Going Full Frame And Would Like Your Input
First off, I am not a pro, but I take decent photos. I am currently using a Sony Alpha Compact with Zeiss glass. There is nothing wrong with this camera, however my wife is getting the bug and has gave me the blessing to step up so long as she gets the APC and gear :clap.
That being said, I have really liked the Sony unit and would consider it as the full frame purchase. I was a big Cannon fan in my 35mm days, but bought a Minolta while I was in the service and liked it as well. So the Cannon EOS was given to my brother who still uses it. When I found out that the glass from my 7XI would work with the Sony APC, that is what solidified my Sony purchase.
My questions for you are as follows, assuming I am choosing between Cannon and Sony:
1. Do you think that in the 2k price range for bodies, is there much of a difference between the Sony and Cannon line?
2. In terms of glass, is there a image/construction quality difference between the two?
3. This is a real important factor. In terms of user controls and ergo's, does one feel more natural than the other?
A little more background. I know that it is a big jump going from an APC to a full sensor unit. I almost always shoot in either full manual mode or on occasion switch to A or S priority. I also shoot mostly landscapes and sports/fast moving objects. None of what I shoot goes anywhere except for the friend I am shooting for or for our family's use and entertainment. In other words, I have no plans of calling myself a professional nor having a studio.
jI only use three of the 8 lenses that I have. No real rhyme or reason, I just like them. They are a 16-80 2.8 Zeiss, 50mm 1.8 Sony, and a 70-210 beercan. Remember, these stay with the APC but these are the focal lengths that I most commonly use.
I plan on purchasing the unit I select at the local mom and pop camera shop, and I understand I may pay a little more for it, but that is OK with me.
Thanks in Advance.
Phil
That being said, I have really liked the Sony unit and would consider it as the full frame purchase. I was a big Cannon fan in my 35mm days, but bought a Minolta while I was in the service and liked it as well. So the Cannon EOS was given to my brother who still uses it. When I found out that the glass from my 7XI would work with the Sony APC, that is what solidified my Sony purchase.
My questions for you are as follows, assuming I am choosing between Cannon and Sony:
1. Do you think that in the 2k price range for bodies, is there much of a difference between the Sony and Cannon line?
2. In terms of glass, is there a image/construction quality difference between the two?
3. This is a real important factor. In terms of user controls and ergo's, does one feel more natural than the other?
A little more background. I know that it is a big jump going from an APC to a full sensor unit. I almost always shoot in either full manual mode or on occasion switch to A or S priority. I also shoot mostly landscapes and sports/fast moving objects. None of what I shoot goes anywhere except for the friend I am shooting for or for our family's use and entertainment. In other words, I have no plans of calling myself a professional nor having a studio.
jI only use three of the 8 lenses that I have. No real rhyme or reason, I just like them. They are a 16-80 2.8 Zeiss, 50mm 1.8 Sony, and a 70-210 beercan. Remember, these stay with the APC but these are the focal lengths that I most commonly use.
I plan on purchasing the unit I select at the local mom and pop camera shop, and I understand I may pay a little more for it, but that is OK with me.
Thanks in Advance.
Phil
Life is good and lots of stuff to shoot!! :clap
0
Comments
2-Sony is using Minolta glass specs and also included is the Carl Zeiss lenses so sony has good quality as does canon or nikon or the others.........but I find most sony products over priced.....so I split when they bought KM.....I still have 2 - KM 7D's and a 24-70 and 70-210 f.8 both Sigmas.........
3- the answer in to #3 lies wqith in each individual......some people hate the placement of Nikon buttons and dials.....I like where my D300's have everything, almost the same as my KM 7D's.........I tried out a couple of canons before buying back into Nikon and did not find them intutive at all for ME..........that is truly a personal thing and also what one gets used to.
Good Luck
Sony, from what I've seen is a decent camera company. I think Canon does have an edge in ISO perfomance, and I can tell you first hand, it is a nice camera!
Phil
Sony - Resolution, built in IS, build quality, are the pros
Cons - No live view, simple AF next to the D700, ISO quality is not equal to Nikon or even Canon, no video
Canon - Video, resolution (close but not as good as Sony), high ISO but not as good as Nikon
Cons - Build quality is not as good, AF also is relatively simple next to Nikon
Nikon, Best AF, High ISO performance, Build Quality, FPS
Cons - Only 12MP, no video
Thanks for the info. I saw your pictures and I can honestly say, wow. Nice stuff. I do not plan on doing any type of work that would need the ISO clarity as you need for those shots. Most of the time, I rarely go above 400, and 800 would be a stretch for what I do.
Video would not even be a consideration for me in a camera. Neither would live view. I have only used it a few times on my APC.
I have not considered the Nikon line as I have zero experience with them. That being said, which unit do you recommend?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos5dmkii,nikon_d700,sony_dslra900&show=all
Note that the links to full reviews is listed as well.
Note also that while the Sony chip has a higher resolution pixel count than the 5D MKII, they are almost identical when compared by the "Aboslute Resolution" test of DGReview, meaning that for most purposes usable/printable resolution is the same. While both the Sony and the Canon have more usable resolution than the Nikon, the Nikon is no slouch and will easily print to 20" x 30" for most subjects, dependant more on the lens quality, focus accuracy, etc.
Now go to http://dxomark.com and review each camera using the DXO comparative tool for RAW files by camera.
The Sony imager really excels at dynamic range at base ISO, but then drops rather rapidly at a steady slope. Both the Canon and the Nikon do much better as ISO increases. The Noise SNR by print size show that all these cameras will print with similar noise footprints at the same print size. Color sensitivity is one area where the Nikon imager does much better, but it's the easiest measure to compensate in software.
In short, all of these cameras will produce fantastic images in the hands of a skilled practitioner using the best techniques and the best lenses.
I would look at all aspects of every system, including the costs of desired lenses and accessories, and the availability of used lenses and accessories, to try to assess the total system costs.
The fact that the Sony FF camera could share some components with your existing Sony camera should not be ignored, unless you don't currently have that much to share.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Do not discount high ISO performance just because you don't currently above 800. It can open up a new realm of possibilities.
I currently use the Nikon D700 and love it. I would recommend it if you are looking to start over with a new camer system. If you are not, stick with Sony.