a900 seems pretty good but i am not sure why it is more expensive than the 5d mk ii which is obviously the superior camera. it will take a decent photo, and the carl zeiss lens that i got is just amazing quite frankly.
a900 handles high iso in comparison with a 5d mk ii very very poorly. anything above iso 800 and the a900 is poor in comparison but still usable up to 3200. the iso 6400 expanded is just a waste of time and the noise is unbearable! but iso 100-800 it matches the mk ii in iq and noise, and thats the range i shoot 99% of my shots in.
ergonomically it has buttons everywhere instead of being hid inside menu's like canon, which i prefer, it reminds me more of nikon, except the buttons are very well thought out and hard to change by accident. my one niggle is the iso button is in an awkward place behind the neck strap so you have to look away from the view finder to press it. And that annoys me!
The lcd similar to the canon, and the preview image feature is fantastic and canon should defiantly copy that! ofc the a900 misses video and live view but neither i ever use anyway. I'm happy with the camera tbh and it does all i need it too so i don't care that its not a canon.
I am in love with all ziess lens' so i won't mind spending a grand a go because they are wonderful!
Quote (KratosGOW @ Dec 30 2011 01:55pm)
He changed because he was doing something stupid and ruined his camera. He blamed Canon for some reason.
i didn't blame canon, canon propaganda is pure bulshit though!
you are all slaves to media
Go buy a zeiss lens for your canon and you will never go back to L or any thing else!
tIt's not about the camera its about the person taking the photos!!!
lol
Quote (franek @ Dec 30 2011 06:57am)
ehm.. What did make you go from canon to sony?
No idea, i like changing and being different!
heck why the fuck not?
Quote (TheBlackRose66 @ Dec 30 2011 03:25am)
Sony...........
minolta yum yum!
This post was edited by wezman on Dec 30 2011 09:02am