I switched to Sony...

[michael_moon2]

<p><em>It's interesting how system lock-in and brand loyalty are tested (and sometimes lost) at the switch from crop to full-frame.</em><br>

Yes indeed - just like when we (well, I at least) made the swich to AF. For me, it made me rethink my manual focus choice, Pentax, because it seemed that Minolta would give me a better interface than the then-available Pentax choices. Since I had no AF lenses at all, it semed a good time to re-evaluate the various systems.<br>

Now, having invested money in Minolta 35mm AF lenses to the tune of maybe four to five thousand dollars, I waited for a full frame Sony at a price I can afford, and thanks to the A850's pricing, I am in a FF system without having to buy a single lens - and cover focal lengths 20mm to 300 mm with quality glass.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>For less than that you could have bought a good 1Ds MkII................................</p>

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>They don't have to embrace in body stabalisation, the one major advantage to lens mounted stabalisation is that you can see the effect in the viewfinder, also each lens can be tuned to its focal length properly. The advantage of an in body system is that it works with all lenses, but not as well, and you don't have a stabalised image to see.</p>

[marc_felber1]

<p>Bad move, canon offer more lens choices. If Sony is so good, then why are some people selling their sony's for canon's? I met a guy on a bird tour in belize who regreted he ever purchase a sony in the first place and said he was going to get a canon once he got back home. Just remember you get what you paid for. Note: Sony used to be Monolita. poor customer service, no 800 number etc. I used to owned monolta and I am glad I sold ever piece I had since they were sold to Sony years later. The big players are Nikon and Canon . Can't go wrong with both, but I would not touch sony with a 10 foot pole.</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>I didn't mean to pick any fights or anything. I just wanted to say that I was put an unusal position switching from crop to FF. And that because of my rather odd shooting practices it was more affordable for me to switch to Sony. And that Sony offers a very affordable FF with good reviews. And in my opinion (not tested yet only read many reviews and posts) the Sony has as good of IQ as the Canon at lower ISOs. If I didn't believe that I would not have made the change.</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>No need for rancor. Kevin made a choice that seems completely sensible and reasonable for his needs, and Canon will probably survive despite his choice.</p>

<p>I use Live View on about half my photos and shoot at ISO1600-3200 for the other half, so Sony isn't currently a realistic option for me. But I'd never say never to any future options.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>I would have just bought a used 5DII........</p>

[tsypkin]

<p>Regarding Broadway photo, just google them, and you are likely to see that you great deal may turn out not so great. Or check here: http://www.photo.net/neighbor/view-one?neighbor_to_neighbor_id=90620; or here http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cameras/broadway_photo.html; or here: http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo. I'd very careful with them: if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.</p>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

<blockquote>

<p>The big players are Nikon and Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean.</p>

[richard_eng]

<p>I'm a Canon shooter (with a 40D), but not too long ago, I played with the A850 at a Sony Store. I was very impressed. It is ergonomically better than every DSLR I've tried, including 5D Mk II, D700, and 7D. It's a lovely machine, built like a tank. And the shutter has a very satisfying <em>ker-chunk</em> sound!<br>

You're right, the IQ is excellent up to 800 ISO. The A850 is clearly a studio camera, <strong>not</strong> intended for sports or low-light shooting.<br>

As for lens selection, Sony's is very limited, but they <strong>do</strong> have just about everything you need, esp. in the Zeiss family. (If you crave long telephoto, however, you are S.O.L.) The camera's built-in IS makes every lens just that much better.<br>

Even with my 40D, I never use Live View. I don't miss it. Besides, it eats up battery life like crazy. And it heats up the sensor unnecessarily, causing IQ problems.<br>

The A850 isn't for everybody, or for every purpose. Sony are aiming at a specific market segment, and if you fall within it, this camera is a winner.<br>

BTW, I *love* the external flash that's available for this camera. It's so versatile!</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>Kevin I've had the opportunity to shoot with the A850 and personally think is a great camera, good for you, just shoot, take great pictures and remember some "Canon FAN BOYS"wont consider anything different than their beloved "brand" and that should not be of relevance in this case, aside is the fact that you happen to post in a Canon forum!<br>

Happy shooting!</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Did the same thing myself It's the best bargain out there right now. $8000 D3x image quality for $2000. All in a tank like body with built in IS. Here's test beside my 40D both using Tamron 28-75's.<br>

The 40D was framed in at 30mm while the 850 was framed at 50mm. The 40D at 5.6 and the 850 at F8 to help compensate for the DOF difference. Both cameras locked down on a solid tripod. First the whole scene.</p><div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>Now the 100% crops. I'm thrilled with the 850.</p><div></div>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>Great pics Michael, thanks for sharing!</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding Broadway photo, just google them, and you are likely to see that you great deal may turn out not so great. Or check here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/neighbor/view-one?neighbor_to_neighbor_id=90620">http://www.photo.net/neighbor/view-one?neighbor_to_neighbor_id=90620</a>; or here<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cameras/broadway_photo.html" target="_blank">http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cameras/broadway_photo.html</a>; or here:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo" target="_blank">http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo</a>. I'd very careful with them: if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I noticed that earlier today. I was actually sold on the Camera @ 2000 on BH. But I found Broadway so that sealed the deal. I will probably just go with BH or Adorama.</p>

[hjoseph7]

"I switched to Sony..."

