Maxxum 9, Nikon F100, or EOS 3

[j._golden]

Hello All!

 

<p>

 

I am at the beginning of considering various systems for purchases to be made in about a year. I had a pretty good handle on what was out there, but now with the onslaught of new professional-level cameras from Minolta, Nikon, and Canon, I am once again a bit overwhelmed by the choices. My biggest concern is the glass I put behind the bodies, but I would also like a rugged body. I have searched many sights, including the useless corporate ones, but haven't been able to get a real idea of the intangibles of each system (i.e. quirks, downfalls, hidden talents, etc). I would like the next purchase of a body and some lenses to be my last for a while and want to make an educated decision considering not just shiny brochures and PR. So, if y'all could chime in on some of this it would be very much appreciated:

 

<p>

 

1. Are the Minolta G lenses comparable to Nikon and Canon (sharpness, contrast, autofocus speed)?

 

<p>

 

2. Of the three cameras mentioned in the title, which presents the best feature-price-performance value?

 

<p>

 

3. What drew you to your current system and why?

 

<p>

 

I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

[jason_yoder]

I would start by narrowing the field down to Nikon or Cannon, because

of the higher resale value and greater diversity of lenses.

At that point, everything is up in the air.

Personally, I am a Nikon user, but that is because it was easier to

build a Nikon system with available materials at work.

 

<p>

 

If you have the money the Image Stabilization technology in the

Cannon lenses make them very attractive for newsphotographers that

often work in low light situations. These lenses allegedly allow the

user to hand hold a couple extra stops, and that would be nice.

 

<p>

 

If you are looking to do macrophotography, perhaps Nikon would be

better. Nikon's flash system is supposed to be better, though one

would be hard pressed to find a way to quantify this.

 

<p>

 

If you can afford the F5, of course go Nikon. This is still the

camera body of the 21st century, making all other camera bodies look

backwards and antiquated.

 

<p>

 

You decision will be a difficult one.

Go into a store and try both bodies. Shoot a roll of film if you can.

Compare the results. Whichever feels better in your hands, buy it.

Either way you will be happy.

[j._golden]

Jason,

 

<p>

 

Yeah, the F5 looks pretty good, and I like the integrated vertical grip, RGB Matrix meetering, and 8 fps. The only thing prohibitive is the price. How difficult is it to truly learn and know the camera? It seems so advanced and "brilliant," that it is daunting. I am definitely attracted to the Nikon glass. My life goal (at the young age of 24) is to end up sitting in the jungle of Africa photographing wild animals, and I am sure the F5 can withstand everything I could give it physically and photographically.

[colin_mcvey1]

James,

I am a canon user. That said, If you are looking to shoot in the

most rugged spots of the world, the F5 is pretty nice. If you are

looking for a more affordable system, and need fast autofocus on

every lens (even the cheaper/older ones) Canon can't be beat. From

what I have heard at work (small paper), the EOS-3 is really nice,

but all the focus lights are really annoying. I'm sure they can be

turned off though. The Nikon F-100 lacks mirror lockup from what I

have heard, and that alone is enough to keep me away. I can't

imagine a professional camera not having that option! Nikon is also

really nice in that you can use older, manual focus lenses. I would

agree with the previous posts about Minolta (I used to one a minolta

system), it is impossible to find used equipment, especially pro

stuff. If you are really serious about going to the jungle, get the

F-5, assuming the F-100 doesn't have mirror lockup. It does cost as

much as a small car, and it is just a box that keeps light away from

your film! But hey, if you are looking for a tough, realiable,

workhorse, the F-5 will serve you well. The EOS-3 is the best value

for a body except the fact the F-100 can take older lenses, saving

money in the long run. Personally, I am waiting for Canon to replace

the EOS-1n (I like my A2 more than the EOS-1n! Except for the

plastic, not waterproof body). Good luck, try not to break the bank

like I have done!

[ilkka_haapavirta]

Jason,

 

<p>

 

You should try to get your hands on two European photo magazines:

Practical Photography from UK and Foto Magazine from Germany.

 

<p>

 

The March issues of both of those magazines test and compare the three

cameras you mentioned in your subject line.

