Quote (onepagememory @ Nov 2 2010 11:28am)

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.

Quote (Futurama @ Nov 2 2010 12:26pm)

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 It's sensor is waaay outdated.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.

Quote (onepagememory @ Nov 2 2010 12:27pm)

This. There's a reason I bought 3

Quote (Futurama @ 2 Nov 2010 17:37)

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

Quote (Antichrist- @ 2 Nov 2010 17:44)

5d mkII has better high iso handling(and bigger iso range), it shoots video, better battery life, bit more mega pixels(but 16mp of 1ds is enough), it has better controls(1ds mkII is missing joystick and it has other awkward controls same as in 1d mkI), better menu system and other small niceties of new technology like highlight tone priority etc.
1ds has better af, 3 stop light meter and light meter in viewfinder for ettl flash, its weather sealed(5d mkII only has some crappy seals that might leak as easy as non sealed cameras), built in battery grip, more sturdy, can take more hits and weights much more(some think weight is a good thing and some think its not), 1ds mkII doesent have the same moire problem that 5d mkII has, 100% viewfinder(98% on 5d doesent make much difference tho), sd and cf memory card slots(you can shoot jpg to other card and raw to other or just use the second card as a backup incase other card gets full).

1ds mkII can be better for some stuff, but generally the new technology of 5d mkII beats it. it kinda depends on your needs. 1ds is quite old high end professional camera, while 5d is newer semi pro camera and it shows on nearly everything

i havent used either of them, but i have owned 1d mkI that has similar controls to 1ds mkII and 40d that has similar controls to 5d and i have read lots of stuff about those cameras.

Quote (bialator @ 2 Nov 2010 19:16)

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?

Quote (Futurama @ 2 Nov 2010 19:26)

You have Nikon 14-24 (with adapter)

Quote (bialator @ Nov 2 2010 10:41am)

Samyang seem to be a good lens, but 14 is maybe too wide in full frame. Will see, in the end is very cheap.

What I hate of 5D II is that stupid mirror, incompatible with almost old contax lenses adapted that I like to use... Anyway. I believe that in the end Canon or Nikon are always secure. Will wait for a good offer or a second hand one. Destiny will decide.

Quote (Eek @ Nov 2 2010 09:38am)

I get the joke. Am i a nerd?


I don't think any of those there can touch the ts-e 17/4L.



I'll trade u my 50D + grip and extra batteries and a 135L for one of those bodies.

Quote (bialator @ Nov 3 2010 08:43am)

If I buy Canon it would be strange to use Nikon lenses. I normally used to do it with old contax lenses coz I own them and it is something "romantic", but to spend 2k an a 14-24 Nikon, a pig of a lens, and have no AF and all is not my needs. At that point samyang rocks!

Atm 5D II is the one that makes more sense.

D700 is the one I would prefer as handling feeling.

Alpha 900 is the most interesting solution but I am afraid to go in a small market and not be be pleased by results... Zeiss lenses would be a great plus...

Thank you all again for sharing your advices and experiences.

Quote (bialator @ Nov 4 2010 03:11am)

I am fine with e few lens.

24, 50, 135 for example. So All this lenses are not a primary need. High ISO performance is the key, but I like the viewfinder of A900 and the idea of having an AF 24 F2 stabilized...

Will see I hope in some Xmas offer...

Also like the new Nikon 24-120 VR...

WTF I am really confused an autism is taking the lead!