Somebody tell me about the Maxxum 9

AKA, Maxxum Dynax 9 (I think it is). Recently, mainly for paying

work reasons, I've been giving serious thought to (gasp!) an

autofocus SLR mit zoom lens. Specificly, I've been considering,

alongside the Nikon F100 and F5, and Canon EOS-1v, the Maxxum 9. The

price seems to be right, and likewise the build quality and

capabilities. If you own this camera (and especially if you've also

owned one of the others I mention), what is your overall feeling

about it? It's strong points? Any weak areas?<P>

 

And what about the glass? I know Minolta touts its G lenses as being

among the best in the format . . . but how are they really? The

company makes a big deal about its nine-blade, sphere-forming

aperture, vis-a-vis the bokeh it renders; but, if I'm not mistaken,

bokeh has more to do with how a lens is corrected, and with its

coatings, than it does with the number of blades and their shape. I

searched Minolta's brochures for evidence of the distinguished lens

character (and especially bokeh) they were touting . . . and remained

unconvinced. So how is the character of these lenses, if you use

them? Thanks for the info. <P>

photo.net has some articles about the 9 (BTW, it's either "Maxxum 9" or "Dynax 9" or "Alpha 9", depending on where it's sold). Also read the forum archive. Then come back if you have unanswered questions.

<p>

About bokeh: Read <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml">this article</a>. The shape of the aperture has a major influence on bokeh. Coating has no influence.

<p>

<blockquote> I know Minolta touts its G lenses as being among the best in the format . . . but how are they really?</blockquote>

<p>

Well, they <em>are</em> among the best in the format.

I don't own the Maxxum 9 but I do own the Maxxum 7. I can say the reaosn why I chose it over a used Eos 3 was the ergonomics. I love the dial interface. Even though I'm an electronics geek, I can't stand all the buttons of the Nikon and Eos interface. You may want to go check out them all out in a store and see which one feels more comfortable to you.

 

As far as lenses, any of the 3 were fine for me since I'm not going to be able afford the big high end lenses that Nikon/Canon offer and Minolta doesn't. While it's not officially a G lens, I can say the bokeh of the Maxxum 100mm macro D lens is excellent. I get smooth out of focus highlights and sharp in focus subjects.

 

I'll agree with Michael that the G lenses are top notched lenses. While the Nikon and Canon may offer more from a usability standpoint, the optics are all equal if you ask me.

<I>photo.net has some articles about the 9 (BTW, it's either "Maxxum 9" or "Dynax 9" or "Alpha 9", depending on where it's sold). Also read the forum archive. Then come back if you have unanswered questions.</I><P>

 

I have a number of questions, but the main one is, why don't you try to be more specific and helpful in your answers? I wasn't asking for anyone to do my research for me; rather, as part of my research I was asking for details of your own thoughts and experience. A site-specific <a href=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22maxxum+9%22++%22dynax+9%22++site%3Aphoto.net> google search</a> of photonet reveals a review of the Maxxum cameras that appeared before release of the 9 (though some links to info about the 9, which is helpful, have been added); a review of the Maxxum 7; and two photo.net threads in which the 9 is mentioned or discussed. Meanwhile, if by "archive" you mean that morass that all falls in this forum under the heading "uncatorgorized", I've previously found one thread about the 9 and two that discuss the lenses.<P>

 

<I>About bokeh: Read this article. The shape of the aperture has a major influence on bokeh. Coating has no influence.</I><P>

 

I read the Merklinger article when it appeared in <I>Photo-Techniques</I>, and I've read it since. While helpful, it defines bokeh in, it seems to me, rather narrow terms. Of course aperture shape has influence on the rendering of out-of-focus areas; but equally important to bokeh is the transition area between sharpness and blur, as well as the rendering of specular highlights and microcontrast (and contrast overall) (without which the bokeh appears weak or not at all). These last concerns speak directly to coatings; and thus coatings have a roll to play in bokeh.<P>

 

<I>"I know Minolta touts its G lenses as being among the best in the format . . . but how are they really?"<P>

Well, they are among the best in the format.</I><P>

 

It's all well and good to make that assertion. But without saying exactly <I>how</I> they are among the best, it does me and everyone else no good whatsoever. Again, in what ways are they distinctive?

Asking precise questions is the key to getting precise answers. Your question is so unspecific that you can't really give a different answer than "read what's there, then ask again". You haven't told us about your own research, so how can we assume that you did one and what questions were open?

<p>

<blockquote>It's all well and good to make that assertion. But without saying exactly how they are among the best, it does me and everyone else no good whatsoever. Again, in what ways are they distinctive?</blockquote>

<p>

Again, we can't see what exactly you want to know. Also, this is really two questions: "are they really good" and "in what ways are they distinctive". To answer the first: They are sharp, contrasty, show little distortions and good bokeh, and they are built well. So they are among the best. It's hard to answer the second question, because this is more about individual lenses, and again you give no indication of which you are interested in. Many feature a circular aperture, helping getting good bokeh. Some are specialty lenses (the STF, the soft focus, the macro zoom), some have unique specifications (the 400/4.5), etc. Again, it would really help if the question was more specific.

[. . .] <I>If you own [the Maxxum 9] (and especially if you've also owned one of the others I mention), what is your overall feeling about it? It's strong points? Any weak areas?<P>

 

[. . .] I searched Minolta's brochures for evidence of the distinguished lens character (and especially bokeh) they were touting . . . and remained unconvinced. So how is the character of these lenses, if you use them?</I><P>

 

Generally lenses of the same family - especially the higher end of the family - share certain characteristics - "character". It's often (usually) this character - imparted to them by the design and engineering decisions taken by the manufacturer - that distinguish them from lesser runs, and make them worth paying a premium for. Or not. For instance, if you asked a similar question in the Leica forum - what are the characteristics that typify Leica lenses? - you'd doubtless have no end of answers, and most of those answers would be consistent. Likewise if you enquired of Leica M users about their general feelings for, say, the M6TTL - its strong points and weak areas. Seems pretty specific to me. But, clearly, if you were able to address these questions in a thoughtful, critical way, you'd have already done so. At least Thang made an honest effort (even despite his not having the camera in question). Any other Maxxum 9 users out there?

And by the way, of all the lenses made in the 35mm format, those made by Leica are of course the most renowned for their bokeh - despite the absence in them of any "nine blade, circle-forming aperture" nonsense.

I can't think of a certain "character" of the lenses. They form an image as best as they can. Don't expect some mystical magic here.

<p>

And it seems you've made your decision already.