[ivan_verschoote1]

James,

 

<p>

 

Looking at the brochures the three cameras are indeed very good. I

really don't think there's much difference between them. It would be

wiser to have a look at the whole system. And then, as Jason

mentiones, Canon and Nikon are the preferred ones, because they both

have a complete list of accessoires and lenses. Besides that, Canon

and especially Nikon are very easy to find on the second-hand market

(VERY important factor). Nikon has the edge when it comes to

compability - most of their older lenses work with their profesionnal

cameras.

 

<p>

 

I changed from Minolta to Nikon 2 years ago. The main reason: I was

seduced by the quality of Nikon bodies and lenses at Photokina that

year - in addition I saw at that same Photokina that Minolta was not

really in the market anymore with serious cameras. There was a lack of

interest by many photographers towards Minolta. I was afraid that

Minolta would slowly loose the grip on the market and stop producing

high end material (at that particular moment they promoted very

heavely the APS-system).

 

<p>

 

From that moment I have been in serious doubt between Nikon AND Canon.

Then I started calculating. I wanted a fast 80-200, a 50, later a 20

and a 300/4. Nikon proved to be a lot cheaper than Canon (Before the

AF-S lenses came out). Nikon had the benefit of compability and

conservatism (very interesting for resale value). Nikon has a

reputation about slow innovation, but when then do - they do it very

good. Minolta likes to change their models all the time, sometimes

with disastrous results - remember the Xi-zooms). Another point that

influenced my decision was the power supply. The F90X and most top end

cameras from Nikon are powered by the easily available (and much more

cheaper) AA batteries instead of those expensive lithiums.

 

<p>

 

I choose Nikon and I have not regretted it for a second. On top of

that I found some interesting second-hand material (24-50, 50/1.8,

135/2.8 AIs) at very reasonable prices.

 

<p>

 

From my personal view Nikon is a winner, with Canon a very close

second place. But as I said before: have a look first at the system

that suits your needs and then have a look at the camera. Or may'be

better; if it is possible try to borrow a Nikon or a Canon camera for

a test and decide for yourself.

[ron_shaw]

If your dream is to be sitting in the jungle shooting wildlife, then

an all mechanical F2 may be a better choice :-)

[scott_gant]

Wow, no Minolta defenders in here....

 

<p>

 

Ok. Minolta G lenses are up there with Nikon and Canon's...and in some

cases surpass their quality. In fact, many places rate their 80-200 2.8

higher optically than Nikon's flagship 80-200 2.8! But of course as

with anything, the difference is hardly noticable. Sharpness, contrast

is all there in Minolta glass....and autofocus speed isn't quite up to

Canon's because they have no USM lenses for Minolta...but then again,

Nikon's lens line is just now starting to go to USM type

lenses...though you'll pay an arm and a leg for them at first.

 

<p>

 

As for which presents the best feature-price performance value? Well,

since the Maxxum 9 hasn't been priced yet, it's hard to say. I would

think that it will be priced under both the F100 and the EOS 3...with

the EOS 3 being the most expensive. Having said that, then the Maxxum 9

will win in my opinion. Remember, the Maxxum 9 is built as their top of

the line camera....100% viewfinder, excellent user interface, solid

build, mirror pre-lock, built in bracketing up to 7 shots, silent mode,

flash system that STILL beats the others...yet is updated.

 

<p>

 

Also, it's a MYTH that Minolta doesn't have a great used market...this

is simply not true, and there are a TON of accessories for Minolta

cameras. They are a full, complete system and Minolta it seems is tired

of getting a bad rap as not being considered along with Canon and

Nikon...which is one reason why they've developed the Maxxum 9 along

with new pro gear coming out soon. They could have just dropped

everything and just gone along selling point-and-shoots, but they went

out and designed a HELL of a camera.

 

<p>

 

Why was I drawn to Minolta. I'm one of the few people that switched

from Nikon N90s to Minolta...mainly because of it's flash system, body-

ergonomics, bang for buck etc etc...and to see if the grass was greener

on the other side. And it was! For me at least.

[ron_shaw]

'many places rate their (Minolta)80-200 2.8 higher optically than

Nikon's'... Scott, I guess we hang out at different places.

