As I was in the market for a new camera, I thought about goods and bads of cameras that I was interested in. As always, the point was to find a camera that best suits my 'need' while offering some of 'want.' I knew I can't have both and that's what made things a bit complicated as usual. Anyway, below is what came down to....
The good.
D700: Near perfect mechanical and build quality (Black out time, shutter response, mirror shock, AF quality/quantity, full weather sealing, grip, and everything being damn solid.)
Flash system.
High ISO performance.
A900: JPEG IQ (in terms of fine gradation, color representation, and WB. This is pretty much what I care the most.)
Mechanical Build quality (worse than D700 but fine enough for me.)
Viewfinder (It's not a viewfinder, it's a gem!)
Steady Shot (A big Plus! Although I prefer lens-based solution.)
Vertical grip.
5D mk2: JPEG IQ (though slightly less than A900, it's good enough and in low-light situations, it's a lot better than A900)
High ISO performance.
ISO 100 being the native ISO.
Lenses (New Nikon lenses show better quality but Canon lenses are cheaper as well as offering more.)
1080P movie recording
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bad.
D700: Terrible JPEG IQ (gradation is below what I can tolerate, Auto WB is problematic. Nasty gray-cast problem.)
12MP (I do need and want more than 12MP)
ISO 200 being the lowest 'real' ISO.
A900: High ISO performance.
Lenses (Too expensive although quality is very good)
ISO 200 being the lowest 'real' ISO.
5D mk2: Very poor mechanical quality (WTF! The shutter box is same as 5D?! Terrible black-out time. Terrible mirror shock, poor AF performance excluding the center one. Only 3.9 FPS.)
Flash (Compared to Nikons', it just sucks. At least, I hoped Canon fix yellowish WB problem when bouncing but it's still the same. Another WTF.)
Black-dot problem (Nice! Christmas lights will get extra treatment from Canon.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had enough money, I'd bought D700 for action photography and A900 for daylight and studio use. The clear problem is that I don't have that much money and I needed a camera that best suits my need and want.
In other word, I had to pick one camera that would work the best for me. I'm not into action photography. Mechanical quality is something I desire so bad but do not feel the evident need. IQ is what I care the most. Simply put, D700 had to go.
In between A900 and 5D mk2, it was damn hard to make a call. I really loved output of A900. I really favored its amazing viewfinder. The camera felt solid in my hand.
What more could I want from this master-piece? High ISO performance. Only if it had a bit better high ISO performance, I would've chosen A900 but as it didn't, A900 had to go.
Now, I was left with 5D mk2. Had I been a action photographer, I'd chosen D700 without a doubt. Had I been a studio and portrait photographer, there's no doubt I'd chosen A900.
However, I'm somewhere in the middle and I shoot anything in various situations. In the end, 5D mk2 is an all around player that best suits my shooting environment though there're many aspects of this camera that I really don't like.
1080P video is a huge plus. Even at this point, I'm not even sure if I really discarded A900 due to its somewhat poor high ISO performance or because I badly wanted that video recording function of 5d mk2.
There's a slight possibility that I may sell 5d mk2 and go for A900. I doubt it but I think it may be possible.
Anyway, compared to a few years ago, the market is just better. When I bought 5D, it was the only and clear choice for someone like me. Back then, I was glad that this camera finally came out but at the same time, I was disappointed as there were no other choices offered. I'm pretty positive that when I'm in the market for a next upgrade, I'd be able to get something that offers mechanical/build quality of D700 with even better IQ of A900 for less than what I've paid for 5D mk2. Until then, 5D mk2 is my top gear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S: Now that I'm getting a new camera, I feel the greed for a new monitor.
My friend who'll be here in a few days is coming with this monitor and...my God. What's up with monitor market here in North America? The monitor below only costs $320 in South Korea! 26" one with the same spec. even costs the same there! Damn, 26" one with below spec. would be my perfect monitor.
24" IPS,
Pivot,
Built-in HDTV tuner,
Built-in speakers,
D-Sub,
HDMI,
HDCP,
S-VHS,
RF Antenna,
DVI,
Component,
Composite,
SP-DIF 5.1 Ch,
Remote Control
HDMI Input range Limit support,
16:10, 16:9, 4:3 Scaling.
