Reading mode: Light Dark

A Canon user considering an A900 for studio use

Go to last post
H

hhh2

Well-known member
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hi. I'm a sculptor and I have been documenting my work with Canon 1Ds (the original one) since it came out years ago. I've been considering upgrading my tool for a while and a few days ago I jumped on 5D MK II kit. But since then I've checked sample photos from 5D MKII and A900 here and elsewhere and I'm starting to think it might have been better off going with a A900. I have no experience with Sony cameras and it just didn't occur to me that a A900 can be an option for me.

I have a few questions. First, if there are anybody who uses both 5D MKII and A900 in a studio setting, I would like to hear general differences in operations and results (my setup is usually very simple with a few tota halogen lighting with sheets of reflectors). Second, I would need a good sharp 50 mm lens without distortion if I decided to go with A900. Which lens should I pick? Also, a good zoom lens equivalent of Canon 24-105L or 24-70L?

Thank you so much for your help.

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
 
Hi,

I've never used Canon, but as to your second question:

Minolta 50mm f/2.8 Macro D is an AMAZING lens that goes for around $250 on ebay or keh.com. Zero distortion and it full-resolves the sensor. Also, the 50mm f/1.4 is a better "general" lens and is absurdly sharp @ f/4 and above. Here's a 30% crop taken with the 50mm f/1.4 and a flash:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lattiboy/3110066494/sizes/o/

I'm not direct posting because the pic is 10MB :)
 
There are some shooters here, like Andrea Buso who use the A900 (along with Canon 1DS etc) in the studio. Some of the posted samples were terrific.

Among the 50mm lenses, you have either the Sony 50mm f/1.4 or the Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro. Another upcoming choice is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM.

Other choices (with Autofocus) are the exceptional Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar and the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar. Both are exceptional from an image quality standpoint and I believe Andrea uses both of these.

The 24-70 f/2.8L's equivalent in the Sony/Alpha mount is the exceptional Carl Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar. Having shot with the Canon L in the past and currently shooting with the Zeiss 24-70, I think the Zeiss (even though more expensive than the L), is well worth the premium over the L.
hhh2 said:
Hi. I'm a sculptor and I have been documenting my work with Canon
1Ds (the original one) since it came out years ago. I've been
considering upgrading my tool for a while and a few days ago I jumped
on 5D MK II kit. But since then I've checked sample photos from 5D
MKII and A900 here and elsewhere and I'm starting to think it might
have been better off going with a A900. I have no experience with
Sony cameras and it just didn't occur to me that a A900 can be an
option for me.

I have a few questions. First, if there are anybody who uses both 5D
MKII and A900 in a studio setting, I would like to hear general
differences in operations and results (my setup is usually very
simple with a few tota halogen lighting with sheets of reflectors).
Second, I would need a good sharp 50 mm lens without distortion if I
decided to go with A900. Which lens should I pick? Also, a good
zoom lens equivalent of Canon 24-105L or 24-70L?

Thank you so much for your help.

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
Click to expand...
 
You do realize that the current FF camera's 5DmkII, A900, D700 are very similar in their image quality for ISO 800 and lower -- on dpreview forums people tend to exaggerate the image qulaity differences. So, for studio work, I think there is little difference between them and you should probably go with the system that feels best in your hands, or what you are most familiar with.

Having said that, the a900 with Zeiss lenses is a fantastic combination, and probably the current king for studio work (in this price range :-) )

(as an aside: I even believe that sensors have come to a point where aps-c sized sensors are really close to the IQ of a full frame sensor. Today I ordered a panasonic G1 and plan to post some IQ comparisons in the future between the G1 and the A900 with Zeiss glass -- it'll be fun :-) )
 
Thank you so much guys. So how are those 50mm lenses in terms of distortion? I see that the Minolta is great with that. No distortion with, say, Sony 1.4? With Canon I was not happy at all with 1.4 and I finally settled with 2.8 macro.

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
 
I totally see what you mean... But I can't stop thinking that at 100% on screen A900 images seem richer somehow. And one thing that's been bothering me with my old 1Ds is that sometimes images make me wonder if the highlight are sort of thin with details. And I hear that's one of the strong points about A900 to have more details at the high. Although, I read in one of the reviews that 5DII actually have more accurate color rendition... My priority is in accuracy and details of the images.

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
 
Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 - World Class Zoom - Excellent image and build quality.

Zeiss 135mm f1.8 - Worlds best 135mm lenses, Excellent image, bokeh, and full metal.

Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro - Great super sharp macro lens.
 
Have you considered renting an a900 and a lens or two for a trial run? It would give you a lot of confidence in a purchase.

...And then you could ignore guys like me who offer advice and don't even own an a900. LOL

Bruce
 
Hi, thank you for the link. This gives a fresh perspective but it's really subjective... This really remind me of vinyl vs. CD debate which is really plagued with subjective views. Being pleasing to eyes or being photographic aside, I would like to know which company's approach is closer to what we see... Anybody?

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
 
That's a very smart advice... However, I doubt any of my local places have a a900 available. I should check around though. Thank you.

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
 
hhh2 said:
Thank you so much guys. So how are those 50mm lenses in terms of
distortion? I see that the Minolta is great with that. No
distortion with, say, Sony 1.4? With Canon I was not happy at all
with 1.4 and I finally settled with 2.8 macro.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of a (current) Canon 50mm 2.8 macro - I presume you mean the 50mm 2.5 macro?

If so, I use this and the Minolta 50mm 2.8 macro and the Minolta is head and shoulders (and then some) above the Canon version. This is on cameras much lower down the food chain than you are talking about, of course (EOS400D / A200). I can only presume that on higher end bodies like the 5DII / A900 the difference would be even bigger.
 
A second vote for the Minolta. That's good to know. Thank you.

Best regards,

Hiroyuki
 
I THINK the way it works is they send it to you in the mail...time starts when you get it and ends when you drop it off. ...Makes a good story anyway:)

I ran across such a place when surfingthe net and of course don't remember where but a Google search will being up others, I'm sure.

Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top