Canon 5DmkII vs Sony A850

[frankie_withers]

<p>Hello everyone</p>

<p>I am trying to decide whether to upgrade to the Canon 5DmkII or the Sony A850.<br>

I currently use a Canon 40D. I do not have that much money invested in lenses, nothing nice enough to keep me from switching manufacturers so thats not a concern (28-135 IS USM, 50 1.8, lensbaby muse, piece of s**t EF 75-300 )<br>

Now on paper, many think it is obvious to go for the Canon 5DmkII. The noise performance is much better, the camera in general has better functionality, HD video, etc.<br>

The Sony however does have some serious strengths, at least serious to me, notably the superior viewfinder (this is big with me), in-body stabilization, and well- I guess that's it.<br>

I also prefer the feel of the Zeiss lenses to L lenses, and especially the grips of the Sony to the Canon (and all other DSLRs for that matter). I plan on using the portrait grip (currently use on my 40D) on my camera, and quite simply the canon just has this extremely unnatural block of a grip, thanks to the large batteries. The Sony has a much more ergonomic and functional grip, and I really prefer its adjusted height with the lens.<br>

I will be shooting weddings over the summer, but my main discipline is studio work so noise is not too much of a concern. I've got a steady hand and I did just fine with my 40D, I've never had to go above iso800. With the advancements in LR3, I don't think noise is much of a concern between the two cameras, until I get above iso1600.<br>

So what would you guys do?<br>

Canon pros: "better" specs, compatibility with my (albeit crappy) lenses, more accessories<br />cons: smaller viewfinder, crappy grip feel (imo), less res., will have to spend much more on IS L lenses<br>

Sony pros: in-body stabilization, preferred feel, better viewfinder, save on lenses that don't need IS, greater res.<br />cons: technically worse noise performance (although I don't think it will affect my work), not as much accessories/lenses, proprietary hotshoe,<br>

I'm really torn. Need to get this by the summer.<br>

Here is my blog, from which you can get an idea of what most of my work is like. Thanks for your opinions<br>

www.fkwstudio.blogspot.com</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>You will likely get a lot of answers here and on either side. I don't know of any reliable English language comparison review of the two, which I would tend to find, but you might ask around for a French to English translator or bilingual fellow photographer, as the two cameras were compared last year in either "Réponses Photo" or "Chasseur d'Images", two very thorough lens and camera review magazines. What interests me most is the quality of image (including color rendition), not just a matter of number of pixels or highest ISO noise performance.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If noise and video isn't needed, I would probably go for the Sony myself. Lens rental and secondhand availability lenses would also favor Canon but there are some real Minolta bargains also. I like and use IS more than I like to admit. It's one of those things I have gotten so used to that it's difficult to contemplate not having it all the time. I guess some would say that with video but I don't care much with video... </p>

<p>Having said all that, I would just wait until May or April to really see what's up then.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you make a pretty good case for the Sony. you seem to have weighed all the relative pros and cons, and having done that, stated your personal preference. so what's there to be torn about? is it the perception that the Sony is somehow a lesser camera? ergonomics are a pretty important part of the shooting experience, and it sounds to me like you're saying you have a clear preference in this category.</p>

<p>put it this way: let's say you could get married to one of two beautiful women, and you have to decide between the two. one you love already and the other, well, you'd have to learn to love.which would you choose?</p>

<p>i think it also depends on how long-term you are thinking. right now, there's no indication that Sony is completely committed to FF, and Canon has a big advantage in available lenses. that said, if you can live with the Sony glass lineup (and possibly purchase a 2nd body just in case they stop making FF bodies), there's no real reason not to go this route (plus you get in-body stabilization).</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Definately go test them out, how they feel in hours hands. Rent them if you can, although that could be expensive. For the purposes you mention above, they both seem excellent for the job in honesty, so it might come down to how they simply handle. By what you've wrote above, it does sound like you have a small preference to the Sony system/A900, with noise being the only thing putting you off. Well, if I can sway you fully, the noise issues aren't there in reality if you can use the camera effectively (kind of a given, with any camera, isn't it ?). Here is just one example, ISO6400, ZA1351.8: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a900-high-iso-performance_topic56764_page2.html</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>For what you seem to describe, I would go with Sony, if I did not have so much invested in Canon lens, I would go with Sony.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>To the Sony pros I would add considerably greater highlight dynamic range, by 2/3 of a stop, plus somewhat greater shadow dynamic range, to give the Sony a total of 9.4 EV versus 8.4 EV for the Canon, per DPReview. (Specifically, they found that the Sony had more--at +4.2 EV for the Sony versus +3.5 EV for the Canon; see <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page25.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page25.asp</a>; per DPReview, the A850 and A900 have the same performance on this: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra850/">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra850/</a>.)</p>

