Minolta shoots self in foot -- $1500 for Maxxuum 9

[t_c_khoo]

I'm think I'm the chappie who posted that the 9 was/is twice as fast

as the 9xi, and that was not the only piece of good news, as we have

all so rightly pointed out in all the posts.

 

<p>

 

It's interesting, if u look at all the threads here, I think we are

all in agreement that the 9 is a great camera with certain special

features which make it unique in its own right. The price

issue...well, it really depends on how u look at it. Against the F100

and EOS3, 20-30% more, but it appears that this may be a non issue for

the intended target market for Minolta with regards to the 9, ie. the

pro, aspiring pro, or advanced amateur (who I'm sure M has figured

will probably have the means anyway). Besides, by most counts, it

seems to be the best camera amongst the latest 3 offerings.

 

<p>

 

Versus the 1N and F5, feature for feature, the 9 holds its own and

probably offers better value than both. Performance wise, there will

probably be very little in it...and it will still in all likelihood

come down to the "soft" factors: brand equity, loyalty, handling etc.

 

<p>

 

Point being, whether or not it's expensive is really dependent on each

individual's unique circumstances and perspective of the situation.

For myself, it took me quite a while to decide, cos I could not

rationalise why I should be paying 2.5x more than an 800SI for a

camera which, on the surface, did not seem to offer that much more.

Than I went to try it out....and realised that for me, this is not

only about the construction, the handling, the AF speed, etc, I am

paying a premium cos I am buying a piece of engineering which is

Minolta's attempt at perfection in AF photographic engineering in

practical terms, and they've come damned close. It does not matter to

me that it does not appear to have the most leading edge technology;

in practical photo taking terms and usage, very few, if any cameras

come close to it for making high level creative photography intuitive

and fun. I've got it now, and it's the first camera I have owned

(Contax and Leica included) that makes me want to experiment freely

and stretch myself photographically. For that alone, it is worth me

shelling out the extra dosh. (Besides, I've saved for it for 6 mths!)

 

<p>

 

By the way, since quite a few of us have bought, or are thinking of

buying it, we should probably start figuring out how we can get the

most out of it. Like proper daylight fill flash comp, any sercret

functions etc. MML here I come!

[magnus_gustafson]

> Each pro-level camera has a unique feature which is a "decider":

[snip]

> F5 - 1005 pixel metering

 

<p>

 

Which, of course, is a non-issue and just a marketing ploy, as

Minolta's 14-zone fuzzy logic matrix metering still is referred to as

"the best in the world". More zones isn't necessarily better (as

EOS3's meter, which according to ALL tests underexposes, proves).

 

<p>

 

> and 8fps;

 

<p>

 

Yup, this is more of a deciding factor, I admit that.

[burt_yust]

The reason all of us have such a problem is that there are great cameras out there. If one of them was the right choice we could all order it. Not so. My hands on and research shows the following.

1) The cost should not be the main factor.

2) The EOS3 is an overdesigned FLAWED product.

3) The same report that is quoted with facts that the "9" is the best exposure camera gives the nod to the F100 as dead on; the "9" as 1/3 under and the EOS3 as 2/3 to 1 1/2 under.

4) The F100 gets the nod as best for focus acquision.

5) The report is from Photo Technique (English).

6) They talk of the "9" burning the other two but never mention an area that it does it in.

7) Only in "feel" is it better.

8) I seem to sense a feeling that the "9" was destined for third place prior to the report. When it did well and the EOS3 was found flawed it created its own fudge factor and seemed greater than it is.

9) Speak to Minolta and they tell you it is all their best past technology, "tweeaked" and iron clad.

10) Look at the PT report. You will find it fair, very accurate and intelligent.

I read the report as being too forgiving to the EOS3. I know I owned that "dog" for 2 months and returened all Canon wequipment because the company would not fess up to its 2/3-1 1/2 underexposure.

 

<p>

 

The solution seems to be that you take the F100 innards and place it in the "(' body. Add that grat VC-9 grip and you got it!

 

<p>

 

Summation: Can't go wrong with "9" of F100. Can go very wrong with the EOS 3. Pro it ain't. A triumph it ain't. Minolta or Nikon? I went both.

