File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Considering makeing the swap from Pentax to Canon...

MAJOYRLY want the EOS 5D (when the price drops) and this little beauty...

Should i do it?
>> Anonymous
needs moar a900 + 24-70/2.8 zeiss.
>> Anonymous
>>291661

I thought Zeiss was just about gear fags and hipsters thinking there swish and stylish??

Am trying to avoid brand faggotry at all costs (hence been with pentax for so long..... but my lust for a full frame is just getting to much)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
How much do you have invested in Pentax glass and bodies right now?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>291662


Except the sony zeiss glass really is kick ass. it's not just a marketing ploy.
>> Anonymous
>>291664

>How much do you have invested in Pentax glass and bodies right now?

K10D +18-55 Stock and a 50mm f/1.4

>>291667

>Except the sony zeiss glass really is kick ass. it's not just a marketing ploy.

Still not a fan on of sony though...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
did someone say ZEISS FUCK YEAH
>> Anonymous
>> 24-70
>> little

i fucking lold
>> Anonymous
>>291753


and that's fine. just trying to spread the knowledge that Canikon aren't the only kids on the block with serious cameras anymore and provide you with a viable alternative.
>> Anonymous
>>291662


you're thinking of Leica.
>> Anonymous
Op here..

So the Alpha series is rly worth looking into for the Zeiss glass??
>> Anonymous
>>291779


the Zeiss glass as well as the older Minolta G glass are really top quality stuff.

Go to your local camera shop and try out some of the sony/nikon/canon cameras. pick whichever one you like.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>291773
You're thinking of Holga.
>> Anonymous
Why would I spend more for "Minolta G" (lol) or Zeiss when Nikon and Canon have the same thing for much less money?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>291772Canikon aren't the only kids on the block with serious cameras

FOURTEEN POINT TWO MOTHERFUCKING PICKLES
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291779
>So the Alpha series is rly worth looking into for the Zeiss glass??
General /p/ zeitgeist is that Alpha is fail. There's one tripfag who vocally prefers them. I'm guessing that the anon praising Sonys in here is all one person, based on the writing style. So don't assume that /p/ loev Alpha based on seeing a lot of pro-Alpha replies from Anonymous.

The A900 (the only Sony full-frame option) has more megapickles than the competition, but the downside of that is that it has about the same noise characteristics as an APS-C size sensor. So the A900 can shoot a pretty clean 400, but the 5DII lets you shoot a pretty clean 1600. Oh, and the Canon has video, if you're into that sort of thing.
>> Anonymous
bitching about noise in full frame cameras is retarded.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/page20.asp


nomatter what you buy, it's not going to suck.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>291822bitching about noise in full frame cameras is retarded.

Yeah, I'm sure everyone is retarded not to notice anything out of place.
>> Anonymous
>>291824


>i use in camera noise reduction
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>291826

Have fun convincing yourself otherwise.

>> switching to raw capture and doing some serious post-processing (including cutting the resolution in half) narrows the gap between the Alpha 900 and the Nikon D700 significantly, but there's no getting away from the fact that in its desire to raise the megapixel bar even further, Sony has produced one of the noisier D-SLRs launched in the last few years.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291822
>bitching about noise in full frame cameras is retarded.
NO U
>no matter what you buy, it's not going to suck.
True, but if he goes with the 5DII, it's going to not suck for two extra stops. I.e., the 5DII can use an f/2.8 zoom in the same light where the Alpha will need an f/1.4 prime. If low light shooting is one of the reasons that the OP wants a full-frame camera, this is an important factor--the A900 doesn't really have any noise advantage over his K10D.

If he wants full frame for absurdly wide angles, smaller DoF, and bragging rights, then the A900's just as good.
>> Anonymous
>>291830
>>291829
>>291824
>>291814

fucking same person faggot
>> Anonymous
>>291829


not going to lie; i can't tell a difference.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291831
Even if I am the same person as>>291829(I'm not, but there's no no way to prove either way), that doesn't change the argument. It's a pretty clear technical distinction, not a popular vote. If noise doesn't matter to the OP, then the A900's fine. If it does, then the 5DII's a much better choice, and OVER 9000 anons saying that noise does or doesn't matter to *them* isn't going to change that.
>> Anonymous
>>291830
keep in mind the a900 has senor shift too.

not useful for fast moving subjects, but imagine iso 3200 + 50/1.4 + 1/250 shutter speed handheld.

I CAME
>> Anonymous
>>291837but imagine iso 3200 + 50/1.4 + 1/250 shutter speed handheld.

... what the fuck, are you retarded?
>> Anonymous
Nobody seems to mentioned the difference in resolution captured between the two cameras.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291832
>not going to lie; i can't tell a difference.
Look at the black part of the label. That's where it's most obvious. It's still obvious in the picture part of the label if you know what you're looking for, but since it's a picture of a printed reproduction of a painting, the noise blends in with the details a lot better.

