Minolta Vs. Nikon

Does anyone here prefer Minolta over Nikon? I know I do. The bodies

are very affordable as are the lenses, compared to Nikon stuff anyway.

I remember I used a Nikon FM-10 once and the film advance had to be

moved out a little bit because it acted as a lock against accidental

exposures. Granted this was a good idea but it was also a pain in the

neck.

I guess we should leave the "my-brand-is-better" discussion to the endless Nikon-vs-Canon threads on their forums. Use your gear, be happy with it, but the name on the front doesn't matter at all. There is no manufacturer that is superior in all fields.

 

Regards Georg

I suppose your right. Its stormy as hell out now. Oh what boredom can do.

I know when I was shopping for my camera I had the Rebel 2000, the N65 and the Minolta HTsi plus all laid out in front of me at the store. I went with the HTSI Plus because every feature the other two had the Minolta had and the minolta was cheaper.

When I got my Maxxum 5, I was strongly debating the Nikon N75. I decided on the Maxxum becasue of it's $50 less nature. I however, still have mixed emotions about the decision because I was just starting my setup, and there is a larger selection of lenses for Nikon then there is for Minolta. Maybe Konica Minolta will increase the product lineup.

Not that I dissagree with you but ask this on the Nikon forum and I bet the answers are a little different. BTW I think my Olympus XA is cuter than my XE-7.

Robert, In 1982 I purchased my first new XG-M, built my set of lenses up over the years, some new, some used, & later, added a second (used)body. It has served me well and still does. I love the compact size & will probably be able to purchase extra bodies, if required, for years yet to come. Having sung these praises, if I had it to do all over again I would chose Nikon, the FM2 specifically, if only for the high 1/250 sec. sync speed. With any film speed above 100 ISO I'm skunked if I want to balance sunlight with fill flash as the XG-M only sync's at 1/60. Even at that I'm around f16-f22 in bright sun which, even with a Vivitar 283 & GN of 110 means 10 ft max. (1:2 - 1:4 fill ratio). OK, JUST doable, but no allowance for subject or camera movement (as in wedding photography) As someone else said, for all intents & purposes any name brand camera will do a sufficiently high quality job but for certain jobs some features are essential. Decide what your requirements are & make your choice based on those with price a secondary consideration. Best, LM.

Historically Nikon get the professionnal market because they system was more complete especialy concerning high speed motor cameras.

 

BTW don't judge Nikon by the FM-10, it's just a Cosina CT-1ex with a Nikon logo.

When i changed from mf to af I tought aboout going nikon but am glad I didn't. Mat said that he isnt to happy with the range of lenses from minolta but is you add tokina, sigma and tamron to the mix you have more lenses than you need . If i was for some strange reason to change it would probable be to canon and not nikon. But personaly I find Minolta have the perfect camera for my needs at the right price.

Robert

I happen to have both Nikon and Minolta gears. By comparing to market share, Nikon is much more famous. By comparing ease of use and technology innovation, Minolta is much better. Nikon claims its excellency in optics but that is not true. Minolta also produces very good high end lenses at the price similar to that of Nikon. Minolta pays a lot of attention to camera handling and has invented a number of functions which were not found in either Nikon or Canon system:

1. wireless flash guns

2. high speed falsh syncronize

3. MF/AF clutcher which enalbes manual focusing while you are focusing automatically

4. Spot meter button in almost all their camera bodies.

5. Inbody anti-shake mechanism in the upcoming digital SLR.

 

For the Nikon side, I have N90X, FM-2 (of course), F65, F3, F5 and digital SLR S1Pro.

 

If you do not have any investiment in both brands, you may consider Canon system

On the lens lineup of Nikon vs. Minolta - who cares about what Nikon has to sell if it's out of your price range? I mean, do I really care if Nikon has lenses longer than 500mm when I'd have to sell my car in order to manage to buy one of those behemoths? (Minolta has a 500mm mirror and 400mm prime, that I'm aware of, no 600+ optics though.)

 

So, that selling point for Nikon is gone if all you need is the typical 24mm-300mm range.

 

Go with what fits and feels right in your hand. That simple.

<p>

<b>Mark K , feb 21, 2004; 04:04 a.m.</b><br>

<i>Minolta pays a lot of attention to camera handling and has invented a number of functions which were not found in either Nikon or Canon system: 1. wireless flash guns 2. high speed falsh syncronize 3. MF/AF clutcher which enalbes manual focusing while you are focusing automatically </i></p>

<p>As far as I know, this feature only came about on the more recent lenses, such as the 24-105D lens. And I'm pretty sure that Canon USM lenses already had that ability.</p>

<p>Minolta definitely loads up their cameras with much feature sets than equivalently priced Canons and Nikons.</p>

<p>But having said that, Nikon DOES make good cameras and they provide good support for pro users, as does Canon. I still enjoy firing a few rolls of film through my hand-me-down Nikon F bodies and the F2. But because the lenses for those cameras are the older non-AI style, none of the newer bodies would work with them, so I had to either modify the lenses or buy new ones. Yes, the Nikon backward compability is a myth. So I stayed with Minolta when I bought my Maxxum 7 (I've had a 5000i, 9000, 7xi, and now a 7), even though Minolta had not, at that time, announced a DSLR. I just liked the Minolta ergonomics and features much, much more than Nikon's. Besides which, as another poster already mentioned, the range of lenses only matters if you can afford them. Myself, I'm well served as long as the lenses range from 20mm to 300mm. Fast zooms would be nice, and Minolta makes them, but they're so damned expensive! Just like those by Canon and Nikon. I guess the downside with Minolta is that you can rent Canon and Nikon lenses but try finding a Minolta renter.</p>

Having used both I can say without reservation that Minolta lags a good bit behind Nikon, both in bodies and especially in optics. I started with Minolta in 1972 with an SRT-101 and several MC Rokkors from 24mm to 300mm. After about 2 years I grew unsatisfied with the performance of the Rokkors and especially their poor coatings and tendency to ghost and flare. I switched to Nikon and have not looked back. In photography, like most things, you get what you pay for. If you go for the cheapest, you will pay for it in the end.

Rip van Wiinkle slept for 20 years. This thread is a close second at 16 ;)

I've seen older and more pointless resurrections, but don't ask me to name one. :p

I just purchased a Sony A700 why? the Minolta lenses are at such great prices that make it so.

and I'm sure there are great lenses. Next up a Konica/Minolta 7d.

I'm glad this happened. It's interesting to read old stuff, particularly when you know the end result...;-)