Burt

[paul_g._dougherty]

The german photo mag "Foto", just out, supposedly has a review/

comparison of the 9/100/3. Has anyone read this? Results? When living

in Germany, I put more credence in this mag than any other photo

source, and its print and content quality is unsurpassed.

Unfortunately, it is terribly expensive to subscribe to it in the "Real

World".

[william_lowe]

To Paul: I haven't read the results of the Foto magazine test myself,

but they were summarized and posted to the Minolta Mailing List. A

summary of the summary is as follows: 1. handling: the 9 had the best

handling, with the best vertical grip. 2. exposure: Minolta and Nikon

had the best, but there was little difference between all of them. 3.

Minolta nd Canon were best because of their way of showing the active

focus sensor. 4. AF: Minolta was the fastest focusing with a 28-105mm

lens, needing only .28 seconds to focus from infinity to 2 meters at

28mm and .31 seconds at 105mm (Canon needed .35 seconds and .58

seconds respectively, Nikon needed .35 and .41). 5. Flash: Minolta

was the best, but there was little difference between it and Nikon.

The final conclusion was that all three are great cameras, and which

every choice you make would be a good choice.

[sean_hester]

i wonder how long canon will be crying because the EOS-3 that was

tested first had a calibration error and was in need of repair. that

initial test seems to have persuaded many people (at least many people

here) to believe that the eos-3 is worthless. of course that's a

silly conclusion to reach, but people will reach it nonetheless. and

they'll tell people who will tell people who will tell people who will

tell people who will tell people, etc... pretty soon a single broken

camera means the EOS-3 is "an overdesigned FLAWED product." and "{You}

can go very wrong with the EOS 3. Pro it ain't. A triumph it ain't."

 

<p>

 

of course if that camera so consistantly underexposes, it's pretty

common logic to conclude that it needs to be adjusted, and then will

then consistantly expose correctly. if it was right sometimes, over

sometimes, under sometimes i'd be a little worried, but since everyone

is adamant that it CONSISTANTLY underexposed, then i'm not worried.

adjust it and it'll CONSISTANTLY be right. a simple fix.

 

<p>

 

the funny thing is that this may have a silver lining for canon.

eventually the EOS-3 will be one of those cameras that "had a few bugs

when initially released, that were eventually worked out" then more

and more people will buy them. but until then canon will be able to

keep the price high, and the people smart enough to realize it's a

good camera and just can't wait to have one will have to pay the

higher price. i'll wait for the dust to settle and the price to come

down though. just like i will for the minolta 9.

[t_c_khoo2]

I hate to pick this up Sean, but I do not see why a consumer should be

doing a consistent adjustment on exposure for a camera he paid USD1000

for when it should not have the problem in the first place. Which

brings me to an interesting observation about first production run

EOS3, F100s and 9s hitting the market.

 

<p>

 

I was checking around some dealers and users on their experiences

with the 3, F100 and 9. Feedback was: 3 - complaints about

underexposure, F100 - first production run appears to have a problem

with the mid roll rewind function, ie. it could not. Should be fixed

by now. 9...no issues yet, appears to be the best put together. There

is a growing legion of Canon and Nikon users out there who appear to

be discovering the 9. We r talking F5s and 1N owners, many of whom can

afford to hv multiple systems. They seem to be very impressed with the

construction, ergonomics and the viewfinder. And they have not even

put film thru the camera. Many of them have severe brand loyalty, but

this does not cloud their judgement when they see a good product. They

appear to think the 9 has what it takes, but maybe appeared just a

little late.

 

<p>

 

Well, better late than never...I guess.

[magnus_gustafson]

> the EOS-3 that was tested first had a calibration error and was in

> need of repair

 

<p>

 

Isn't it strange that EVERY SINGLE REVIEW in the US, GB, Germany and

Sweden mentions that EOS3 underexposes compared to Maxxum 9 and F100?

Hmm. I guess the very same faulty sample must have been sent all

around the world.

Seriously, it's quite clear to me that it is designed that way.

 

<p>

 

> price to come down though. just like i will for the minolta 9

 

<p>

 

It's not likely that the price will come down much, as it is harder

than most cameras to manufacture -- I have also heard that it's partly

hand-assembled. You can't push the prices much in that case...