>>291837
>keep in mind the a900 has sensor shift too.
True, and that is a big advantage it has. But you can buy IS lenses for the Canon which mitigates that. And in general, I'd rather have real aperture than stabilization.

>but imagine iso 3200 + 50/1.4 + 1/250 shutter speed handheld.
Er. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make there, since even someone with Parkinsons can handhold 50mm at 1/250th, and the A900's noisy as fuck at 3200.

>>291839
25MP vs 21MP. A difference of 4 megapixels isn't really all that big. Hell, unless you're printing four foot by six foot and pressing your loupe up against the print, it's unlikely that you'd notice the difference between the 25MP A900 and the 12MP Nikon D3. Except that the D3's image wouldn't be as noisy.
>> Anonymous
>>291844


lulz, would have made a lot more sense had i said nighttime.
>> Anonymous
The extra 4mp of detail will be lost in the smeared and blurry mess, reducing it in quality below lower resolution cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>291851lulz, would have made a lot more sense had i said nighttime.

it still doesn't even remotely make sense, you fucking idiot

1/250.. fucking idiot, i hope you're trolling
>> Anonymous
>>291854
angry anon is angry ;_;
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291862
I have a theory that>>291854and>>291851are actually the same person just trying to generate more flames. Probably just paranoia on my part, though.
>> Anonymous
nope, these 2 are me

>>291838
>>291854

because i don't see how someone can be so stupid to say LOL BUILT IN STABILIZATION and have an example situation with 1/250 shutter speed
>> Anonymous
>>291814
>General /p/ zeitgeist is that Alpha is fail.

That's because /p/ is obsessed with insanely high image quality that would've appeared a laughable dream ten years ago with medium format film. Not that the image quality is a bad thing to have, but every DSLR made today has enough image quality that for most users that should be the last thing taken into account when weighing options.

I don't know about the any of the lower-end Sony models, the a700 is fail, but subjective interface preferences aside the a900 is a better body than any of the Canikon 36x24 offerings. I don't like SLRs period so I don't own one, and as far as DSLRs go I've only shot in any legitimate way with EOS models, but if I was buying one myself with budget not an issue I'd either go for a D300 or a900. Probably the D300, for a variety of reasons, but that's not the point. It's not 36x24, so it's not in the running for OP since he wants that.

I'm a different anon from the one you're mentioning; this is my first post ITT.
>> Anonymous
>>291913

cool story, bro
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291913
>That's because /p/ is obsessed with insanely high image quality that would've appeared a laughable dream ten years ago with medium format film.
It's like you have your choice of two supermodels who are both awesome and share all of your interests and want to have mad, wild, passionate sex with you whenever you want but oh, also one of them will give you five dollars. Yes, the one that won't give you five dollars is still going to please you sexually in all of the depraved ways you've never dared to dream you'd be able to get without chloroform and a dark alleyway, but the other one will do all of that that AND buy you lunch.

While it's certainly true that /p/ is way more concerned with tack-sharp, noise/grain-free images than it should be (often to the detriment of images with great composition or which capture a moment superbly), that extra image quality is the proverbial five dollars above and beyond the deviant intercourse.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291913
... Oh, and clarification: If the OP legitimately prefers the way the A900 feels and lets him shoot, and the main reason he's wanting full frame isn't low-light shooting above and beyond his K10D's ability, then he should certainly get the A900. I'm just saying that, all other things being pretty much equal, go for the one with better image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>291913subjective interface preferences aside the a900 is a better body than any of the Canikon 36x24 offerings

i don't think you know what subjective means
>> Anonymous
OP here...

Seems ive started quite the debate....

Let me clear things up,

The reason am looking at a full frame is
A) Low light (i hate flash so very.. very much)
B) I do a fair bit of documentary photography, and am choosing this as my field to advance in, so the full frame gives me more lens options when working up close and personal (my preferred style)
C) I just want one... i know it sounds stupid, but I was wanting to upgrade from my K10D for a bit, and to not go Full frame just seems silly in my eyes...

There has been talk about the EOS 5DII... but thats out of my price range, i was looking at the normal 5D when the price drops a bit.

As the 5DII has been compared with the a900, dose the 5D fall short?
>> 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.
>> Anonymous
>>291936
I couldn't think of a better thing to refer to how some people like Canon's controls better, some people like Nikon's controls better, some people like Pentax's controls better, etc.

