>> |
Anonymous
>>291925 To take your simile, though, it's like one of them is, based on a general consensus of what makes someone good in bed, better in bed, and that's the one without the $5.
Like the D700 and 5D, the a900 has a not-square body, which is smaller when that's better and more flexible since you can just put a battery grip on it even if you do want a square body. Unlike them, it's got a full coverage finder, something you have to step up to a 1Ds or D3 for, and lose the flexibility of the body. The finder is larger than any of them except the 1Ds Mk. III, which slightly edges it out. It has sensor-based stabilization, which is less effective but again more flexible than the optical IS or VR in the Canons and Nikkors. You'll still have IS when you need a really fast prime, whereas with the other systems you have to pick one. (Of course, Canon and Nikon could fix this if they went ahead and released a line of professional primes with stabilization, but neither of them seems too intent on updating their prime line-up, except for the occaisonal new take on macros and superteles.) though I'll fully grant that that the IS-on-fast-primes is canceled out by noise at high ISOs, and it balances out in the end; the a900 should've just yanked the sensor from the D3 and been done with it. The a900 has weathersealing, the 5Ds do not, though the 1Dses and Nikon models do.
Lastly, one more thing about the viewfinder- instead of masking the area not covered by crop lenses, it just has lines in the viewfinder to indicate the crop. Theoretically, you could throw it into crop mode with a full frame lens and use it sort of like a brightline finder, seeing outside of the frame. Which may or may not appeal to different people, but it's something different I'd like to at least try some time.
None of them are bad bodies, of course, but for all that I think the a900 edges out the other offerings.
|