[sean_hester]

t c. i didn't mean to imply that the user should deal with that

problem. i meant that canon should fix it, and if you got one of the

ones that is underexposing then canon should fix yours (or better yet

send you a new one in exchange)

 

<p>

 

magnus. i don't read magazine reviews of camera equipment because

they are largely worthless, so i wasn't aware of this being a

consistant problem, not just a sample variation. but if it IS a

consistant problem with all of the cameras, then that makes me feel

EVEN BETTER about buying one in a year or so. it's obviously

something canon will change (or "fix" if you like that word better)

and then they'll all be consistantly correct. if it were only a few

samples that were wrong, i'd be forever worried that i'd end up with

one of the "bad" ones. but since they are all "bad", soon they'll all

be fixed.

 

<p>

 

----------

 

<p>

 

it's sad to admit, but it seems that initial testing of almost all

products (cameras, computer software, etc.) these days sucks. they

give them to us (consumers) to test, then they fix the problems we

find. but... be that as it may, the products will eventually work,

we just have to wait a year. oh well...

[_____]

What worries me about the EOS-3 saga is this: it apparently exposes

correctly with its 550EX flash but underexposes under natural light.

What does this imply? That the 'fix' may not be as simple as it

sounds. It is not a matter of bad calibration but an issue of a

fundamentally flawed design. Iw ish that Canon will have more respect

for its consumers than to release flawed products and make consumers

pay to be its testbed. Explaining it away under first production run

glitches simply won't cut the mustard with me. Consumers who are too

kind are asking to be abused at a price.

[sean_hester]

um... the flash meter and the ambient light meter are completly

different systems. at least they are on my eos-5. it uses

completly different sensors, and i assume a different algorithm for

figuring out the exposure. it seems pretty easy for one system to be

calibrated differently then the other.

 

<p>

 

i do agree that it's bad business for canon to make consumers test

their stuff. but i still think that by the time i want to buy an

eos-3 (early next year?) all the "bugs" will be worked out.

[william_lowe]

To Sean: I think what Rene was concerned about when mentioning that

the flash metering was doing better than the ambient metering is that

the flash meter is a simpler system, without the 21 zone system that

ambient metering is using. And regarding the consistant metering

problem reported in magazine reviews, the two reviews that I've read

(AP and Photo Technique) did point out a consistant problem with the

EOS-3, but it was only consistant in that it had a problem (its

photos were darker - some incredibly so). The exposures themselves

varied rather than ending up all a certain EV value off. That doesn't

sound like something Canon could just adjust, at least not the way

that a consistant 2/3 under could be adjusted. Thing is, in both

reviews neither the Minolta nor the Nikon had any sort of problem (the

reviewers liked both camera's metering systems equally, although Photo

Technique leaned toward the Minolta). However, in Practical

Photographer's review of the 9 the reviewer commented that the 9 was

almost as good at exposure as the EOS-3 (which the same reviewer had

given a perfect score to), and it was the F100 that had the serious

problem. Maybe there ought to be some consistant standards for

judging exposures in reviews (I didn't see any pictures showing where

the 9 had failed in exposure in PP's review, unlike either the AP test

or the PT test), so we can at least try to compare reviews.

[sean_hester]

"However, in Practical Photographer's review of the 9 the reviewer

commented that the 9 was almost as good at exposure as the EOS-3

(which the same reviewer had given a perfect score to), and it was the

F100 that had the serious problem. Maybe there ought to be some

consistant standards for judging exposures in reviews"

 

<p>

 

first let me say i haven't read any of these reviews, so i'm taking it

on face value that what people are saying here is true. as far as i

can tell the eos-3 metering did pretty poorly on two big tests and

scored perfect (beating the other two) on one test. what do you make

of that? do you go with the majority? do you take an average?

 

<p>

 

it's things like this that make me pretty much ignore the subjective

reviews of camera bodies. (or lenses, or flashes, or stereos, or

almost anything) lack of standards, wildly different results from

test to test (even in the same publication), and the fact that the

reviews are written based on not losing advertising, all make them

pretty much worthless in my opinion.