<p>What concerns me about Sony is their long-term commitment to the SLR (as opposed to SLT, like the A55 and A33) market. The lack of an A700 replacement is disappointing. There's nothing between the $2000 A850 and the $800 A580 (which has a pentamirror instead of a pentaprism, no micro focus adjust, no real pro build quality, etc.).</p>

 

[steven_f1]

<p>According to DP review the 5D and A850 have"Eye-level glass Penta-prism OVF, 98% coverage, 0.74x magnification" So I wouldn't expect any significant difference between the view finders in bth cameras. Both would be better then the viewfinder in your 40D. </p>

<p>Unless you routinely make very large prints (20X30 or so) or do extensive cropping on a regular basis, I would not expect to see a big difference due to the 3MP resolution difference. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>i think it also depends on how long-term you are thinking. right now, there's no indication that Sony is completely committed to FF, and Canon has a big advantage in available lenses. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since Sony released there first mirrorless cameras almost all of there camera sales have been mirrorless with almost no DSLR sales. If I was looking at Sony know I would be concerned about this. While you might be OK with Sony's current lens selection you might find it more limiting in the future. </p>

<p>I think the best thing for you to do is to rent both cameras with lenses you would be most interested in and take similar photos with each. Also keep in mind that some of Canon's none L lenses are nearly as good as the L version. In some cases IS is the only difference. you might also want to consider keeping the 40D and instead of buying a new camera just spend your money on some new lenses. That way your 40D and lenses could become a backup to your future camera be it the Sony or Canon.</p>

[frankie_withers]

<p>The information about the viewfinders is inaccurate, the 5DmkII has .71x magnification, the A850/A900 has a noticeably larger view. I compared these side-to-side at the PDN expo in new york. <br /> Lately however I have not been able to use the A850/A900, although I have used the 5DmkII at a few studio sessions (borrowing a friend's). <br /> It was mentioned that Canon's other glass (non-L) is of high optic standard. This is true, I feel most of my work looks absolutely great given the prices of the lenses, and I am a high advocate of skills over gear when it comes to the overall impact of my work. However I'm really big into feel- call me stupid but 90% of the reason for me to desire L glass or Zeiss glass is the amazing feel- the smoothness of the rings, weight, really adds to the experience for me. I do think this may have something to do with my background in music, as the feel of a piano is extremely important to me.<br>

As for above, suggesting I purchase my lenses first, as I plan on throwing down the big $$$ for a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, I want to make sure I know what body I want to get first-- If I am getting the Canon then I will be getting the lenses first. But I'm not sure yet so-<br /> At any rate. I do not have the resources, namely money, to rent both cameras and compare them. That would be great. I wish... <br /> You all do bring up a good point I didn't think of though- Sony's long term commitment to their DSLRs and namely Full-frame... hmmm... that is definitely important to consider. . . <br /> I am upgrading my body for a reason. The 40D simply doesn't have good enough noise-performance for the caliber of work I am seeking. It is decent, but not good enough, hence why I am making a jump to full-frame. The megapixels are significant also as I'd like to have the most formidability regarding my future clientele (commercial, fashion will require more megapixels), and I am quite the cropper at times. <br /> But darn, long term... I certainly wouldn't want to buy an A850/900 with $4000 of Zeiss glass to end up having nothing to go further with in the future... <br /> Man! Thank you for the insight but I'm still not decided. I don't hate the Canon. . . Dammit. <br /> Well at least I know I'm definitely not going Nikon.</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>There is so much more to say about the decision, but I will summarise: Sony has an enormous colour advantage, a trade-off for slightly more chroma noise at mid-high ISO. RAW shooters who can use NR apps wonder what the fuss is about, and the noise has a pleasant character in any case, a little like film grain, and does not generally trouble prints in any case. Canon went the other way, and ended up with a dysfunctional red channel and flat colour, especially in its strength area of high ISO. There is a reason so many 5DII shooters are moving to the Zeiss ZE range.</p>