>>291939
It lacks weather-sealing and a full coverage finder, but otherwise no. It's a fine camera, and probably the best way to get into full frame on a budget, since it's older and especially since the EF mount will take damn near anything with an adapter, so you can even get great lenses on the cheap.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>291939The a900 has weathersealing, the 5Ds do not, though the 1Dses and Nikon models do.

oh what are these? oh man i think it's just a bunch of useless things inside the body
>> Anonymous
A lens will not make you a better shooter. Pentax makes great cameras at a very competitive price, I'd stick with that. Honestly, I'm kind of sick of the pricing of Canon shit, even though they are competing heavily with Nikon. The K20D is an awesome camera, and pentax's lens compatability is second to none.
>> Anonymous
>>291939A) Low light (i hate flash so very.. very much)

no offense to you or anything but people hate flash (97% of the people on /p/) because they don't know how to use it

i think pskaught would agree with me. it's a difficult thing to master and also it's somewhat restricted equipment to the likes of /p/
>> Anonymous
>>291960

Op here..

I know how to use flash, no so strong on studio set ups, but for hand held or on camera, am fine with it...

I just don't like it,

I hate relying on it to pick people out, or draw attention, i prefer to let my composition do that for me, just how i like to do things
>> Anonymous
>>291957I'm kind of sick of the pricing of Canon shit

Yeah, I am sick too.

Instead of offering 4 different versions of the same lens at 4 different price points, let's just offer the most expensive one. That will help people make their buying decision.

Also, I like having 7 different DX standard zooms.
>> Anonymous
>>291939The reason am looking at a full frame is

*sigh*

i thought we'd been over the whole FF/no FF thing.

FF is a scam. APS-C can produce images that are just as good. Also, Pentax doesn't produce any 'LOL FULL FRAME' lenses aside from their Limited series, and those can almost be counted on one hand.

Please, get real. Pentax's market isn't full frame, and it doesn't need to be for them to be successful. Granted, they are sure hurting for a success sooner than later. Hoya is sure not going to give them infinite leeway.

Maybe in a few years, depending on how things go, pentax might make a full frame body, but it'd be more for 'LOL LOOK WE DID IT' reasons rather than the fact that anyone really needs it.
>> Anonymous
>>291946
Oh, and one more thing, the 5D's a body people just seem to *like*. I know a professional photographer who shot an F2 and F3 as his main bodies with film, and uses the 5D now with digital as his main body, and considers the 5D the best camera all-around he's shot with. So if you're leaning towards the 5D and it's in your budget, I'd pull the trigger.

>>291953
I've shot with the 5D. It isn't sealed. Don't believe me? Check dpreview:

"The EOS 5D is aimed to slot in between the EOS 20D and the EOS-1D professional digital SLR's, an important difference when compared to the latter is that the EOS 5D doesn't have any environmental seals."

I'm pretty sure the a900 isn't up the standard of the 1D series, either, but everything I've read mentions it having seals of some sort.
>> Anonymous
>>291960
/p/ hasn't lrn2motivate light

anyone who can blend flash with natural light seemlessly loves flash, but that takes skill, practice and hard work, and most of /p/ can't be bothered to learn a new skill
>> Anonymous
>>291967I've shot with the 5D. It isn't sealed. Don't believe me? Check dpreview:

that's a mark ii, don't believe, check the fucking picture
>> Anonymous
>>291968
There's nothing wrong with flash, but there's nothing wrong with not using it, either. Especially with documentary like the OP's shooting, not imposing yourself on a situation and just letting the light be is great to do, too.
>> Anonymous
>>291973
Oh, sorry. Didn't know the 5D II was sealed; that's good.
>> Anonymous
>>291968and most of /p/ are happy using their 50mm in their basement and make bokeh
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>291939
>There has been talk about the EOS 5DII... but thats out of my price range
Ahh. Well, that settles that, then. The A900 and the Nikon D700 are slightly more expensive than the 5DII. The only full frames in your price range are therefore the 5D Mk 1 and the original Canon 1Ds Mk 1.

So yeah, I'd say get a 5D. However: The original 5D only has about a 1 stop advantage over your K10D for noise, so if you get just the 24-70/2.8L you'll have a net LOSS of one stop compared to your Pentax unless you get the EF 50/1.4 to go with it.
>> Anonymous
wow, stupid OP is stupid or grandiose troll

if you knew you couldn't afford the new 5D then why the fuck were you considering the a900 and started such a huge debate
>> Anonymous
>>292071

Because i couldn't bring myself to stop the only decent topic that hasn't descended into a shitstorm in /p/ for a long time?

Also, its not that i RLY cant afford them, but it would leave me pennyless, but if am going to do somthing, might as well do it right, wanted to see more arguments for and against,
>> Anonymous
to call the a900 "horribly noisy" over iso 400 is a gross exaggeration.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>292139
Counterpoint: Your mom is a gross exaggeration.
>> Anonymous
>>291787


You're thinking Polaroid.