first of all you need to compare the 5d and the d700 NOT the fully pro D3 and mk1ds. you are AGAIN being intentionally deceptive and bordering on being a complete liar.
Originally Posted by DonSchap
The camparisons are being done with the EOS 1Ds MkIII ... and the D3 ... so just get onboard and believe. I don't have time to address this petty contrary nonsense, Rooz. By the way, where's your A900 pre-order?
Actually, I think the thread it talking about the lenses not the bodies. So, with the bodies removed from that equation...Sony doesn't come out as well!
CZ 17-35/2.8 . . . . . . . $1799
80-400/4-5.6 G SSM . . $1499
70-200/2.8 G SSM . . . . $1799
CZ 24-70/2.8 . . . . . . . .$1749
CZ 135/1.8 . . . . . . . . . $1399
CZ 85/1.4 . . . . . . . . . . $1299
Edit: VG-C70AM . . . . . . . . .$350
SONY System total: $9,894(<- Editted total)
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM . . . . $1450
EF 100-400/f4.5-5.6L IS USM . . $1420
EF 70-200/f/2.8L IS USM . . . . . $1650
EF 24-70/2.8L USM . . . . . . . . . $1190
EF 135/2L USM . . . . . . . . . . . .$1000
EF 85/1.2L II USM . . . . . . . . . .$1870
Canon System total: $8,580
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1349.95
AF VR Zoom- NIKKOR 80-400/4.5-5.6D ED. . . . . . $1429.95
AF-S VR Zoom- NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED. . $1629.95
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70/2.8G ED. . . . . . . . . . . .$1695.95
AF DC-NIKKOR 135/2D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1069.95
AF Nikkor 85/1.4D IF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1024.95
Nikon System total: $8,201.60
You cannot shoot Pro FF without the Pro Full Frame camera ... so in the beginning, it is truly a system approach. All things being fair. I was extremely fair in matching all lenses, as best I could, from available inventories ... and many of them are very close in price, besides.
So ... whip out that checkbook and get to scribing some big numbers. Professional/Prosumer FF is definitely not for the feint of heart.
Oh, and thanks for using my research in your argument. BTW: You can lop out the extra $350 for the "Vertical Grip", since the requirement of having a Pro FF camera doesn't seem to matter any more. Obviously, someone missed the point of the exercise. Perhaps it was me ... all I know is that you have to have a FF camera to get the ball rolling shooting FF. Try as I might, I could buy every last one of the lenses ... and I still cannot get the A700 to shoot anything other than APS-C size images, no matter which of the lenses I place on it.
It's just so weird, I tell ya.
you are comparing a fully professional d3/1D to an a700 with a FF sensor. how does that make sense ? the comparisons to be drawn should be with the d700/5d which is also FF in an apsc body.
you only need a $150 for a verical grip on a d700 aswell...then you can shoot at 8fps aswell.
so your research is bogus. (not to mention the 16-35 L is not a nikon mount.) ;)
Sorry, for the Nikon "typo", 'Rooz' ... I know how offensive that can be ... although the lens was priced to low. I will make the correction. It makes for a better case, anyway, being a $150 more. Thanks for pointing it out ... now, go save some real money, buy a SONY-based system and quit your complaining already. You have your answer ... in black and white. "I say COLOR your world, mate!" It is the ONLY way.
Also, check out THIS review. It has an pretty neat Flash explanation of IS.
i'm not complaining. i'm quite happy about this. :)
but objectivity should not be lost either...
You are in the SONY forum ... and as such, the tendancy is to support the product we use ... and admittedly, there are some relatively high costing lenses in this world. There also is quite a collection of reasonably priced and older Minolta glass, out there, that works pretty effectively, too ... so you do have something to fall back on as you collect your sheckels for big-time glass.
Not every photographer is going to need every lens ever made (of course, I do not speak for myself, here ;) ). You pick the ones that do the job you need (or perceive you need) and just make do.
I perceive that I need a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ... to improve my chosen shots. Do I REALLY need that lens ... because, as we all know, I already have a crapload of other glass that pretty well covers that range, too? I have to say, "Sure!" You may ask, "Why Don?"
I have to toss it back to you, by asking, "Why not?" My creativity suggests that I "need" the lens for that particular focal range and aperture. In fact, I've been complaining about it for the past year or so, since my debacle with the SONY AF 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM ($1799), back in November. I am currently interested in giving the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO a shot ($699) because, for one thing, it is a hell of a lot cheaper than the SONY "G" lens. Do I expect "G" results from the lens? Nah. I have the CZ 135mm f/1.8 and the TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 for the real sharp shots. I can make the changes.
While there is nothing wrong with plunking down $1800 for a lens when you are using it to support yourself ... I've decided to compromise a bit, for the time being, and get the A900 and the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 ... and live inside the hobbiest budget.
"Objectivity" you say? Sorry, you lost me at hello.
It's been fun reading this thread but it's pretty irrelevent because most of us won't be buying these overpriced (opinion) lenses, not that we wouldn't like to of course. I'd like a Ferrari as well!
Would I like a CZ 17-35mm f2.8 to fill in my bottom end (no unsavory cracks); yes please, but probably not.
Would I like an A900 body; yes please but only when the price drops and probably second hand.
Personally, I'll stick my wonderful 28-135 Minolta glass onto my wonderful (I hope) A700 body and reap a lot of pleasure trying for wonderful (shake free) images.
Just one little correction to this silly, childish, and mostly pointless, argument. There is no such thing as an APS C body. If so, then I was fully deceived all those years I shot film. A body is just a body. The sensor size determines if the camera is APS-C (DX for Nikon) or Full Frame (FX for Nikon), or something else, as has been the case for several Canon models and the Leica M-8. I'm out...
Originally Posted by Rooz