Sell contax 645 for sony a900

[dseelig]

I have been waiting to get a diigital back for my contax money being the issue.I ahve been thinking of getting rid of my contax with a35 55 80 and 145 lenses for a sony a900 with a few sony zeiss lenses. I have a full canon system and a leica M9 system. The canon lenses 16-35 and 24-105 are the ones most likely to be supplanted are the zeiss 24-70 and 16-35 much better then the canon? Are the corners sharper then the canon lenses. Also thinking of the 70-400 witht he is built in might be a nice lens. Is it uch better then the canon 100-400 which I had and did not like. PS I hate the 5d mk11 autofocus and that is my only full frame body.I have 1d mk 1v bodies which are very nice but heavy. Thanks in advance
David

 

[tom in mpls]

I've owned all these systems. Clearly the Contax with a digital back will deliver superior files hands down. However the 5D2 and A900 are both great cameras. I like the Sony files better. Also I never liked the Canon 24-105. The Zeiss 24-70 is much better, but I would think a fairer comparison would be to the Canon 24-75L. For me I found the 5D2 autofocus was at least as good, if not better, than the A900. Overall considering glass, files, and ergos I still prefer the A900. Will the Sony be able to provide the lenses you need? Canon certainly has more options. I also agree the 1 series Canons are great but their bulk and weight are too much.

I guess the other issue is your need for another system. What do you want it to do that your M9 can't?

 

[dseelig]

This would be a higher resolution system and for faster action then the m9 is for. I will not sell my canon system just a supplement for the highest qaulity, I can get. I am atleast a year away from getting a digital back for the contax and would like a different look then the canon provides I love the m9s but for any kind of fast action I do not use it. I hear would you say about the sutofocus and wonder do the outer points work on the a 900 work better then the outer points on the 5d mk11, which are useless. What is wrong with the sony auto focus?

 

[tom in mpls]

I found that I was sometimes missing precise focus on my Sony, and also the Canon would give faster focusing for action shots. My choice on both systems was to use only the center focus point. So every system has it's strengths and weaknesses. If my priority was shooting action or sports, I would definitely choose Canon, even though I think the files from the canon are inferior to M9, Sony, and MF digital back.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I would say the outer points are certainly more accurate than the 5D but no match for the 1 series obviously. As for the lenses you will get a much nicer look and better overall IQ with the Zeiss but don't expect miracles in the extreme corners. Both zooms have soft corners in certain situations due to field curvature, but definitely not worse than the L equivalents, probably better.

 

[edwardkaraa]

You may not agree with me on this, but I find manual focus lenses to be much better than AF ones for fast action, especially when using a non pro body with inferior AF. The Zeiss ZE for Canon are worth considering if your mf skills are good.

 

[dhsimmonds]

I use centre point focusing on my A900 with long zoom lenses (handheld) for wildlife subjects and rarely miss a shot.

 

[jonoslack]

I would say the outer points are certainly more accurate than the 5D but no match for the 1 series obviously. As for the lenses you will get a much nicer look and better overall IQ with the Zeiss but don't expect miracles in the extreme corners. Both zooms have soft corners in certain situations due to field curvature, but definitely not worse than the L equivalents, probably better.

HI David
I think Edward pretty much nails it here.
I would add that I've found the focus on the Sony to be very good . . . but I do stick to single point, and I wouldn't say it was lightning fast (but it does always seem very accurate).

Just a couple of things I would add about the A900 (which I've been shooting for 2 years now, mostly in conjunction with an M9).

1. The files are lovely - just lovely. I'm not sure what it is, perhaps they look more 'analog' than other dSLR files - but they seem to have a delicious tonal balance, and I still often get a rush when opening them.

2. The camera is just great to use: it's very simple when compared to the Nikon and Canon big guns, but has lots of nice little touches - apart from the ISO button being a little close to the strap lug I'd say it's almost perfect from an ergonomic point of view.

3. you can get the 135 f1.8 . . . not a focal length that every used to float my boat, but that lens . . . . Ahhhhhhh!

4. Don't write off the 70-300 G lens - it's not terribly fast, but the IQ is excellent, so is the bokeh, and the focusing is fast and silent - also it's light and relatively cheap

all the best
Jono

 

[Eoin]

David, I agree with everything written here.
The AF is not as fast as the 1 series Canons and continuous focus on the Sony is all most useless for anything faster than a pedestrian.

Regarding the 70-400 Sony G, it's center sharpness is stunning at any focal length, the corners aren't half bad either. My only complaint regarding this lens is sometimes the lens has the tendency to hunt for focus by going through it's entire focus range and then back to the focus point. This can be reduced some what by using the focus range limiter, but annoying none the less.

Again like the others here, I tend to use the center focus point 90% of the time (focus & recompose).

Wonderful camera, small, light, beautiful files, wonderful viewfinder.

16-35 is a lovely lens.

24-70 has a fair amount of vignetting at the wider end, just be sure to use the Sony/Zeiss slim filter so as not to add to it. Again a good performing lens.

85mm Zeiss, took a while to grow on me, a more practical portrait lens for space considerations than the 135 Zeiss.

135 Zeiss, if there is 1 single reason to shoot a Sony, this is it, IMO. The most sublime lens for portraits I've ever used. Big, heavy, screw focus (slower). But a beauty none the less.

To be honest, given the Canon / M9 setup you have and your distaste for the 5D focus, I would not be recommending a move to Sony.