EOS3+28-70f/2.8L+Nikon5000 VS Eos5d+Sigma 24-70f/2.8

[Lucasvw]

Since my Eos 3 body was stolen some time ago along with my lenses I am in need of a complete new set of camera's lenses and the like.

Now I am thinking about two possibilities:

1) I buy a second hand EOS3 body like I used to have and a 28-70 f/2.8 Canon L. Most work I will shoot in color and let it get scanned with a Nikon 5000 ED. The Eos 3 + 28-70 I can get for as much as a 1000Euro's, the scans for 0.20Euro per scan (1800dpi). I will edit the photo's myself in photoshop and print them digitally, Some of them in color others converted to black and white

2) I buy a second hand Eos 5D, with this I dont buy the 28-70 f/2.8 Canon L (because I heard that this lens doesnt work very good together with digital camera's, thats why they made the 24-70 f/2.8L) but buy a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 or Tamron SP 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di Lens. The body will cost me around a 1000E and the lens another 300-400E. I will edit the photo's myself in photoshop and print them digitally, Some of them in color others converted to black and white

Now my question is simple, what will give me better images with reference to color/contract/sharpness and the like. Analogue + scanning or Digital

I would appreciate it very much if people could comment on this issue since I have been trying to find anything on this topic for too long on the internet..

 

[jd callow]

how large do you print; do you need to use a zoom or can a couple of primes be exchanged; how good are the scans? I'd suspect that if you are limited to an automated scan of 1800ppi, that a 10 or 12 mp camera of quality would give you better results. I know nothing about the lenses, but I tend to find that primes or zooms limited to the short range or long range are better than those that crossover from short to long. I could be wrong about this lens and the newer prosummer or pro zooms.

Meanwhile, welcome to hybrid.

 

[Lucasvw]

JD Callow: I prefer a zoom over a couple of primes since it works faster outdoors. The prints need to be finally as big 13x18. Bigger photographs I will print at a photolab from negative.

Actually Iam not limited to 1800 dpi, the scanner goes up to 4000 dpi. I was told however that for 13x18 there is no real need to let the dpi rise above 1800.

Thanks for the welcome

 

[Loris Medici]

...
Actually Iam not limited to 1800 dpi, the scanner goes up to 4000 dpi. I was told however that for 13x18 there is no real need to let the dpi rise above 1800.
...

Simple math shows that 1800dpi scanning of 35mm film can't match 10 - 12 Mp SLR in terms of resolution / fine detail. See below:

1800dpi scan of 35mm film and outputting at 13x18" size
--- --- --- ---
2.4cm / 2.54cm = 0.9448"
0.9448" x 1800dpi = 1700 pixels
1700 pixels / 13" = 130dpi...
--- --- --- ---

130dpi is a pretty low resolution for a 13x18" print. You need something like 240 (depending on subject matter) or 300dpi.

On the other hand, with a 10Mp camera you'll get a pixel count around 3864 x 2576, and 2576 pixels is considerably larger than 1700.

So, you *definitely* need something better than a 1800dpi scan to match a good digital SLR in terms of resolution / fine detail. You were told wrong.

Regards,
Loris.

---
Edit: You were told wrong unless you're not talking about 13x18cm prints but 13x18". If you're talking about 13x18cm prints then 1800dpi is more than adequate... (But only if you're absolutely sure that you're not going to crop later!)

 

[Lucasvw]

Edit: You were told wrong unless you're not talking about 13x18cm prints but 13x18". If you're talking about 13x18cm prints then 1800dpi is more than adequate... (But only if you're absolutely sure that you're not going to crop later!)

I was talking about cm prints Sorry for being not very clear..

In general Iam also not referring with picture quality to the amount of pixels. Iam more curious about the colors/brightness/contrast/overall picture quality. With which method I get " better" results. That is: results that need less photoshopping (heavy colorcorrection and the like)

 

[Marco B]

I think a large part also boils down if you are prepared to carry a tripod. In the past, with analog still reigning the world, people usually stuck to a just a few different ISO films (e.g. just 100 and 400 ISO) and only rarely went for the more exotic ones like 3200 ISO. This meant generally low grain, and after scanning a nice image, and you carried a tripod if you couldn't handle the longer exposure times. But even with higher ISO film, you should still get a clean (in terms of typical "digital" errors like color noise - these horrible red / green pixels in dark parts of the image), albeit grainy image...

Now, in the digital age, with cameras supposedly supporting ISO of 1600 - 25600 :rolleyes:, and cameras with Vibration Reduction, Anti-Shake or some other kind of gizmo, people think they no longer need a tripod... Just choose 6400 ISO and go!... Yeh, well, if you want a picture looking like a Scottish kilt

If you are prepared to carry a tripod, and stick to ISO 100-400 max, just like in the analog age, most digital cameras should give you both a low noise and good contrast image, go upwards to 6400 or so, and the image goes down the drain.

About the Sigma, I have had a Sigma 28-70 F2.8 EX lens with my analog Minolta Dynax 7 for years now, and have been very pleased with it. It's a good lens, and gives me nice, and sharp, images, especially when shot from tripod, with mirror lock-up before release . No complaints.

And if you want to see what a good professional scanner like an Imacon Flextight 949 can do with film, go here:
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm

 

[donbga]

I think a large part also boils down if you are prepared to carry a tripod. In the past, with analog still reigning the world, people usually stuck to a just a few different ISO films (e.g. just 100 and 400 ISO) and only rarely went for the more exotic ones like 3200 ISO. This meant generally low grain, and after scanning a nice image, and you carried a tripod if you couldn't handle the longer exposure times. But even with higher ISO film, you should still get a clean (in terms of typical "digital" errors like color noise - these horrible red / green pixels in dark parts of the image), albeit grainy image...

Now, in the digital age, with cameras supposedly supporting ISO of 1600 - 25600 :rolleyes:, and cameras with Vibration Reduction, Anti-Shake or some other kind of gizmo, people think they no longer need a tripod... Just choose 6400 ISO and go!... Yeh, well, if you want a picture looking like a Scottish kilt

If you are prepared to carry a tripod, and stick to ISO 100-400 max, just like in the analog age, most digital cameras should give you both a low noise and good contrast image, go upwards to 6400 or so, and the image goes down the drain.

About the Sigma, I have had a Sigma 28-70 F2.8 EX lens with my analog Minolta Dynax 7 for years now, and have been very pleased with it. It's a good lens, and gives me nice, and sharp, images, especially when shot from tripod, with mirror lock-up before release . No complaints.

And if you want to see what a good professional scanner like an Imacon Flextight 949 can do with film, go here:
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm

The new Canon and Nikon models have excellent high ISO performance, so to a certain extent high ISOs to eliminate the need for a tripod. Additionally IS and VR systems do work well.

Vibration reduction isn't the only reason to use a tripod though.

My experience with Sigma lenses has not been so hot. I'll never purchase another.

Don Bryant

 

[Loris Medici]

The new Canon and Nikon models have excellent high ISO performance, so to a certain extent high ISOs to eliminate the need for a tripod. Additionally IS and VR systems do work well.

Let's not forget the Sony line, especially A700 -> which has a new CMOS sensor which does "in-chip" NR. Plus, IS/VR is included with the camera (Steady Shot), therefore all the lenses you mount to an A700 become IS / VR (without the added premium as in other brands).

My experience with Sigma lenses has not been so hot. I'll never purchase another.

Ditto. BTW, I recently purchased a Tamron 17-55 f/2.8, and it performs incredibly nice -> very sharp, nice contrast/color. Highly recommended! (For quality in a budget.)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Marco B]

My experience with Sigma lenses has not been so hot. I'll never purchase another.

Ditto. BTW, I recently purchased a Tamron 17-55 f/2.8, and it performs incredibly nice -> very sharp, nice contrast/color. Highly recommended! (For quality in a budget.)

Guys, what Sigma lenses did you have? One of those cheap Sigma ones like the 75-300 F5.6-6.7 or something? :confused:

I used to have such a thing maybe 15 years ago when I first started with photography. That was crap..., but probably similar to many of these cheap plastic kit lenses of today.

It was even before Sigma started producing the high end fast EX series lenses with (usually) constant max aperture of 2.8. These EX F2.8 lenses have received high marks in many photo magazines and reviews... I also own a 70-200 EX F2.8 lens of Sigma, again, no complaints, this lens also received pretty wide acclaim when it first came out.

I recently enlarged a 100TMax 35mm negative made with my 28-70 F2.8 EX lens to a size of about 11x16", the image is very sharp and convincing.

 

[donbga]

Let's not forget the Sony line, especially A700 -> which has a new CMOS sensor which does "in-chip" NR. Plus, IS/VR is included with the camera (Steady Shot), therefore all the lenses you mount to an A700 become IS / VR (without the added premium as in other brands).

Sony's decision to include in body IS/VR was a an interesting decision driven partly by their need to support the line of legacy Minolta lenses.

I don't think Sony's NR at high ISOs is as good as Nikon or Canon's rendering. There are examples on the web comparing the different renderings by C/N and Sony. I think it's going to be a while before Sony can pose a big challenge to C&N pro and semi-pro line of DSLR. But competition is always good.

BTW, I recently purchased a Tamron 17-55 f/2.8, and it performs incredibly nice -> very sharp, nice contrast/color. Highly recommended! (For quality in a budget.)

I've recently been testing the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS EFS lens and it is really hard to beat in my mind. This lens is quite a performer. The biggest negative would be that it is an EFS mount. I think the IQ is up there with Canon L glass. Having said that I'm waiting to see if Canon introduces an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS L lens at Photokina. Since I own the Canon 10-22 EFS zoom this focal length wouth be a better fit for me, and I found myself wanting the extra focal length more than a few times.

Tamron has made some excellent lenses over the years and I wouldn't mind picking up a good copy of the old MF 300 f/2.8 which is quite an excellent piece of glass.

Don Bryant


Regards,
Loris.[/quote]

 

[Marco B]

I think it's going to be a while before Sony can pose a big challenge to C&N pro and semi-pro line of DSLR. But competition is always good.

Sales of Sony reflex bodies jumped way up here in the Netherlands. They have acquired about 1/3 of the market in the past year, after the introduction of alpha 200/300/350/700... That's a remarkable feat, thinking of Minolta's situation before it's downfall. Things are still different though in for example Germany, where Canon seems to still hold 70% of the market.

I don't think Sony's NR at high ISOs is as good as Nikon or Canon's rendering. There are examples on the web comparing the different renderings by C/N and Sony.

I agree with you the noise levels of Sony are not yet at par with Canon and Nikon. Actually, this is quite surprising and ironic, as it is public knowledge that Nikon uses Sony fabricated chips...

But about pro usage: it will take another 5-10 years, but in the end, after the maturation of a new generation of young photographers that right now start out with Sony bodies, it is likely Sony will become a real player in the pro market.

 

[donbga]

But about pro usage: it will take another 5-10 years, but in the end, after the maturation of a new generation of young photographers that right now start out with Sony bodies, it is likely Sony will become a real player in the pro market

Okay, I've marked this down on my calendar at 5 and 10 years out ... we will see then.


Don Bryant

 

[Loris Medici]

...
I don't think Sony's NR at high ISOs is as good as Nikon or Canon's rendering. There are examples on the web comparing the different renderings by C/N and Sony. I think it's going to be a while before Sony can pose a big challenge to C&N pro and semi-pro line of DSLR. But competition is always good.
...

Well, if you think so then maybe you should read this:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/21/a700-6400-iso-seven-raw-processors/

"...
The level of pixel peeping complaints and criticisms levelled at the Alpha 700, which has unrivaled colour fidelity and tonal rendering straight out of the camera at ISO 6400, is either sad or laughable, Im not sure which. This is a performance we could never have dreamed of when Konicacolor 3200 was the fastest colour film on the planet
..."

"...
In practice, even Adobe ACR offers all the quality needed to make stunning and superbly colourful A2 size prints from ISO 6400 - as does the camera itself, with in-camera JPEGs displaying plenty of detail compared to even the best raw conversions.
..."

In advanced amateur / semi-pro league, it's not fair comparing cameras (especially in terms of noise, especially when we have nice tools such as NeatImage and NoiseNinja which can do noise reduction much better than in-camera algorithms) according to their JPEG performance...

Besides, I seldom shoot @ ISO sensitivities higher than 800, so I went for better performance/price compared to C&N...

Can you please provide me a link to NR rendering comparison between semi-pro C/N & Sony cameras? Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Loris Medici]

Guys, what Sigma lenses did you have? One of those cheap Sigma ones like the 75-300 F5.6-6.7 or something? :confused:
...
I recently enlarged a 100TMax 35mm negative made with my 28-70 F2.8 EX lens to a size of about 11x16", the image is very sharp and convincing.

I had the 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO for Sony (see: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3315&navigator=6)

My current Tamron 17-50 F2.8 beats the Sigma and both the following Minolta full frame lenses: 24-105D and 100-300 APO D (which were giving me very convincing results when I were using them with my Dynax 7). It's said that it's on par with CZ SAL1680 in terms of resolution...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[donbga]

Can you please provide me a link to NR rendering comparison between semi-pro C/N & Sony cameras? Thanks in advance!

Here's one:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_DSLR_A700/noise.shtml

From the review:

Ultimately the A700 delivers good performance across its sensitivity range, although it's clear the full-frame sensor of the Canon EOS 5D retains a comfortable edge at higher sensitivities.

You can Google for others.

I don't hesitate to shoot at 1600 with the 40D and 5D. I imagine the A700 will be close but not quite as good as the Canons and I'm sure not as good as the Nikon D300, D700, and D3.

Do you own an A700 or thinking of buying one. I'm not sold on the Sony system yet.

Don

 

[donbga]

Well, if you think so then maybe you should read this:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/21/a700-6400-iso-seven-raw-processors/

"...
The level of pixel peeping complaints and criticisms levelled at the Alpha 700, which has unrivaled colour fidelity and tonal rendering straight out of the camera at ISO 6400, is either sad or laughable, Im not sure which. This is a performance we could never have dreamed of when Konicacolor 3200 was the fastest colour film on the planet
..."

"...
In practice, even Adobe ACR offers all the quality needed to make stunning and superbly colourful A2 size prints from ISO 6400 - as does the camera itself, with in-camera JPEGs displaying plenty of detail compared to even the best raw conversions.
..."

In advanced amateur / semi-pro league, it's not fair comparing cameras (especially in terms of noise, especially when we have nice tools such as NeatImage and NoiseNinja which can do noise reduction much better than in-camera algorithms) according to their JPEG performance...

Besides, I seldom shoot @ ISO sensitivities higher than 800, so I went for better performance/price compared to C&N...

Can you please provide me a link to NR rendering comparison between semi-pro C/N & Sony cameras? Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Loris.

Here is one more if you are interested:

The A700 kept noise to Low or better through ISO 800, and Moderate through ISO 3200. Noise just barely slipped into the Unacceptable level at ISO 6400 with a score of 3.1. Though good, this isn't up to scores from the Nikon D80or Canon EOS 40D.

Dead Link Removed

I'm sure the A700 is a nice camera and I'm glad to see competiton for N&C. In the end the consumer wins. I do think the A900 sounds like an exciting camera, it will be interesting to watch how it performs and wether or not the pros abandon their N&Cs.

BTW, my experiece with ACR NR has been very good, only when I have underexposed at higher ISOs do I really resort to Noise Ninja.

The truth is I usually don't need to do much post processing after ACR.

Don

 

[Loris Medici]

Here's one:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_DSLR_A700/noise.shtml

From the review:

Ultimately the A700 delivers good performance across its sensitivity range, although it's clear the full-frame sensor of the Canon EOS 5D retains a comfortable edge at higher sensitivities.

You can Google for others.

I don't hesitate to shoot at 1600 with the 40D and 5D. I imagine the A700 will be close but not quite as good as the Canons and I'm sure not as good as the Nikon D300, D700, and D3.

Do you own an A700 or thinking of buying one. I'm not sold on the Sony system yet.

Don

I own an A700 (gave the former A100 to my fiance) and I also don't hesitate shooting at ISO 1600. See the attached file (developed in LR, downsized in PS - no NeatImage, NoiseNinja and such was used)... This is a very nice performance, which is way better than any 35mm film (including B&W, in terms of granularity) and investigating / pushing further than this is simply pointless pixel peeping. If someone gives such importance to resolution/detail and color fidelity then they would shoot at low ISO with high-end lenses at optimum aperture using a tripod (and such, and such...) anyway!

5D and A700 aren't in the same segment / league, it would be more fair to compare A700 with cameras with same sensor size / pixel count. The A700 sensor has 3.3 Mp/cm2 pixel density whereas 5D has only 1.5 Mp/cm2...

The Minolta/Sony system may not be strong enough to urge someone to convert from Canon or Nikon (especially when they have considerable lens / accessory investment built around one), but it's definitely a good system for those who start digital from scratch or were former analogue Minolta users (like me). Simply because: for the same money, they offer more.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[jd callow]

I own the Nikon D300 and have played with the sony A1 (i think is the name ~12 mg apixel) and the Last Minolta (8 meg pixal I think). Minolta lenses are very nice and body VR, on paper seems better to me than inlens -- I use a tripod so its not an issue for me. All three are good camera's and sony is not noticably inferrior to the nikon. I assume the that the d700 and d3 are better than the sony, but then they cost much more.

 

[Marco B]

My current Tamron 17-50 F2.8 beats the Sigma and both the following Minolta full frame lenses: 24-105D and 100-300 APO D (which were giving me very convincing results when I were using them with my Dynax 7). It's said that it's on par with CZ SAL1680 in terms of resolution...

Regards,
Loris.

Loris, I have no doubt your Tamron 17-50 F2.8 beats the full frame lenses of Minolta, or similar full frame lenses of Sigma like my 28-70 F2.8...

These full frame lenses were never designed to be used on smaller APS-C sized sensors of many digital reflexes, hence your Tamron, which IS designed for APS-C specifically, can easily beat them (presuming I interpret the 17-50 mm zoom range correct, which is pretty much standard for APS-C).

The Minolta/Sony system may not be strong enough to urge someone to convert from Canon or Nikon (especially when they have considerable lens / accessory investment built around one), but it's definitely a good system for those who start digital from scratch or were former analogue Minolta users (like me). Simply because: for the same money, they offer more.

Regards,
Loris.

Don't get me wrong, I myself have been a Minolta user for 15 years, first with a 7000i, and the past few years with an analog Dynax 7, a camera I absolutely adore... It may be the best analog camera ever made (by Minolta or general ), considering it's packed with useful features but still easy to use (disregarding the lack of professional dust / water protection and hardened body). I certainly also love the possibility to store all exposure data and transfer it to my computer (unfortunately not yet USB, but I own the data reader as well).

The looks are also terrific, something I - personally - can not say of all the Si, Xi type models Minolta released, to "feminine" in my opinion. The Dynax 7 and 9 looked and were build like a tank (especially the 9), which is a good feature in my humble opinion...

I am also glad Sony did pick up on the Minolta line, now with the alpha 900 being released, my full frame EX lenses have meaning again. However, still looking at test and reviews, I think Sony still has some way to go putting the noise beast down at high ISO. Also look here at DPReview for some true preliminarily photo results of alpha 900:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090902sonyalpha900.asp

 

[donbga]

(gave the former A100 to my fiance)

I thought you two were married already! Lovely shot and lovely bride to be!

and I also don't hesitate shooting at ISO 1600.

Looks like your high ISO shot works very well. I'm really not that anal about noise. Probably most high quality digital cameras produced in the last 2 to 3 years have decent NR. Of course noise is a beast when one under exposes.

were former analogue Minolta users (like me). Simply because: for the same money, they offer more

.

I think this is a reasonable approach. I have noticed that certain older analog lenses made by Nikon loose some contrast when used on my Canon bodies. My Zukio lenses perform much better but with some color fringing.

For me I decided just to jump ship with Nikon and go with all Canon gear and I don't regret the decision. Still Canon has some doggy lenses. My strategy is to spend money on high quality glass and as little as possible on bodies since they will obsoless rather quickly. Never the less, it's the sensors that are resolution limited and not the lenses, but that is a whole other topic.

Don

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Now I am thinking about two possibilities:

...

Now my question is simple, what will give me better images with reference to color/contract/sharpness and the like. Analogue + scanning or Digital

well, your milage may vary but I find that with a 10D or a 20D I get images very close to what can be had from scanned 35mm film. There is tantalizingly some extra image detail on the film that I have difficulty getting to, but if I can't get it then what's the use? Basically I'm very pleased with scans I've done on a LS-40ED and I've compared scans done by a friend with my negs on an LS-9000 to my own epson 4870. There are differences around "the edges" but when the check sheet is evaluated totally its not "gosh". Some results here.

I find that I get bigger images (in pixels) out of the scans, but can print simmilarly sized images (in cm on paper) from either system. The rub for me is that I prefer neg for not blowing out highlights but well handled RAW images will work well enough (though watch out for a specific channel clipping and making colour funny see here for an example scroll down to the strawberry).

on my last "apples vs oranges" comparison I put 200 ISO film into my EOS film
body and an EF 50f1.8 on it VS the EF18-55 mounted on my 20D. I chose that approach cos I want to take an image which is composed the same not photograph test charts. The end result was that I didn't see that much difference in them even less so when I put the same lens on both bodies (meaning of course that the 20D image was a cropped portion of the full film image).

so to me, that puts a 5D ahead.

I have on my blog here (on a page about something else) a comparison of a ruler photographed with a 5D and a 10D both with the 50 f1.8 at the same distance. This shows what the 10D would yeild with a bigger sensor of the same density.

My interpretation of these images is that the 5D image is better.

add to this the lack of scanning required and (especially if you use slide film) the 5D will be cheaper to run fairly soon.