[stanley_mcmanus]

I find this question interesting as I am now in the process of

deciding which 35mm SLR system to buy into. In my case it will be

either Canon or Nikon.

 

<p>

 

Here are the plusses for Canon:

 

<p>

 

Good variety of USM lenses

Some IC lenses (though they are expensive critters)

Teleconvertors work full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies

Extension tubes work full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies

 

<p>

 

 

Here are the plusses for Nikon:

 

<p>

 

RBG metering on the F5

Excellent flash system

Bodies take AA batteries, available anywhere

AF-S lenses and their Teleconvertors are very modern (finally catching

up with Canon)

 

<p>

 

Note that I do not consider the availablity of manual focus lenses a

Nikon advantage since I don't plan on purchasing any. I also don't

consider the eye control focusing of Canon an advantage since it seems

rather gimiky to me and another thing to break down.

[scott_gant]

Ron, I guess we do! I've had both lenses and to my eye, the Minolta is

sharper and more contrasty. But hey, don't take my word for it.

 

<p>

 

Color Foto, Popular Photography and Chasseur d'Image all rate the

Minolta 80-200 2.8 APO G higher than both the Canon and Nikon. I would

love to point you to the web page that listed all the ratings, but

sadly Chasseur d'Image told the web master that housed them that they

were in copyright violation. But I happened to have snagged it before

they took it down!

 

<p>

 

Of course, it's almost standard that when a lens test doesn't favor

ones lens, then the test is flawed...if it does favor it, it get's

quoted often.

[ron_stecher1]

If you want the most bang for your buck then you can't beat the Canon

Elan II/IIe. It is packed with just about every feature you would

probably need or want with the exception of interchangeable prisms. I

myself am a Nikon user. My weapons of choice are the FE-2 and FM2n,

both are manual focus cameras. What drew me to Nikon was the

durability of their products and also the lens compatability from

manual through autofocus. I know there are exceptions to the

"compatability" issue but that's another debate altogether. I doubt

you would ever be able to tell the difference between the brands

mentioned above when it comes to optics. Each company has it's

"prizewinners" as well as a few "dogs", but overall Canon and Nikon

give the most choices and so most pro's will opt for either of those

based on those merits. Of the three cameras you mentioned, none of

them has had sufficient time to be put to any kind of test, so I

personaly would hold off until all of the kinks are worked out. If

Nikon follows suit, there will most likely be an F100s or F-5s in the

works. The same can be said of Canon. My advice would be to try each

one out or at least handle them to get a feel for what you are most

comfortable with. Whatever you decide you can't go wrong.

[sean_hester]

stanley lists the following as a canon advantage "Teleconvertors work

full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies"

 

<p>

 

that's not quite true. while canon's tcs do provide full function

(AF, IS, metering, etc.) with lenses they work with, the list of EOS

lenses that the TCs work with is pretty small. for the most part the

TCs work with prime lenses >= 135mm. there are a couple of

exceptions (70-200 f2.8) but probably 99% of EOS lenses purchased

(zooms, 35, 50, 85, 100 primes) are NOT compatable with canon's TCs.

[colin_mcvey1]

I am going to disagree with Scott on one point, used Minolta stuff.

There is none, well, almost. I wish there was more stuff out there,

but all it takes is a trip to Photo.net used equipment forum to see

the lack of used Minolta equipment. I don't dispute Minolta's

quality (I had a 600si and really miss it), but when you have to buy

just about every lens new, things go toward Canon/Nikon. I could not

afford $1279 (B&H) for the 80-200 2.8, especially with the slow AF.

I never have once seen that lens used. I will say that if Minolta

had USM and more availability, I would be a "9" user. I sure wish I

could use a Minolta body with Canon big glass and micro-nikkors'...

[stanley_mcmanus]

Sean, Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the EOS

TC's. Next time I shoot with my Canon owning buddy, I will have to

bang him around a bit with my over weight camera bag.

 

<p>

 

Another negative for Canon is the lack of a 500mm f/4 telephoto lens

that will autofocus with a 1.4TC. Yes, I know that the EOS3 will

autofocus at f/8 with the 500mm f/4.5, but only that body will and

only with some of the autofocus sensors as I understand it.