<p>The A900 has great ergonomics, very practical menu system, controls where you need them. It's also very reliable. Sony, as well as forging ahead of Canikon in innovative designs for APS-C, is in FF to stay - they have said as much recently, and the (FF) ZA 24mm was just released a few months back. The A850 is fabulous value. The SS body is a big advantage, and I doubt the Canon even approaches the A900 VF. </p>

<p>Lens lineup include the legacy later Minolta range, with some truly excellent lenses such as the 100/2, 35/2, 28/2, 200mm APO HS and the 135mm STF. There is then 5 ZA (AF) CZ lenses: 24mm, 85mm, 135mm, 24-70mm and 16-35mm. There are apparently more ZAs in the pipeline. Would you imagine they would do so if they were exiting FF? Truth is there is little sales activity in FF, the hot territory is high end APS-C; Sony have a new A77 appearing this year, reputed to be very high tech indeed. Sony are industry leaders in sensor tech, think Nikon D3X, Pentax K5 and Sony A55/580, and NEX5.</p>

<p>You can also use the good to excellent Sony G range, and many after market decent lenses from Tamron etc. I use mount-converted Contax lenses on an A900 and A700: 21mm, 28mm, 35-70mm, 100mm and soon 100-300mm as I need light weight, high resolution and MF is a bonus for me. They are very reasonable to buy and great to use - not good, but great, on 24Mp. I use Leitax mounts on these, and these mounts are also available for Leica R lenses, some of which are peerless: 100/2.8 APO and 90/2 Asph esp.</p>

<p>Wedding specialist Marc Williams shoots an A900 and much prefers it (with the magic ZA lenses) to the pro Canons he used to use - he posts over at getdpi and here. Most non-photographers and clients also prefer Sony output, a point often overlooked in all the ISO/noise/DR etc. blab. The Sony makes very attractive images, Canon output seems to be flat and lifeless in comparison, say many former Canon users. A lot of A900 users are ex large film guys (like me), industry insiders like Reichmann, landscape people and studio shooters, so a pretty eclectic bunch. LR/ACR now work Sony RAW files very well.<br>

Web Resouces:<br>

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=45<br>

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forums.html<br>

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/<br>

http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html</p>

<p> </p>

[frankie_withers]

<p>Phillip, thank you for your concise and enlightening response. I checked out your web sources and you did bring up some good points. I did not know Contax lenses could be used on these bodies.<br>

Calling canon flat and lifeless, to me is a bit far... point taken and all but I've seen some amazing shots done on Canon, and to this day I don't think anyone can possibly look at an image and be able to deduce the camera and lens combo used, particularly with all the PP we have available today.<br>

At any rate, I will be going with Sony. I appreciate all of your input on this.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>[T]o this day I don't think anyone can possibly look at an image and be able to deduce the camera and lens combo used...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are certainly words of wisdom.</p>

<p>The salient point about deciding whether or not to buy into a system, however, is how good the lenses are, not how good any particular sensor is (since bodies become "obsolete" much, much more quickly than lenses). And Canon has a more extensive range of superb optics than does Sony, despite the latter's affiliation with Zeiss. Canon even comes out ahead in lens-by-lens comparisons, that of their 50/1.4's being an example.</p>

[steve_singer]

<p><a href="http://www.testfreaks.com/digitalcameras/sony-alpha-dslr-a850/">sony A850</a> OR <a href="http://www.testfreaks.com/digitalcameras/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii/">Canon 5DmkII</a> i GUESS i might seems greddy but i would want to have both for a simple reason that they both are equally good but cannon for high-iso performance and Sony for ofcourse movie like Zeiss Lens. </p>