Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I am about to upgrade my pentax k10d to another camera and i am looking at the sony alpha 900 or canon eos 5d but i cant decide which one to go for. i take pictures of landscapes and wildlife but also action shots of moving dogs. i need a camera with good resolution, fast focussing with excellent lenses and these two cameras seem to make the grade. can anyone offer any advice as to my choice? i have looked at reviews and they seem pretty equal. does anyone have any experience of these cameras? thanks.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: i need a camera with good resolution, fast focussing with excellent lenses
Sony!! Not even Canon's fabled 'L' glass can get close to the Zeiss lenses available for the A900.
I recently bought one with the CZ24-70 and the lens/camera is simply astonishing in its rendition of detail and the huge, bright viewfinder is a real joy to looks through. Live view? Who needs it? It's just an excuse for not having a good VF. The AF is fast and accurate and you get 5fps, should you need it for your action shots.
But the best things are the dynamic range (huge) and the gentle roll-off into blown-highlights. The UI and handling are near-perfect, too.
BTW, I was in the same dilemma (Sony vs. 5d) and I'm really glad I made the decision I did. And the A900 is cheaper, too!
Live View on the Sony A900 would be pointless due to reflections off of the screen making it practically impossible to use.
Perhaps I need a cloth draped over my head / camera like those used by LF camera users
If you are looking to do action shots maybe you should consider cameras with a higher continuous frame rate of 5 FPS?
1D Mk11 is 8.5, not sure what the Nikons do now, but they must have a camera that is more than the 5FPS.
It depends which is more important to you, the FPS or the megapixels.
To be honest I am not sure either the Sony nor the 5D would be best if the wildlife is your main subject.
Food for thought,
hmm buying sony is risky, they've pretty much just started out in the SLR market (as opposed to Canon who started it 50 years ago). If you want good glass you can buy zeiss for canon or just buy good L glass, some of it is amazing.
Buying Sony is no more or less risky than buying Minolta was. The Sony DSLRs are effectively Minoltas (Sony bought out Konica Minolta, remember) and you can use quite a few excellent old Minolta lenses, too. Much cheaper than buying new....
Minolta- Sony cameras are very good,but then I can only speak from experience as a long time user.
Hello everyone. thanks for your comments. I have decided to go for the Sony. I think they have done very well for themselves in the market in the short space of time they have been in it for DSLRs and they are committed to being first among equals with Canon and Nikon. I think they have shown their commitment with the amount of cameras and technology they have and they have done infinitely better than Pentax who thought they could be third. I regret purchasing my K10d and wont be going back to Pentax again. I dont have many lenses so I am not too concerned that Sony dont have too many lenses at present, but i am excited about the prospects of their future. If they can produce a full frame camera of 24 megapixels for £1600 what else can they do?
May I be the first to congratulate you on your wise choice.
If you can afford it, and assuming you haven't already done so, get the Zeiss 24-70. It's a fantastic lens!
From a canon man, the sony makes me drool. phwanarrrrrrrrrr...
what a bit of kit for the price, can you imagain a 50mm 1.8 on the front of that beast !!! droooooooooooooool
Quote: can you imagain a 50mm 1.8 on the front of that beast
Not really, Sony only do a f1.4 or f2.8
Hi everybody. Can you help me with another question? having decided to go for the Sony I will need filters for the lenses-which amazingly are all 77mm! Brill! I need to go for top end filters but am torn between the Lee filter system/Hoya, and the Cokin system. I dont know whether to have a circular polariser on the front - as i have always had for protection and quick shots on other cameras - or to go for the linear polarisers from the square systems. What are the thoughts out there?I realise from threads in here that there is no reason to go for UV filters because present day lenses and sensor screens elimiate this so there are protective filters now which will be an option. What are your thoughts?
And go for an optical flat, not a polariser. Keep the polariser in your bag and only use when you need it.
For UV filter, Save your money, forget about it.
For polarizer, get circular instead of linear.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar