• 08Jun

    I finally decided to clean up the disk space that is currently distributed on 3 computers and 3 or 4 external drives.  I have a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro – and I will use the Pro for performance and as a “home” for my data and software.

    The Mac Pro has 4 bays for disks. The two first bays will be for my two 150G WD VelociRaptors (WD3000HLFS — blackplane ready) for my bootable OS, applications and home directory – I will receive these two disk tomorrow morning from newegg.  The two other bays will be for 2 1T WD’s caviar black disks and they will host images and other media files AND a photoshop scratch disk.  I am considering RAID 0 for these two disks as well, but I am still undecided – maybe it is too risky.

    WDs VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    WD's VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    My backup will be a three tier process with (1) Time Machine on a Drobo/DroboShare – nightly backup (2) SuperDuper bootable & Media backup weekly – and cycling two external disks and (3) Off-site/backup.   I have three tiers because my main computer will be setup for performance (RAID 0).  Drobo uses a proprietary RAID like system and allows for variable size disks that can be replaced as needed.  The DroboShare allows the DRobo to be treated as network attached storage (with a gentle hack).

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

     

    I will use Shirtpocket’s SuperDuper both to make a weekly bootable copy of my OS and apps and a clone of my media & cycle two disks for each (so a total of 4 disks). I got Other World Computing external firewire 800 disks and also also Western Digital My Book Studio disks to accommodate this cycle.

     

    Shirtpocket

    Click here to get an overview of SuperDuper

     

    For offsite, I am seriously torn (and waiting for suggestions here  and elsewhere). I have a lot of data, close to the terabyte range – and it will continue to grow at a rate of 200-400GB per year. I would like a place that is both reasonably priced and doesn’t take ‘forever’ to transfer the initial copy,  preferable a place that accepts a disk(s) for the initial backup. So far I have looked at, Mozy, Carbonite, Backblaze, Carboncopy and Safecopy. I found this review here via a quick google:

  • 15Feb

    I have attended two of the leading workshops on child photography – the Secret Workshop by Cheryl Muhr that I attended in June 2008 and Brianna Graham’s workshop that I attended in October of 2008. With price tags at $1,100 and $1,300 respectively they are both rather expensive, so one needs to consider their value carefully before committing.

    In this post I review Brianna Graham’s workshop. I first became interested in attending Brianna’s workshop after she served as the “secret guest” at Cheryl’s workshop (you can read the review of Cheryl’s workshop here). I was intrigued by Brianna’s approach to studio lighting, her philosophy to keep things simple, and her rapport with the models. When I met Brianna at Cheryl’s workshop I did not know that she was “famous,” that she had already made a name of herself. She was very down to earth and approachable.

    One thing that resonated with me then, and that I learned more about at this workshop, is Brianna’s philosophy to remove as many parameters as possible from your shooting and production workflow. As one example, she typically uses one large light instead of two small lights. It is simpler, of course, but still effective because a large light source can wrap around smaller subjects. She creates great results using a fairly simple set of techniques. She still encourages experimentation, but suggests you change only one thing at a time.

    The 3-day workshop was held in Grand Rapids, close to Brianna’s studio. Patrick, Brianna’s husband, helped run things. The first day was focused on natural light in an urban setting, the second day was in the studio and the third day centered on editing, workflow and marketing.

    On the first day we started by getting to know each other: Learning why we were there, and what we wanted to get out of the workshop. I really enjoyed the diversity of participants; we were two dozen photographers at various levels of expertise and backgrounds. There were 2 men, and the age distribution included folks from their early twenties to mid fifties. After the personal introductions Brianna gave us a 90 minute overview of her approach, ranging from planning, laying out the shot, finding and controlling the light, compositional elements to complementary clothing.The second part of the day consisted of shooting with models; there were about 20 models. Before cutting us loose to shoot on our own, Brianna spent about 45 minutes showing us how she selected locations and posed models. She illustrated 3-4 different settings near the area of the workshop.

    I teamed up with my neighbor and we grabbed a model. Most photographers were grouped in teams of two or three, but there were a few singletons as well. As we roamed a few blocks in downtown Grand Rapids, near the workshop site, we occasionally switched models. We set up the shots ourselves – trying to learn the new tools that we had (hopefully) learned. Our first model was a spunky girl with colorful clothes and we asked her to change into more neutral clothing to give us more flexibility of the outdoor settings. The models were mostly beginner models and some got tired easily – and that was a slight disadvantage, but on the other hand I also respect that they were out there with 20+ photographers.

    Later in the day I decided to forget about shooting to shadow Brianna and observe her shoot and listen to her narration. After all, I came to the workshop to learn how she got her shots. This turned out to be a good decision for me, and I learned a lot.

    Shooting ended around 5 PM. We wrapped up the day at a neighborhood restaurant with Patrick and Brianna. This may have been my favorite part of the workshop. They (Brianna and Patrick) stationed themselves at opposite ends of a long dinner table so everyone was close to one of them. The dinner provided a great venue for us to learn more. I was towards Brianna’s end, and I was pleased to hear her “let her hair down” and give us more insights into her experiences.

    The topic for the second day was studio lighting. We started with a lecture. Brianna covered various lighting setups, ranging in size, number of lights, direction and light modifiers. Brianna encouraged learning by experimenting. That rang well with me – I like to just do it and see what happens. She re-emphasized her philosophy that the key is to remove or control all the variables. The studio is all about controlling the light. I think this part was very helpful and provided a nice introduction to light and how it affects the subjects.

    After lunch we practiced what we had learned in the morning. The workshop now was set up with 6-7 studio station elements –with different light sources and backgrounds. Brianna started off by illustrating how to trigger the lights and pose the model with the light. We were divided into groups of three then we shot on our own. This portion was a bit chaotic. It was hard to grab fresh models for a station and I hardly got a turn to shoot in my group. Although I have experience with shooting multiple speed lights in studio I got a bad start and initially had technical difficulties. Neither Brianna nor Patrick was available to help. We rotated to a different station every 20-30 minutes, but a lot of that time was spent on finding a fresh and willing model and familiarizing ourselves with the new station – or waiting for the next station. I think this was the low point of the workshop and unfortunately people seemed to get anxious here –- with each other, other groups and taking turns, finding models and lack of guidance.I think Brianna and Patrick have recognized the problems with the studio portion of the workshop. They have changed this portion so there are only 10 participants in the studio at a time. This sounds about right to me.

    On the third day we focused on editing and business. We met in Brianna’s studio. When we arrived Brianna gave us a studio tour – including an overview of her marketing material and business approach. Her studio was impeccable and so was her marketing material. We later sat down and went through workflow and editing techniques. We wrapped up the day with portfolio reviews. I could not attend the last portion due to time constraints with my “day” job.

    Bottom Line: Even though there are a few points that need polishing, this is a good workshop, and I felt my money was well invested.

    Pros: Great overview of lighting and composition rules of thumb from a successful photographer. It is a good introduction to a useful shooting philosophy. The workshop benefited from having a smaller group of participants than the Secret Workshop. That helps a lot. There were 26 participants so it small enough for some one-on-one interaction with the organizers.

    Cons: Still not as much one-on-one interaction with the organizer as I would have liked. I suppose this is an issue with most workshops of this size and it is probably even worse at larger workshops. The studio portion especially needed improvement, but it seems like the organizers for future workshops have addressed those issues.

    Suggestions: I think the organizers should figure out a way to reach all the participants individually (as mentioned before I think they are moving in that direction). Or at least make the participants feel like they are reached on a one-on-one level. A challenge for them is that the market that they are targeting their workshop towards are the folks just starting in this business so they may not have the money to spend on a more expensive workshop.

     

    My result – set up the shot myself and minor post processing – (after studio hints from Brianna of-course):
    ~ Green Eyed Paris ~

    Studio portion (Day 2):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Studio Day)

    Urban day – Day 1 (Brianna in action illustrating how to see the light):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Urban Day)

    Urban Day – Day 1  (I think you can tell here how involved Brianna gets with the models (: and workshop – she brings it!):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Urban Day)

  • 14Feb

    One factor that is important when picking a camera is its auto-focus (AF) performance. Cameras differ on both accuracy and responsiveness (or acquisition) of focus and also tracking or keeping a subject in focus while the subject is moving. Accuracy means that the camera thinks it is in focus but it isn’t really (you end up with out of focus images even if the camera told you that it was in focus). Responsiveness is the lag between being out-of focus to being in-focus.

    It is a challenge to assess a cameras performance as it depends on so many factors such as power from a driving processor or battery, available light and particular lens.  Does the camera have a processor, or two? Does the camera perform in dim light and how does it perform in bright light?  How can you separate the cameras native autofocus capability from that of the capability of the lens? But perhaps lens choice is irrelevant to separate, because you may choose a camera because of its lens anyway – and perhaps one should assess autofocus with  the fastest  lens available.

    I looked at two sites to get insight on autofocus performance of Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras – both resources use scientific rigor when assessing performance  - Popular Photography and Imaging resource and found  conflicting results.

    Popular Photography below (higher better performance) favors the autofocusing systems of the D3X and Sony A900 while imaging resource favors the Canon.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Data Source: [D300] [D700] [D3][D3x] [A900] [5DII]

    Popular photography.. more to come.

     

     

    Based on Imaging Resource Data:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Note that the Imaging Resource data above shows over a 2X difference between the D3 and D700 (D300) for the “Shutterlag, Full AF” numbers while the “pre-focus and shutter” numbers are pretty close between the cameras. We noticed that they use two difference lenses while testing between the D3 and D300/D700, namely the fast focusing 24-70 f/2.8 on the D3 and D3x but the slower focusing lens, the Sigma 70 f/2.8 EX on the D300 and D700. We asked the Imaging resource researchers about this issue but they believe that lens choice should not make a significant difference as they test iteratively or multiple times- so the lens is already in focus in the final measurement. In this manner they claim that they isolate the cameras performance the lens performance, i.e., they measuring the camera’s ability to ‘determine’ focus instead of the lens’ autofocus performance.

    Personally, I challenge that assumption, for two reasons – first the data from popular photography seem to differ and second removing possible variables (such as lens choice and power) in experiments is more fair and it is only one way to eliminate lens choice as a question and that is to not use different lenses.

    The focus engines between cameras (the D3 and D700) are the same, Nikon’s Multi-CAM3500FX system. The real difference is that the D3 has two processors giving it more ‘power’ while the D300 and D700 have only one. So the question is whether the D3 performs true parallel processing or not. Leveling the field between the cameras by adding more power to the D300/D700 or add battery grip with AA.

    I offered imaging resource my equipment for retesting (my camera, lens and battery grip) for further testing – they responding by saying they would get back to me but so far I have not heard an additional response. Possible because of they are busy with the upcoming PMAi.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Review Site Data:

    http://www.popphoto.com/

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/

    http://www.dxomark.com/

    Tags: , , , , ,
  • 12Jan

    It is time for an informal review – I had hoped to do a more thorough review but it is not happening.  I am just too busy with work, traveling, mothering and moving part of our household to the left coast (CA) – so this will have to do for now.

    I have tested both cameras – I initially rented the D700 in July/Aug of 2008 when it first came out and a couple a weeks ago I rented the 5D II.   I was considering becoming a bi-shooter, he he he – but that too is not happen.  There are different advantages of each camera (i.e., between a Canon FX and Nikon FX). I think it boils down to a responsive focus engine and resistance to noise [Nikon] OR better resolution and slightly better tonality [Canon].  Both camera manufacturers have great lenses –the 85 f/1.2L is outstanding (and I suspect also the 50 f/1.2L) for Canon, and on the Nikon side the 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic & the 105 f/2.8 macro is WOW and so is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom lens.

    So – if you look at just the image quality given perfect focus and exposure, Canon may have a slight edge (in terms of resolution & tonality) BUT in practice, when you have fast moving kids and/or pesky low light, the Nikon gives you an edge with its better ‘hit-rate’ due to its responsive focus engine and seemingly more resistance to noise. I also enjoy Nikon’s built in speed light system (CLS) – (e.g., I have the light weigt and far reaching SU-800 to trigger my off-camera lights (SB-800s). 

    And for me that (the focus engine) sealed the deal so I finally decided to upgrade to the D700 – wohooo (I did say this is an informal review). I do like both cameras, the video capability on the 5DII was nice to have – and I miss that – and I miss the 85 f/1.2 L lens… and the extra resolution was nice so I admit yes I want BOTH but no I don’t think it is worth it. But maybe I should try the D3X. Nikon please send me one.

    IN the end I recommend that anyone considering both should TRY both, maybe via rentals as I am sure it is a personal decision – so stop the suffering in wondering if one is better than the other (like I did).

    For me the D700 is the BEST – YEAH! 

     

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Green on green

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Pondering: What do I need for Christmas?

