udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
I think is was SD that said the Sony A900 had poor IQ...yes, based on what measure?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml
Canon has over the years excelled in their long lenses, but it's no secret among pros and diligent amateurs that the company's wide angles leave a lot to be desired. The new Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 promises a lot, and will be reviewed here in February, 2009.In the end it comes down to a question of which lens one needs, and especially which ones one already has. For someone with a selection of existing Canon glass there's likely little that will make one change systems. Similarly for someone with an earlier Sony camera, or a Minolta system, motivations are likewise going to make one stay within the family.Nope. Not gunna do it. Yes the Sony has more pixels. Yes the Canon has lower noise pixels (above ISO 800). Other than that it's an exercise in pixel peeping and if one does it too much hair starts to grow on the palms of ones hands.Take it as gospel that when processed by a competent worker in their favourite raw processor these cameras will essentially produce if not identical then at least equally terrific images. Likely shooting technique deficiencies and inferior lenses will play a much bigger role in any visible differences on comparable sized prints than any minor differences between these cameras sensors.
But, if you really insist on doing some pixel peeping, have a look at the three-way noise comparison that I recently published, which included these two cameras as well as the Nikon D3x.