New Sony A900

[eccles]

The new Sony 24MP full frame pro model has been announced for October delivery:
http://www.alphamountworld.com/

It's impressive but I'm be sticking to my A700.

[Gruditch]

36_11_6 sony.gif (22.98 KiB) Viewed 962 times

From the Canonistas

[Rogerdodge]

Remarkable - the words "Pro-Model" and "Sony" in the same sentance?



Roger
The Grand Pooh-Bah of the Canonista

[Gruditch]

As I was after a bit of amusement, so I had a little look at the lenses that the Sony professional photographer, would have at his disposal, oh dear!. Not very tempting for the budding wildlife photographer is it, still nice how they thought up that idea of making their top lenses ( both of them ) in grey.



The camera its self will no doubt prove to be a bl@@dy good body, but with such a dismal selection of lenses, you would have to be some kind of Muppet to rush out to buy it.

Gruditch

[eccles]

It's OK guys. You just carry on with your second rate cameras with their titchy screens, weird controls that require expensive manfrotto tripods. After they're Canons so they must be good. Right?
How many lenses do you need, Gary? Is every one you have a Canon? No, I thought not....

[eccles]

OK, I know you guys are winding me up, but I'll bite anyway.
I've just counted 25 lenses in the Sony line up (all of which are automatically image stabilised of course). The line up is short on long primes and 400mm and 600mm are planned. But I could live with an EX Sigma if I wanted either of those focal lengths, and I do have a 400mm. My Siggie 400mm F5.6 is reputed to be better than a Canon 400mm L anyway.
BTW, 10 of these are Zeiss or 'G', i.e. pro.

[Gruditch]

Your right not all my lenses are Canon, because company's like Sigma think it worth while to make all of there lenses in a Canon fit. hence when I was after a 400mm plus lens, if you include the lenses you can convert up, and keep AF, I had a choice of over 24 lenses.



How many lenses do you need, I think you need a wide angle lens, a light mid length zoom, a long zoom, something to get you over 500mm, and a Macro, all x2 in my house.

Oh and a spare camera body, don't ask.

Gruditch

[eccles]

I have 18-70, 70-210, 55-200, 28-105, 105 macro, 400, 1.4x TC. Bodies: A700, A100.
I had a 75-300 series 1 Minolta, good quality but it had a slightly foggy internal element that lost contrast when backlit, and I didn't get on with it anyway so I sold it. I'm overspecified in the mid range and hardly ever use the 28-105, but it's a beautiful condition series 2 Minolta classic and I can't bear to part with it. The others all get used regularly, especially the 70-210 (Beercan) and the 400 Siggie.
I suppose I'm a bit of an old fart really but I like the idea of using classic glass to produce nice images. The beercan rocks.

[Gruditch]

I / we have three lenses that are never used a 18-55 Canon, 28-300 Sigma, and a 70-300 Canon. We both use Sigma 150 Macro's. For wide angle Lisa uses a Canon 17-85 IS, I never got on with it to well, so I now have a Sigma 18-50 F2.8, lovely little lens. I'm just buying a Canon 70-200 F4 IS, which will be nice and light weight, plus with an extension tube could make a good butterfly lens. Lisa has a Canon 300 F4 IS which gets plenty of use with an extension tube, or with a x1.4 converter for wildlife, I use a Canon 100-400 that I always take out in my bag, and is probably my most used lens now. For real long stuff, which I don't do a lot of, I use a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 with a x2 converter, at 600mm with the x2 it's still very sharp. I have a Canon 40D, Lisa has just got a 40D for a steal, and we now have a 30D as a spare.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Between you and me, someone on this forum has an A900 (not me). I've seen it and it's an amazing camera. No bigger than an A700, and handles much the same with the same superb screen and rear controls. That viewfinder is cavernous. Images are first class, and high iso noise is NOT a problem. It's available for under 2 grand. It doesn't have face detection, live view, movie mode or other useless gimicks, just 24 MP of quality.

[Chris]

I think there's very little between the manufacturers; if you read reviews and comparisons online, they really do split hairs to decide why one is better than another. I think as eccles points out, it's down to handling: he finds the Canon awkward to use and the Sony more up to his purposes... when choosing a camera, most magazines / online articles that I've read recommend calculating your budget, taking a look at what you can buy for the money and going and trying out the cameras in a shop. So enough of the bickering!!!

Interesting reading how many zooms you both have! I have pretty much canned all of mine and have replaced them with primes.

Canon 17-40mm f/4 L
Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro EX
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro EX
Canon 300mm f/2.8 L

and a 1.4x converter, which means I also have

Canon 24-56mm f/5.6L
Sigma 100mm f/4 Macro EX
Sigma 210mm f/4 Macro EX
Canon 420mm f/4 L

Why quibble over the quality of camera bodies if you're just going to damage it with dodgy, zoom-glass??

[Gruditch]

There is a big difference between consumer/cheap zooms, and Canon L zooms, the 70-200 F/4 and 70-200 F/2.8 imparticular are fantastic lenses, the 100-400 (if you get a good one) can be a great, and very versatile lens in the field. The only lens of mine I'm not happy with is the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8, its fantastic when used in conjunction with a x1.4, but despite all the great feed back about this lens, its not up to the standards I require when used with a x2.

So as I require a lens that can get me up and over 500mm, its start saving again and look at my options. There's 15 lenses on the start list, because of lack of IS, crap glass, price, and weight, (as I like to walk with my equipment not sit in a hide), we are narrowed down to 3. They are the Canon 300 F/2.8 IS, the Canon 400 F/4 DO IS and the Canon 500 F/4 IS. The 300 is the sharpest, but to get the length I want, I would have to use a X2. Either of the other two will cost me grand more, the 400 is supper light and would only need a x1.4, but I don't hear to many people raving about this lens, the 500 ticks all the boxes but it's the heaviest and most expensive.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Unless you have a really good prime telephoto, 2x TCs are a waste of time. Remember a 2x TC effectively crops your image by 4x area, so your lens has to outresolve your sensor by that much, a tall order for a zoom. But a 1.4x can give decent gains in reach with a high quality zoom.