 

<p>

 

Another negative for Nikon is the lack of a modern 400mm f/5.6 lens.

 

<p>

 

Maybe we should design our own photo.net 35mm system to our

own standards. Sometimes I think we could do a better job than the

experts. We could name the bodies after the three moderators, the

Philip, the Don and the Bob body. We can let them fight it out to see

whose name goes on the flagship and whose on the entry-level body.

[marcus_erne3]

Could it be that one of the reasons why less Minolta stuff is on the

used market is that the owners are truely satisfied??? That Minolta

buyers buy there stuff to use it rather to show up with name brand

high tech gear???

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I have to admit that I felt a little bit unhappy in the past

because no Minolta body would/could offer all the features a Canon or

Nikon would offer. Now I am sure that I can stick to the Maxxum line

for the future because with the new body there is incorporated all I

can think off for my style of photography with one exeption: HSM/USM

capability which I am sure will come pretty soon, too. I am not sure

how much of a difference HSM/USM in real life will be. On the other

hand Minolta seems to have a slightly, at times even a significant,

slower sales tag. The better ergonomics and function handling were

already mentioned.

 

<p>

 

I guess it needs to be a "hands on" decision to find out which route

is the best to go. What do you want to do, just howling with the

wolves or find your own way and stick out of the mass....

[hiroshi_shigematsu3]

Scott, your assumption on the price is wrong. In Japan, Suggested

Retail Price for the EOS-3, F100, and Maxxum 9 are 185,000yen,

190,000yen, and 250,000yen (about $1,640; $1,690; and $2,215)

respectively. So the Maxxum 9 is the most expensive in the three.

Actually, by being the top of the Minolta line of SLR, Maxxum 9's SRP

is more like F5's. I don't know how this SRP will affect the actual

selling price in the USA, but I can expect Maxxum 9 being rather

expensive in the US, too. Now, the question is whether you would

rather get a F5 or a Maxxum 9 if the price is about the same. In

other words, would you rather pay more to get a Minolta for simmilar

or less function as EOS-3 or F100 ?

 

<p>

 

I know that whatever your choice is it is your personal preferance,

and that Minolta makes excellent SLR system. However, Maxxum 9's

price seems rather too expensive to me.

[j._golden]

WOW! I had no idea the Maxxum 9 would be that expensive. Every article I had read said it would be priced somewhere between the EOS A2 and 1n, so I figured it to be right around $1000 or so. If the price is that high it is definitely not worth it.

[bill_meyer1]

James - your question seems to have inspired many different opinions

and answers. I'm often ammused at the brand wars that ensue when

someone asks about "which" system should they buy. One of the

questions I usually ask is what kind of photography do you plan on

getting into? Each system is capable of taking outstanding photos if

the user does his/her job. They all have different features that

might help in various situations. If you don't ever plan on using a

tripod (I wouldn't reccommend) then you might want to look into Canon

and it's IS lenses. If you're more focussed on macro photography then

you might want to consider Nikon. Minolta has really lost ground in

the professional photography market. I used to own a Minolta system

and I called their corporation a couple years ago and asked about

their support of a professional body. I loved the big knobs and dials

of the 600si, but was hoping for something more rugged, well, the

Minolta rep told me they were no longer going to support their pro

line and were focussing more on the point and shoot market, etc. I

decided to buy into Canon, mostly for it's cost vs. features,

especially with it's USM lenses. Now Nikon has USM lenses and if I

had to make the choice again, it would be much more difficult! I

don't think you can really go wrong, they are all excellent. Nikon

now has USM and Canon now has E-TTL... Good luck.

[sean_hester]

stan... we probably could design an "ideal" camera system. but there

are some problems.

 

<p>

 

1. companies produce products that SELL, and sell at prices as far

above their cost as possible. not necissarily ones that are

technically perfect. so even if we did design the perfect system,

noone may want to make it, and noone may even want to buy it.

 

<p>

 

2. ideal would be different in 2-3 months.