    Canon 5D Mark II (ISO 64,000):
    Just a quick check at ISO 6,400

     

    Nikon D700:
    Retro Swing

    Nikon D700:
    3, 2, 1, Blast Off!

    Nikon D700:
    "Come on in: Best Ribs &  Blues on Beale Street"

  • 31Dec

    I just got my Nikkor 50 f/1.4G and I love it. It is fast focusing – but not as much as I had hoped – it may be  slightly slower than the original f/1.4D, and definitely not as fast as my 24-70 f/2.8 which is strange as it is longer/larger lens. The best part of it is the creaminess and beautiful contrast. It reminds me of Canon’s 85 f/1.2L II lens – which I loved! The Nikkor version is way faster focusing though.  In summary, the focus is fast, not blazingly fast, the bokeh is rounded and the out of focus areas are creamy.

     

    Creaminess at 1.4 and sharp where it needs to be:

    Honest

     

    Rounded bubbly bokeh:
    Happy New Year!

    As a comparison, here is the 1.4D at f/3.5 notice the more edgy bokeh:
    Profile of a Daughter

  • 24Dec

    After over a week of fun with a rented 5DII (review upcoming), I played with my almost one year ‘old’ D300.

    Today, I played with the “Live View” mode and setting the white balance. Live view is a great resource to get direct visual feedback on different white balance settings as you can see the scenery change on the LCD in real time.

    Live view is really easy to  use – just turn on live view then while viewing the scenery on the LCD you change the camera settings and get direct feedback of the effect of changing camera on the camera LCD screen/monitor.

    (1) Turn on live view (use the camera dial under the ISO/QUAL/WB buttons – same dial where you set shooting mode – single/remote timers and set it to Live View (Lv).

    (2) Push the shutter release button down once – now live view is activated.

    (3) Look at the LCD screen and compose the image or change setting such as WB and

    (4) push the shutter again and hold the shutter to take the shot.

     

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to Lv

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to "Lv"

     

     

    Try it!

  • 26Oct

     

    The Secret Workshop is a photographers’ workshop focused on child photography hosted by Cheryl Muhr. This is my review of the workshop I attended in June, 2008 in Flint Michigan.

    Cheryl is a fun person to be around. She has managed to integrate her business into her family life, she treats life and her profession as a hobby, as something to live and strive for. Her motto is that if you don’t enjoy something — get rid of it and maximize the fun factors in life. Cheryl is a joy to listen to and she keeps your attention. Cheryl’s enthusiasm made the workshop inspiring and helped me to see things in a new light.

    This is not just a motivational workshop, it also teaches you how to price yourself and your work; get clients in different target markets and how to break into new areas of the photography market (commercial, editorial and portraiture). She also covers portrait photography and processing techniques.

    The Secret Workshop is a two-day workshop:  One “secret” about the workshop is that you don’t know who the guest speaker will be before you arrive. We were treated to Brianna Graham, a Grand Rapids-based photographer.

    The first day began with a lecture by Cheryl about how she broke into the business, what inspires her and her philosophy on photography. It was followed by a presentation by Brianna Graham where she explained her lighting and studio techniques. She did not discuss her post-processing techniques.

    The first day ended with a two-to-three hour shoot-out. 15-25 child models were shared among 45, mostly women participants (there was one male). We were split into groups by table – so we ended up with about 5 groups with 7-8 women/men per group. This part of the workshop was also the weakest – it was chaotic – the jungle law ruled: eat or be eaten – you had to recruit the models on your own – if there was a free and un-tired one, pose her or him and then get your shot. Each group was on their own practicing their skills.

    In retrospect, for this part, the most valuable way to spend your time here is to stalk Cheryl or linger at Brianna’s studio shot station and to forget about getting your shot. After all – I was there to get a good sense on how to create an image from their point of view, what to look for (in terms of light & setting & pose) and how to reach a final product.

    The final day was about post-production, setting up a business, including pricing and selecting supporting products or companies (printing companies, accessories and more). Cheryl illustrates her technique with images she shot from the day before and accommodates her thought process in creating them.

    As with any workshop – there were a few weaknesses: My chief complaint is that it was too crowded. 40+ photographers are too many for the price of the workshop and there is really no one-on-one time with Cheryl. The crowdedness is especially a problem at the shoot-out session. The workshop could probably improve if the models had certain tasks or stations – and a rotation scheme was implemented. I suspect that this is not unusual when you have a number of models and photographers. But despite the somewhat chaotic shootout and difficulties overall the workshop went smoothly. Second – I think it would have been nice if Cheryl attempted to spend some time per group – this could mitigate the need for one-on-one time per participant. Most of us left the workshop wishing for more one-on-one time. However, Cheryl had recruited a number of volunteers from previous workshop and they were at hand. I appreciate that forethought. Amanda – was especially helpful.

    The workshop concluded with door prizes and awards – two of them were Blu Domain web sites (OH and I wish I had won one of those) – there were some actions sets awards (Nichole Van and MCP Actions –and Jodi of MCP actions was an attendee) and other awards. We got a goody bag with coupons, a workbook with the stuff we covered (slides) and a CD that includes pricing and Cheryl’s workflow actions.

    My results – despite the period of chaos during the model shoot-out – were several nice images. I also came out of the workshop feeling more confident in my photography and that I could start a photography business if I wanted to. But for now I am a hobbyist – so that aspect of photography will probably not be for a while. The pricing and strategies in setting up a business was valuable, however. Cheryl’s greatest strength is that she inspired you and she creates a positive atmosphere just to be there – and that in it self is priceless.

    Secret Workshop: Secret Guest Studio Portion

    Secret Workshop: Secret Guest Studio Portion

     

    Secret Workshop: Model Shoot Out.

    Secret Workshop: Model Shoot Out.

     

    Secret Workshop

    Secret Workshop

     

    Secret Workshop

    Secret Workshop

     

    Secret Workshop: Day 1 - Model Shoot Out.

    Secret Workshop: Day 1 - Model Shoot Out.

  • 28Sep

    Nikon D3 at Amazon
    Nikon D700 at Amazon

    The D700 or the D3, which one should I get?

    Image quality wise there are no perceptual differences between the D700 and D3. There are four primary differences between the cameras: (1) length of life (2) processor speed (e.g., impacting frame rate) (3) size/ergonomics and (4) the D700 has an on-board flash.

    The D3 is more of a heavy-duty camera – it is more reliable and has a greater shutter life (150,000 vs. 300,000 actuations) so it will last a lot longer. I can see this as a big seller for pro-photographer, but for amateurs, like myself, probably not as much as we will probably upgrade to a new camera before the camera’s demise. Alongside this pro-advantage – the D3 has dual memory slots. But hey –

     us amateurs can get bigger cards – 32G cards are becoming quit reasonably priced.

    The D3 has a dual processor giving the D3 more power and speed –

     it can achieve a frame rate of up to 9 frames per second. The D700 achieves 5 fps with its single processor, but with the MB-D100 battery grip with AA batteries it offers up to 8 frames per second. The D3 has a slight edge as it goes to 9 fps but in practice this is not really noticeable. With the battery grip the D700 is bulkier, larger and heavier than the D3 and not as ergonomic – again ergonomics is a factor for heavy-duty hardcore shooters.

    Another advantage of the D3 is the 100% viewfinder coverage –

     the D700 only has 95% coverage.

    The D700 edges the D3 on having sensor cleaner and as a smaller & lighter travel camera, it is lighter on your wrist but the trade-off (without the battery grip) is focus acquisition and frame rate.

    In summary the choice boils down to a function of price versus wear, so for the price of one 2008 D3 ($4,540), you may get a 2008 D700 ($3,000 + $240 grip) and a 2010 D800 with newer technology – so the question is within that same time span do you want (need) the D3? But of-course, it is just something about having the best Nikon Camera – and that is of-course the D3 (or perhaps the upcoming the D3x).

    The D3 difference:

    • 300,000 actuations (150,000 for the D700)
    • Dual memory card slots (vs. single on the D700)
    • 100% viewfinder coverage (95% for the D700).
    • No build in flash.
    • Better ergonomics.
    • No sensor cleaner.
    • Choice of a 5:4 image aspect option (D3 only)
    • Better battery life.
    • Frame rate 9 fps (D3), 8 fps (D700 with a battery grip), 8 fps (D300 with a battery grip).
    • Price $4,540 (D3) vs. $3,000 (D700) vs. $1,625 (D300).
    • The MB-D100 battery grip is $240.00.
    • .20 seconds focus and shoot with the D3 (vs. .25 seconds for the D700).

    Resources:

    http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5484/nikon-d700-camera-test.html
    http://www.nikond700.com/nikon-d3-d700-compared/
    http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3664
    http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A.HTM
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/D700A.HTM

    Sample Photos:

    D700

    D700 w/ battery grip: 24-70mm f/2.8G at f/10 & 1/1000, ISO 200

    D700
    D700 w/ battery grip: 24-70mm f/2.8G  at  f/2.8 & 1/500, ISO 400
    D700
    D700 w/ battery grip: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/7.1 & 1/500, ISO 1,000
    D3
    D3: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/2.8 & 1/1,250, ISO 200
    D3
    D3: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/2.8 & 1/160, ISO 200
    D3
    D3: 24-70mm f/2.8G at  f/2.8 & 1/125, ISO 640



  • 24Sep

    50mm f/1.4 at Amazon
    Nikon just came out with another nifty fifty [Photokina 2008].

     
    Pros:

    • AF-S: Silent Wave Motor (SWM) for ultra-fast and silent auto focusing.
    • Better looking Bokeh (round aperture diaphragm).
    • Improved chromatic aberations and sagittal coma flare corrections.

    Cons:

    • $439.95
    • No Nano Coating.
    • Need 58mm filters.
    • Not Available until December.

    More details:



  • 17Sep

    Coming out in November — and I want to try these babies out! I would like to couple the Sony body ($2,999) with the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 ($1,800).  I think a good match for the Canon will be either the 85 f/1.2L or the 24-70 f/2.8.

    Canon 5D II
    Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
    Canon 24-70/2.8L 

    Sony A900
    Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70 f/2.8 ZA
    Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 135 f/1.8 

    Sony 70-200 f/2.8G SAL
    Zeiss 85 f/1.4 SAL

    But not sure what lenses I should rent for my comparison. Leaning towards the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 – it got fantastic reviews. I would like something that is comparable to my Nikon lenses. I have the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and Nikon 85 f/1.4 for my Nikon comparison. Nikon really needs to update their prime lenses!  Hopefully we will see some more coming out next week at Photokina.  

    Sony A900:
    Pros:

    • Full frame 24.6 megapixel Exmor CMOS sensor.
    • In camera stabilization system that works in practice.
    • Dual Bionz image processors.
    • 3K price tag (which is reasonable for this level of camera)
    • Takes the world class Zeiss lenses.
    • 9-pt dual cross focus centers
    • 5 fps continuous shooting (for up to 13 RAW frames)
    • USB 2.0.

    Cons:

    • Heavy 2.07 pounds (939 g) (but lighter than the Nikon D700)
    • Wish there were more focus points.
    • Noise even at low ISO 200, above 200 it is bothersome ):
    • No flash

    Canon 5D II (available November, 2008)
    Pros:

    • 9 cross-haired AF points – AF system have a slight improvement over the old 5D.
    • 6 non-addressable assist focus points.
    • Live View.
    • 21.1 megapixels CMOS sensor (old 5D was 12.8 megapixels).
      • pixel pitch 6.4 µm (old 5D was 8.4 µm)
      • New RGB color filters with improved transmission rates.
      • Cleaner images.
      • DIGIC 4 processor.
      • Canon claims highest image quality of any EOS digital SLR released to date.
    • Movie mode.
    • $2,699

    Cons:

    • Slow frame rate of 3.9 frames/sec
    • No flash.

    Reviews across the web for the Sony A900:

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900A.HTM
    http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/review-upstart.html
    http://www.photographybay.com/2008/01/13/sony-a900/

    Quote that puts the cameras (Nikon D700, Canon 5D II and Sony A900) into a nice perspective – from Mike Tomkins and Shawn Barnett article over at imaging-resource [cite link here].

    “Each of the sub-$3,000 full-frame digital SLRs offers its own unique strength. The Nikon D700 may “only” be 12.1 megapixels, but it can fire off eight frames per second, and has some very impressive high-ISO performance. The Sony A900 offers astonishingly high resolution, at 24.6 megapixels, and yet still cranks out a respectable five frames per second. And the Canon 5D Mark II has very high resolution of 21.1 megapixels with the added benefit of HD movie capture. Unless you need high speed capture, and a 30fps HD movie is out of the question, the Canon 5D Mark II appears to offer the best of both of its competitors, with high resolution capture and what we expect to be very good high ISO performance. Your needs and your lens collection will help decide which way you lean; the big story is that for the first time you have a choice.