PIP(Picture in Picture)
EDIT: The monitor also has 'no dead pixel' policy.
The good.
D700: Near perfect mechanical and build quality (Black out time, shutter response, mirror shock, AF quality/quantity, full weather sealing, grip, and everything being damn solid.)
Flash system.
High ISO performance.
A900: JPEG IQ (in terms of fine gradation, color representation, and WB. This is pretty much what I care the most.)
Mechanical Build quality (worse than D700 but fine enough for me.)
Viewfinder (It's not a viewfinder, it's a gem!)
Steady Shot (A big Plus! Although I prefer lens-based solution.)
Vertical grip.
5D mk2: JPEG IQ (though slightly less than A900, it's good enough and in low-light situations, it's a lot better than A900)
High ISO performance.
ISO 100 being the native ISO.
Lenses (New Nikon lenses show better quality but Canon lenses are cheaper as well as offering more.)
1080P movie recording
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bad.
D700: Terrible JPEG IQ (gradation is below what I can tolerate, Auto WB is problematic. Nasty gray-cast problem.)
12MP (I do need and want more than 12MP)
ISO 200 being the lowest 'real' ISO.
A900: High ISO performance.
Lenses (Too expensive although quality is very good)
ISO 200 being the lowest 'real' ISO.
5D mk2: Very poor mechanical quality (WTF! The shutter box is same as 5D?! Terrible black-out time. Terrible mirror shock, poor AF performance excluding the center one. Only 3.9 FPS.)
Flash (Compared to Nikons', it just sucks. At least, I hoped Canon fix yellowish WB problem when bouncing but it's still the same. Another WTF.)
Black-dot problem (Nice! Christmas lights will get extra treatment from Canon.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had enough money, I'd bought D700 for action photography and A900 for daylight and studio use. The clear problem is that I don't have that much money and I needed a camera that best suits my need and want.
In other word, I had to pick one camera that would work the best for me. I'm not into action photography. Mechanical quality is something I desire so bad but do not feel the evident need. IQ is what I care the most. Simply put, D700 had to go.
In between A900 and 5D mk2, it was damn hard to make a call. I really loved output of A900. I really favored its amazing viewfinder. The camera felt solid in my hand.
What more could I want from this master-piece? High ISO performance. Only if it had a bit better high ISO performance, I would've chosen A900 but as it didn't, A900 had to go.
Now, I was left with 5D mk2. Had I been a action photographer, I'd chosen D700 without a doubt. Had I been a studio and portrait photographer, there's no doubt I'd chosen A900.
However, I'm somewhere in the middle and I shoot anything in various situations. In the end, 5D mk2 is an all around player that best suits my shooting environment though there're many aspects of this camera that I really don't like.
1080P video is a huge plus. Even at this point, I'm not even sure if I really discarded A900 due to its somewhat poor high ISO performance or because I badly wanted that video recording function of 5d mk2.
There's a slight possibility that I may sell 5d mk2 and go for A900. I doubt it but I think it may be possible.
Anyway, compared to a few years ago, the market is just better. When I bought 5D, it was the only and clear choice for someone like me. Back then, I was glad that this camera finally came out but at the same time, I was disappointed as there were no other choices offered. I'm pretty positive that when I'm in the market for a next upgrade, I'd be able to get something that offers mechanical/build quality of D700 with even better IQ of A900 for less than what I've paid for 5D mk2. Until then, 5D mk2 is my top gear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S: Now that I'm getting a new camera, I feel the greed for a new monitor.
My friend who'll be here in a few days is coming with this monitor and...my God. What's up with monitor market here in North America? The monitor below only costs $320 in South Korea! 26" one with the same spec. even costs the same there! Damn, 26" one with below spec. would be my perfect monitor.
24" IPS,
Pivot,
Built-in HDTV tuner,
Built-in speakers,
D-Sub,
HDMI,
HDCP,
S-VHS,
RF Antenna,
DVI,
Component,
Composite,
SP-DIF 5.1 Ch,
Remote Control
HDMI Input range Limit support,
16:10, 16:9, 4:3 Scaling.
PIP(Picture in Picture)
EDIT: The monitor also has 'no dead pixel' policy.
Facebook
Twitter