 

Good for you, my first camera was a Minolta SRT-202 and although I always aspired for a Nikon, that camera and the Rokkor lenses it came with, took some very good pictures. Minolta was the first company to come out with AF if you remember, then the Big-Boys, Nikon and Canon followed through several months later. I once seriously thought about switching over to Olympus not too long ago by the way, because of their progresive innovative style.

 

I'm not sure, but think Olympus was the first to come out with Live-View and Sensor cleaning on an SLR. Their cameras usually offer way more features than Canon, or even Nikon. You get tired of paying for the "Name" after a while.

 

Back in the days, the Om-4/Om-4t was a camera to behold. Unfortunately, then came AF and after that it was Digital, so Olympus fell by the wayside. They just did not have the resources to compete with the Big Boys !

 

Pentax is another example they just came out with a hell-fire medium format Digital SLR that is surely to make people think. I still have an old Pentax K manual camera that I bought from a thrift shop about 15 years ago for about $75 with a 50mm f1.4 lens. The pictures are great, it's not the camera it's the photographer.

 

The reason I stuck with Canon was that I had already invested in allot of Canon gear such as lenses, flashes etc, I'm not Bill Gates and the customer service at Canon was hard to beat. Even still, if I was to win the lottery right now, I might seriously think of investing in the Olympus line despite the limitiations of the 4/3 system. Sometimes it's liberating not to follow the sheep...

[kevin_b.2]

<p>Yes the Pentax... that definitely caught my attention last week. If my career progresses and I have some more potential I can definitely see myself buying one in 2-3 years. I am dreaming of a day when I can print 20x30s @ 300 dpi.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>I'm not partial to any particular brand of camera. I own Canon DSLRs but my backroom also includes a Pentax 645n, plus several varieties of 6x9 and 4x5 view cameras, and until recently a 617. I shot one of my most successful images with a rented SONY a900. All that said, as someone else noted, Canon customer service and support is hard to beat. But I will definitely be looking at the Pentax 645D when it becomes widely available.</p>

 

[charles_wood]

<p>Kevin, if you're shooting landscapes, stitch 3-4 vertical frames and you can be printing 300 dpi images without having to wait till 'some day'.</p>

[itai]

<p>Well said Kevin. I know you got a lot of varried responses but the great thing is that you made a choiced based on your needs, the lenses you use, the ISO range you use, etc.<br>

All the "but Canon has more lenses" responses do not matter if the lenses you need are available with your new camera.<br>

I don't own a Sony but their A900 tempts me a lot since it is the smallest full-frame DSLR with a 100% viewfinder. Now that I have a 100% viewfinder on a cropped camera, I can't live without it. Plus, I'm fully equipped for Sony with a full range of Minolta (all FF) lenses, I just need the price to come down a bit...<br>

Now go have fun!<br>

- Itai<br>

www.neovoyage.com</p>

 

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Though I have 5DII and 7D, I found Sony A900 and A850 very tempting considering some of their Zeiss lenses like 135mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4 and the very good 24-70mm 2.8. That's the range I shoot in. But these cameras are not for indoor/low light shooting.<br />Happy shooting, Kevin.</p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>I'm glad not too many folks have taken your post negatively. Of course, posting it here instead of where the Sony folks hang out is a bit risky. :) Good luck with the A850. I sincerely hope you don't have trouble with Broadway Camera.<br>

BTW, are you familiar with dyxum.com? A fun place for alpha mount shooters!</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<blockquote>

<p>The built in shake reduction is a feature Canon and Nikon will have to embrace one day.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Shake reduction in the body has the downside of viewing shaking image in the viewfinder.</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>Hi Kevin. A number of people have been trying to persuade you that you've done the wrong thing. I'm not sure why. I think it's good to think outside the box and look at makes other than Canon and Nikon. Good for you and enjoy your new camera.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[nrb]

<p>I'm considering SONY too. Because it combines high tehnology with affordable prices, and I already own some of its glass. Canon should also consider built-in stabilization instead of their current IS.</p>

[dean_schreuder]

<p>I wish people would stop worrying about hardware and start learning how to take better pictures! I'm sick of hearing people put more emphasis on hardware than they do on the art! They apparently seem to think they can "buy" a better picture when what they are failing to realize is it takes talent, NOT hardware! Hardware is just a "tool" to help you expand on your talent! If you don't have talent then all you did was spend thousands of dollars to take photos that aren't any better than what Mrs. Smith can take with a $100 P&S! Take <a href="http://www.artofgregmartin.com/">Greg Martin</a> for example, a lot of his best work was taken with nothing more than a cheap Canon point & shoot that he carries around with him.</p>

<p>Do I have thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Yes I do... but before I bought every single piece I asked myself one question, "<em>how is this (tool) going to <strong>help</strong> me take better pictures?</em> " If I can give myself a good answer then I make the decision to buy it... If I can't give myself a good answer then I don't. But I never buy anything based solely on its "specifications".</p>

<p>And I wish people would stop worrying about mega pixels and noise! Just set your camera to what ever it takes to get the shoot! Then once you download and preview your shoots, look at them as you would normally... do any of them look good? Yes, good keep them. Don't worry about what resolution they are or what ISO they were shot at... Because absolutely no one is going to be looking at your photos through a jeweler's loop! And if you need to crop out most of your photo(s) for some reason, use a bigger lens next time!</p>

<p>Ok, so I said my piece... I'll stop ranting now. ;-)</p>