 

<p>

 

3. we might not agree on ideal. for instance... i like light

plastic bodies (because i'm lazy and have the money to replace them

every few years) but most people seem to like heavy rugged metal

bodies that will last.

[william_lowe]

Well, I think we've seen all the usual shots at Minolta (lack of pro

support, lack of used equipment, lack of USM lenses, and so on). But

to get back to the original questions.

 

<p>

 

1. Minolta lenses are comparable to Nikon and Canon lenses (sure,

some are worse and some are better, just take a look at the Photozone

site - they have their lens tests back up and the Maxxum 80-200 f2.8

is better than either the Nikon or Canon)

 

<p>

 

And as for focusing speeds, the Sweedish magazine Foto did a

comparison of the three cameras with a 28-105 lens and found that the

Minolta was faster focusing throughout the lens's range (the 28-105 in

all mounts is a variable aperture lens). Not only that, but it

maintained that focusing speed better at the slower end of the lens

(it was only .03 seconds slower, while the Canon EOS-3 with USM lens

was .17 seconds slower). The F100 was in between the EOS-3 and the

Dynax 9. Autofocus speed does vary from lens to lens, but I've hardly

been disappointed with my 650si, and by Minolta standards it is third

from the top in AF speed (with the new 9 being first of course).

 

<p>

 

2. Of the three cameras mentioned, I think the Dynax/Maxxum 9 is the

best feature-price-performance value, if it comes in at $1600-1700

(which is the best guess price right now).

 

<p>

 

Most people seem to stop at the AF sensors and declare the 9 a loser

(at least that's what I've seen). However, the 9's AF system has so

far proven itself at the least the equal in speed and efficiency, and

the camera is far more than AF sensors alone. There is the built in

flash. I know, no one would suggest using the built in flash for

serious flash photography when a shoe mounted is better. But the

flash is there for a more important reason, triggering wireless TTL

flashes. See, instead of requiring either another shoe mounted flash

or wireless controller like the EOS-3, the 9 can trigger wireless TTL

flashes with the built in flash.

 

<p>

 

Then there is the metering systems. Rather than introduce a new

fangled, and untested and unknown system, Minolta used their well

broken in matrix system. It has proven itself quite adequate for

slide photography (My 650si has the same setup and it works

wonderfully with slide and print film, you just have to know when to

use spot metering, but that only takes common sense). So, those of us

with Minolta equipment won't have to worry about relearning how the

camera will handle exposure. Also, the flash metering system has been

upgraded to a 4 segment evaluative meter with option averaging and

local focus point spot metering, and it also includes distance

information (available with current lenses) and pre-flash metering

with the current top of the line 5400HS.

 

<p>

 

The camera has mirror pre-fire, better than the F100's total lack but

somewhat worse than the EOS-3's setup (somewhat because I've yet to

notice mirror vibration in my shots with my 650si, so I doubt I'll see

any in a camera that weighs more than 300 grams more).

 

<p>

 

It also has a 100% viewfinder, perhaps not that important but more

than either the Canon or the Nikon.

 

<p>

 

There are various other features, like customized control setups and

and vertical grip options and an optional data back that stores 400

rolls worth of exposure information and imprints info between frames,

but going into all of those would take much more space than I already

have.

 

<p>

 

Finally there is the body construction. It features an aluminum

shutter box, stainless steel front, top, and back plates, and zinc

bottom and sides. It is sealed against moisture and sand, and is

covered in a UV resistant polymer. The controls, such as the exposure

mode selector and exposure compensation dial, are metal also and

sealed. There is a thick rubber pad to protect the bottom of the

camera, and even the flash is housed in stainless steel.

Consequentially, the camera weighs more than a EOS-1n (910 grams vs.

855 grams). The optional vertical grip is die cast zinc, and the two

optional backs are stainless steel.

 

<p>

 

3. I got into Minolta because that's what I dad used. He has a

srT-101 that he bought new, and has used extensively (although the

meter went bad, the camera itself is in very good condition still). I

learned a lot using that camera, and when I decided to get an AF

camera I naturally to look at Minolta. Although the 5000i I got

wasn't exactly a srT, it did well enough for me for nearly 9 years.