 

<p>

 

i read the reviews to get easier to read feature lists then you can

get from the marketing literature (nikon doesn't put "NO mirror

lockup" in it's feature list for the f100 so i might miss that if i

didn't read a review where the reviewer was likely to point it out)

but as far as "this is better, that is better" i ignore it. if i want

to do a comparison i will, but i usually don't.

 

<p>

 

i find it hard to believe that canon or nikon or ANYONE would release

a camera to market an 1999 that was designed so poorly that it

couldn't meter correctly. call me trusting (or naive) but i figure

that the products will function. all i look for in reviews is what

functions the equipment is supposed to do.

 

<p>

 

so... as far as the eos-3, 9, and f100 go... apparently depending on

how lucky you are the camera you get might be perfect or it might be

very bad. (i bought an eos-5 that had the shutter fail on the

VERY FIRST time i tripped it, so luck plays a pretty big part) that

leaves me with this conclusion.

 

<p>

 

"get whichever camera you like. they're all good. (better then any

i own) if it performs poorly send it back for another copy or to get

it fixed."

[michael_moon]

Coming into this thread late, so I won't repeat the obvious. While

debating last fall what to add to my Pentax MF, to get AF and

state-of-the-art metering & flash control, my options were wide open.

Pentax doesn't have an entry worth considering. (They wouldn't have a

buttet hole in their foot if they'd realised the necessity of

replacing the LX, not just retiring it.) Then along came the 9, and

reading the initial reports and Minolta's Euro site spec post made the

choice obvious. Simply put, the 9 does everything a pro needs, and

rather than try to break new ground, Minolta offers a single body with

proven features. Then came EOS 3 and F100, and although they may be

cheaper, they are not well-rounded, and in the case of the 3, it turns

out the metering's flawed. I'd rather be stuck with 2 fps than a funky

metering algorithm. The F100 may have the best user interface since

the FM2, but it doesn't pretend to be a pro caliber camera. As for

lenses, Minolta's recent additions and upgrades clearly demonstrate

their commitment to superlative optics. The extra $200 +/- for the 9,

considering how much the camera is expected to produce, is

inconsequential. If cost matters, get a 600si, which might be the best

choice for a backup to the 9.

[william_lowe]

To Sean: You should take a look at the Photo Technique and Amatuer

Photographer reviews of the three cameras. They include pictures that

the cameras took. I haven't actually seen the AP photos, but in the

Photo Technique review you can clearly see the exposure differences

between the cameras. The F100 has the brightest exposures, in at

least one instance seems too bright, the Dynax 9 is a little darker

than the F100, and the EOS-3's pictures are all darker than either of

the other two. One picture done with the EOS-3 is far too dark. I

thought about printing problems, but it isn't just one EOS-3 photo

that is dark, it is each and every one that is significantly darker.

And I believe Photo Technique more than Practical Photographer, which

had nothing but great shots by the 9 in its review. So, not all

reviews are alike. Of course it is hard to judge without reading them

and seeing the pictures yourself. But from what I've seen the 9 and

the F100 are both quite good at exposures, and the EOS-3 (at least the

one they tested) was horrible.

[costas_dimitropoulos2]

Michael Moon wrote:

 

<p>

 

"The F100 may have the best user interface since the FM2, but it

doesn't pretend to be a pro caliber camera."

 

<p>

 

This is just plain wrong. The F100 is advertised as a pro level camera

and has similar construction to the F5. I don't understand what makes

you feel that it is not a pro-level camera in contrast to the Minolta

or the Canon.

 

<p>

 

As far as I am concerned, only the F5 is clearly a better body than

the F100 (and everything elese of course). I also think that the

E0S-1n is right now a better deal for someone that wants to buy only

USM/SWM lenses along with his body. Many people will disagree, but I

think that most should agree that the F100 is indeed a pro-caliber

body regardless of it's relative position to the competion.

[michael_moon]

My mistake, it is built for and aimed at the pro and serious amateur

market. My point was that the 9 is a serious contender, and does not

appeal only to existing Minolta users. Reviews, considered in the

aggregate, give it a slight edge over the F100. The EOS 3 needs to

get that exposure problem fixed. All three are nonetheless good enough

to deserve to keep photographers who have already invested in the

brand. But, for anyone who puts brand loyalty aside or hasn't bought

into a system yet, the 9 has the edge, however slight.

