Sony A900/850 vs Canon 5dMkII

C

cloudhunter

Messages
328
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Any opinions on which would be better for the following :


40% Landscapes and general photo work
30% Wedding photography
30% Action Shots

Was thinking initially the Canon as the low light supposed to be better but wedding shots would be the only time id be shooting low light and i would have a flashgun so would only go upto 800iso


Cheers :thumbs:
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Any opinions on which would be better for the following :


40% Landscapes and general photo work
30% Wedding photography
30% Action Shots

Was thinking initially the Canon as the low light supposed to be better but wedding shots would be the only time id be shooting low light and i would have a flashgun so would only go upto 800iso


Cheers :thumbs:
Click to expand...

you will come undone if you expect/rely on being able to use flash during a wedding ceremony.

Hugh
 
The two main differences are:

The 5D2 has better High ISO performance, but the low light AF on the 5D2 is pretty poor.

The a900/a850 has worse High ISO from ISO1600 and up, but the low light AF on the a900 is pretty good.

Attaching a flash to the 5D2 and using the focus assist IR on the flash does help the 5D2's AF in low light. Due to the low light performance, I'd probably pick the 5D2 for weddings.

AF speed on the a900 (from using them both) is much faster and you also get 5fps, so probably could be considered better for action.

As I own a a900, I'd also pick the a900 for general photography. The AF CZ lenses are a real advantage for the Sony system. The a900 has been shown to put up with some real abuse, although it's not considered a pro camera (weather sealing seems pretty good on the Sony).

Some online text:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/sony-vs-nikon-v.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony-a900.shtml

I'm sure some people might agree and others disagree.
 
Get a Canon 5dmkII and a used 40D :thumbs:
 
The A900 smokes the 5D MKII for low light work, but opposite for high ISO.

I've owned both (no longer have the 5D MKII). Do have an A900.

Given that 70% of your work isn't low light, I'd recommend you try an A900 at least.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the opinions. I think that even in weddings i wouldn go beyond iso1600 and they are both good at that arent they? , so surely the best one would be the Sony A900/850?

Plus i could attatch non is lenses to it and have them is then?
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Thanks for the opinions. I think that even in weddings i wouldn go beyond iso1600 and they are both good at that arent they? , so surely the best one would be the Sony A900/850?

Plus i could attatch non is lenses to it and have them is then?
Click to expand...

The A900 is getting noisy at ISO800. It still prints well but if you want to stare at things at 100% looking for problems, you'll find them as the ISO goes up.

Yes.. all lens are stabilized. Even 45 year old lenses with an M42 adapter!

I see the Sony as primarily a low ISO camera.
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Thanks for the opinions. I think that even in weddings i wouldn go beyond iso1600 and they are both good at that arent they? , so surely the best one would be the Sony A900/850?

Plus i could attatch non is lenses to it and have them is then?
Click to expand...

I've had dark churches on gloomy days this year when I've been at iso 3200 at f2.8, so I'd atleast like the option of going higher then iso1600, but you can work at that level if you need too
 
So the A900 wouldnt be very good for low liht then. Would there be any non full frame that would give as good iso1600/3200 as a canon 5dmkII?
 
Its not really comparing like with like but there isn't a crop sensor that can push the iso to full frame type numbers with the same noise levels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top