It was a pain in the ass to use in manual unless it was on a tripod,

but it was the best I could afford. Just last year I upgraded to a

650si, which has, IMHO, about the best control layout of any AF

camera. Wonderful camera to use. So when Minolta introduced a camera

with the same handling, only in stainless steel (and with a much

faster AF system), I knew this was the perfect camera for me (and I'm

not a gear junkie or else I'd have bought a 9xi years ago).

 

<p>

 

To answer some of the complaints about the lack of Minolta gear

availablity, B&H carries nearly everything available for Maxxums.

Between their on-line catalog and the ones printed in photo mags, if

there is something available that they don't carry, I don't know what

it is (they even have drop in diopters for cameras like the 700si).

And their prices have always been better than local shops I've been

to, so if you need Minolta gear why not buy from them (everyone else

seems to)? Used gear? KEH has an extensive range of used Minolta

gear, lenses, flashes, the works. They even have a couple of 300

f2.8s there right now. I guess the big problem with used Minolta gear

is that they don't change their lenses as often as Nikon and Canon, so

people aren't compelled to upgrade as often. The moment Minolta

releases new versions of lenses like their 80-200 f2.8, there will be

an upsurge in used Minolta lenses available. Rental gear is a

problem. Basically, there is none. But if there is a lens you need

to use, an extra $50 and a deposit will probably cover the cost of a

Nikon or Canon body to attach to the end of it. Their cameras aren't

designed so differently that you can't figure out how to use the AF

and exposure systems quickly.

 

<p>

 

All that said, if you already have a system, none of these cameras is

a compelling reason to switch systems. For each, Canon, Nikon and

Minolta, their top of the line camera is more than enough reason to

stick with what you got and buy the pro model.

[stanley_mcmanus]

If you think you might eventually use digital technology, you should

consider that Nikon has unofically previewed a digital body based on

what appeard to be the F100. This is not the super expensive body

recently announced but a less expensive 2,000,000 pixel body that

supposedly will list for less than $3000. Nikon seems to have made

the commitmemt to produce digital bodies that will use its current

lens systems and mounts. Good for them.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Actually, since Nikon showed the digital F5/F100 at the PMA show

earlier this month, I guess the preview was less unofficial than I

thought. Of course, since nobody could acutally touch the body it

can't be totaly official. Or can it?

[joe_moniz]

In other words, would you rather pay more to get a Minolta for

simmilar or less function as EOS-3 or F100 ?

 

<p>

 

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), February 06, 1999.

 

<p>

 

 

Uhm, I'm afraid to say, that the 9 has been repoted by the

photographic press, to be the best of the three cameras.

Usualy the three are ranked like this - 9 - F100 - EOS3

 

<p>

 

To the gent thinking about getting any of these bodies, I'd recomend

a trip to the magazine rack, a little research will go along way.

 

<p>

 

In the meantime, going to <HERF>http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000dbO</HREF> (Forgive my lack of HTML skills.)

 

<p>

 

That is a link to another photo-discussion regarding these three

bodies...titled : Minolta shoots self in foot -- $1500 for Maxxuum 9

 

<p>

 

 

You might find a few suprizes in there.

[magnus_gustafson]

> I am going to disagree with Scott on one point, used Minolta stuff.

> There is none, well, almost. I wish there was more stuff out there,

> but all it takes is a trip to Photo.net used equipment forum to see

> the lack of used Minolta equipment.

 

<p>

 

This is somewhat of a circular argument, as most Minolta users tend to

stay away from photo.net as the general atmosphere isn't exactly

Minolta-friendly (just look at Philip's comments on the "first

camera"-pages). What I'm saying is: Don't judge the market for used

Minolta stuff from photo.net alone.

Where I live (in wonderful Sweden -- the land of moose and reindeers

;-) Minolta equipment is fairly common. What is apparent though is

that you have to keep your eyes open -- a good lens will disappear

very fast from the dealer! I have no idea why, as good Canon/Nikon

lenses can sit on the shelves for eons, but it's a fact. OTOH, Pentax

equipment (especially AF) is almost non-existant.

And in the case of Minolta, you can easily find good older "prosumer"

lenses for a very low price (for example the wonderful 70-210/4

constant aperture zoom).