I dont buy the 28-70 f/2.8 Canon L (because I heard that this lens doesnt work very good together with digital camera's,

first I've ever heard of this ...

anyway ... I hope this helps

 

[donbga]

1) I buy a second hand EOS3 body like I used to have and a 28-70 f/2.8 Canon

Look for a good 1V. They can be found at good prices especailly these days. With a 100% viewfinder that would be my choice.

2) I buy a second hand Eos 5D, with this I dont buy the 28-70 f/2.8 Canon L (because I heard that this lens doesnt work very good together with digital camera's, thats why they made the 24-70 f/2.8L)

That's ridiculous that lens works very well. Both do actually. Get the 5D later. Always spend your euros on glass first.

Frankly I don't think either the Sigma or Tamron or going to be better performers.

Now my question is simple, what will give me better images with reference to color/contract/sharpness and the like. Analogue + scanning or Digital

That depends on the scanner and the film. Generally speaking when comparing the output from a higher end DSLR to film it becomes a matter of philosophy rather than technology. The 5D will certainly have good output but a 1V with a good scanner will produce as good or better. Now if we compare the Nikon D3/D700 or one of the Canon high end DSLRs or the new Sony Alpha 900 to film that might be a different issue.

You may wish to consider a Canon 40D and a Canon 1V.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

 

[SilverGlow]

Well, if you think so then maybe you should read this:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/21/a700-6400-iso-seven-raw-processors/

"...
The level of ‘pixel peeping’ complaints and criticisms levelled at the Alpha 700, which has unrivaled colour fidelity and tonal rendering straight out of the camera at ISO 6400, is either sad or laughable, I’m not sure which. This is a performance we could never have dreamed of when Konicacolor 3200 was the fastest colour film on the planet
..."

"...
In practice, even Adobe ARC offers all the quality needed to make stunning and superbly colourful A2 size prints from ISO 6400 - as does the camera itself, with in-camera JPEGs displaying plenty of detail compared to even the best raw conversions.
..."

In advanced amateur / semi-pro league, it's not fair comparing cameras (especially in terms of noise, especially when we have nice tools such as NeatImage and NoiseNinja which can do noise reduction much better than in-camera algorithms) according to their JPEG performance...

Besides, I seldom shoot @ ISO sensitivities higher than 800, so I went for better performance/price compared to C&N...

Can you please provide me a link to NR rendering comparison between semi-pro C/N & Sony cameras? Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Loris.

The things you quoted about the Sonys are very weak and lame excuses, sorry.

For one thing, the best latest Sony Alpha produces PROFOUNDLY more noise then what Nikon and Canon have to date, at ISO 3200 and faster. Go to dpreview.com for more info on this.

In addition, to rely on software to mitigate that noise is very foolish because when one applies anti-noise, it smears away detail, bye, bye forever. It is far better for a camera to produce less noise.

It is far better to buy a DSLR that creates the least noise then to rely on NoiseNinja and other anti-noise products that get rid of noise..AND precious image details (forever).

In addition, when the camera and/or ARC applies anti-noise, it does it to the entire images, big bang...a big huge no-no. Why destroy precious image detail in parts of any image where you don't have to? It is far better to do it manually from within PhotoShop using layers and masks, surgically to save as much image quality as possible. The last thing you want to do to mitigate noise is use an anti-noise plug in...since owning my two 5D's I'm yet to need those type of products...if I had a Sony they would be a must, sadly.

As to Sony's "better color"? What serious photographer shoots jpg? It is far better to shoot raw and master the colors, contrast, sharpening yourself in PhotoShop during post processing. Leave raw to the amatures, sports shooters, PJ and the like. If you want to compare color, then do it with raw images and not jpgs.

You say you never or rarely shoot faster then ISO 800? That's exactly the same thing thousands of Nikon DSLR shooters use to say...before Nikon fixed their noise problems this year with the D3, D300 and D700. Now all of a sudden, those same Nikon shooters shoot at ISO 1600, 3200, 6400 all day long....these days, the best DSLR's are only made by Nikon and Canon, but to be fair, I think Sony will soon and finally fix their noise problems too, once and for all.

To the OP: As to the 24-70 F2.8 L lens, well it is the best standard/normal zoom for the EOS mount, and my copy is razor sharp wide open. I've only had bad luck with Sigma lenses...all 5 that I have owned in the past....never again. I shoot with the EOS-3 for all my black & white needs, but leave color only to the EOS 5D, as I think film is better at B&W but digital is better at color (don't shoot me).