Sony a900 -- even with RAW files -- is noise.

  Agreed.  I was a little extreme about the new 5Dii, which killed my point.  My point was simply that the A900 seems a good price compared to the 5Dii, considering the features.  I agree that it's still way too early to tell on IQ.  I've seen probably 30+ A900 files converted from RAW, and they are definitely competitive with the 1Ds III in noise and, in some cases, better in detail, which Chausser d'Images' tests agree with.  So, if the 5Dii is 1 or 2 stops better than the 1Dsiii, then the same will ring true with the A900.  Hopefully detail is still preserved in the 5Dii, because those Laforet images look bad, IMO.

  As far as weathersealing, this is such a nebulous topic that it's really hard to compare.  I know of A700's that have been in downpours with water literally water wheeling out of the control dial cavities, and they were fine.  I think Sony is reluctant to approve any level of weathersealing, which is unfortunate, but I know the camera does really well.  Now the lenses, well, I've not tested them, but they should at least have an O-ring. Shame on Sony

[uaiomex]

WARNING. I good friend of mine witnessed last week a Sony going bad after some coffee got spilled over it. He only said it was a Sony Alpha. Maybe the spill was massive, I don't know. Better to be careful.
Eduardo

Agreed.  I was a little extreme about the new 5Dii, which killed my point.  My point was simply that the A900 seems a good price compared to the 5Dii, considering the features.  I agree that it's still way too early to tell on IQ.  I've seen probably 30+ A900 files converted from RAW, and they are definitely competitive with the 1Ds III in noise and, in some cases, better in detail, which Chausser d'Images' tests agree with.  So, if the 5Dii is 1 or 2 stops better than the 1Dsiii, then the same will ring true with the A900.  Hopefully detail is still preserved in the 5Dii, because those Laforet images look bad, IMO.

  As far as weathersealing, this is such a nebulous topic that it's really hard to compare.  I know of A700's that have been in downpours with water literally water wheeling out of the control dial cavities, and they were fine.  I think Sony is reluctant to approve any level of weathersealing, which is unfortunate, but I know the camera does really well.  Now the lenses, well, I've not tested them, but they should at least have an O-ring. Shame on Sony

[douglasf13]

WARNING. I good friend of mine witnessed last week a Sony going bad after some coffee got spilled over it. He only said it was a Sony Alpha. Maybe the spill was massive, I don't know. Better to be careful.
Eduardo

  Argh.  That's unfortunate.  I would imagine it was a lower end A100/200/300/350 rather than an A700, but who knows?

[The View]

WARNING. I good friend of mine witnessed last week a Sony going bad after some coffee got spilled over it. He only said it was a Sony Alpha. Maybe the spill was massive, I don't know. Better to be careful.
Eduardo

A photographer I know had an A700 die when Sake splashed on the camera while shooting a Japanese ceremony. (Maybe he should have shot beer? Hell, it's a Japanese camera!)