Hi guys,

I am also considering Sony between the candidates.

In the web in the Internet I can find the 900 at 1800 €, and the 850 at 1525. Imagine that the Nikon D700 and the Canon 5D II are both over 1900.

Sony has for sure interesting lenses and gorgeous features like internal stabilization that helps lens sharpness.

Resolution is very high also If I am pleased with 10 mp now so this is not a key feature for me.

My only concerning is high ISO performance, is that decent or bad?

Is 300 € a reason to select the 850 over the 900?

Thanks

p.s. please, post only if you have tried them. I know the spech list, 3 vs 5 fps and viewfinder are the main differences. Both lack live-view.

I started my photographic career with an A100, moved into an A200, then into a 300, and finally an A900. It's a decent camera. Internal stabilization is overrated and I find that both Canon and Nikon (excuse my treachery) have lenses that seem to have a more effective image stabilization. Imo the 24 MP capabiliies are great. High iso performance was mediocre (then again, all cameras are compared to the 5d MK II, including the shitty D700, D300, and any other sub 3k Nikon cameras). 5 fps is still slow. Sony lenses are slightly above average - my copies were extremely sharp, and they were cheap 3.5-5.6 lenses that ranged from like 70-300 and 15-500 (for whoever gets that joke).

I sold the A900 for almost full retail price and switched to Canon after being disappointed by Nikon's bodies and the expensse of glass.

Imo, get a 7d or the Nikon equivalent if money is a problem, but i'd go for the 5d MK II.

classic 5d and a lens imo if you cant afford 5d mkII or d700 used.

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Nov 2 2010 09:55am

Thank you guys. That is pretty much my feeling, but as I have never test directly...

I am a Canon user but startted with an Alpha 100. I like Canon but I do not like wide lenses, I ended up selling my 16-35 f2.8 II. Too expensive and heavy for the performance imo.

May I ask what did not you like from D700?

I will not change my 40D vs another apsc.



Yes, I can afford a full frame with compromises on lenses ofc

Many people say that a 1Ds mark II used is better than a 5D II. Have you tested it?

This post was edited by bialator on Nov 2 2010 10:19am

You can always go Tokina.
And yeah, the 1Ds Mark II used may be better in some respects than the 5d II, but it's almost 10 years old. What are you planning to use it for?

This post was edited by onepagememory on Nov 2 2010 10:27am

You don't have to buy Canon lenses when using a Canon body
I for one will never buy that piece of crap overpriced 16-35 f2.8II.
You have Nikon 14-24 (with adapter), Samyang 14 f2.8, Sigma 12-24, Canon 14 f2.8 II, Canon TS-e 17mm and Zeiss 21mm to choose from
and there are probably other UWA lenses that I don't know of

pfft the 1Ds mk2 has only better AF than 5dmk2. It's sensor is waaay outdated.
Some reviews suggest that the sensor in 5Dmk2 is even better than the one in the 1Dsmk3 which could be true if you look at
high ISO performance.

This post was edited by Futurama on Nov 2 2010 10:27am

This. There's a reason I bought 3

I need it for general purpose use and I hate flash light so will use often ISO higher than 1600.

That is why old models are not convincing me completely.

Zeiss 18 or 21 would be my first choice, shame they are too expansive for me atm. And Canon does not provide a cheap wide decent lens.

Have anybody tested on ff 24 f2.8 or 35 f2?

Ty

The cheap Canon non L primes are kind of crappy especially when it comes to corner sharpness.
Just use this and see for yourself
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/iso-12233-sample-crops.aspx

I think the cheapest Canon UWA would be the 17-40L. It's decent but not great.
Well you also have the Samyang 14 f2.8