[joe_moniz]

I think Minolta HAS put a good hole in one of their feet.

 

<p>

 

Minoltas have always been regarded as the best bang for the buck sort

of camera. Delivering cameras with innovations that have real world

use. (They Invited the AF SLR, They were the first to use more than

one metering cell, they have had remote TTL control in their cameras

as long as I've been a minolta owner [400si, 3 years ago, and this

was the BOTTOM of the line that Minolta was making])

 

<p>

 

They are *NOT* known for their *ULTRA* pro spec bodies... their pro-

spec bodies have been comprable to 2nd tier pro-spec cameras from

other makers, but at lower costs. Now they have made a 2nd tier pro-

spec SLR, that cost more than the other two of the "big three".

 

<p>

 

Minolta could have gone with a viewfinder that's less than 100% (and

all if the VERY CRITICAL QC checks and precision assembly

techniques...it's not easy to make the viewfinder match the film

gates exactly, and still line up so that the viewinder isn't out-of-

line with the film gate's view of the world. With a viewfinder of 96%

x94%, it would be reasonable to expect the exact same camera to cost

closer to $1250 than the $1499 that it currently sale for.

 

<p>

 

Minolta, at this point, has the best 2nd tier Pro-Spec SLR out

there...it's not an F5, and it wasn't meant to be. It's an F100

competetior, and an N-90 Killer. It is unfortunately priced more than

the F100. For the improved egronomics and faster AF, the extra price

MIGHT not be worth it to some. Definately not worth switching over

from one system to another (Imagine the losses you'd take, selling

all your Nikon or Canon stuff, then buying the same stuff to fit the

Maxxum cameras.)

 

<p>

 

The best thing Minolta (or any camera maker) could do with a camera

in this 2nd tier, is to keep new SLR buyers out of their competitors

systems. With a higher price the 9 will not be as effective as it

could have been. How many new photographers will be too upset with a

less than 100% viewfinder? So what, the AF is faster, N,C, and M all

AF very fast at this level. So what if the metering was the most

accurate (the F100 won't be wrong often enough to impress the new

camera buyer...although I've heard terrible things about the new EOS

body and underexposure.) What they will see is 3 cameras that are not-

so diffrent than eachother, but with diffrent prices. Without the

usual price advantage Minolta usualy enjoys, it will not enjoy it's

usual marketshare of people buying into their first AF SLR system.

 

<p>

 

All in all, 2 GREAT Cameras, 1 not as great (Sorry Canon fans, no one

is perfect...afterall Minolta did, thankfully only for a little

while, play with motorized zoom lenses in their bodies.)

[joe_moniz]

I agree with the poster who said that Minolta won't draw "new"

customers, noone is insane enough to do so unless the price

significantly drops. Last but not least Minolta is still lacking a

highspeed AF-motor and IS (rumours say IS it's coming soon though,

patent pending!).

 

<p>

 

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 22, 1999.

 

<p>

 

 

uhm...Minotla is NOT lacking HIGHSPEED AF MOTORS, it focused faster

than the F100 and the new EOS in multiple tests by various magazines.

Although, all the cameras were fast. Just because the motor isn't

built into the lens, dosen't mean it's slow. Not putting a motor into

a lens makes the lens more affordable, or of better quality, or of

lighter weight..or a little bit of everything better. It's all about

the KISS principle.. Keep It Simple Stupid.

[joe_moniz]

It should be noted I wasn't calling anyone stupid.

But, lord, it sure as hell looks like I did.

[michael_moon]

The 9 has it where it counts: specs, capability, performance, build

quality. As for not drawing in new users - threads are appearing from

people who *are* changing from other brands and they're not sorry in

the least. Also, although everyone else has the 9 prices at $1499,

Camera World of Oregon has advertised it at $1399. Minolta is the best

camera of the 3 and now the price gap is smaller. And the used stuff

*is* out there - just check Keh. Canon vs. Nikon is not the only

comparison to make any more.

[william_lowe]

To Roseblood: About Minolta not putting out ultra spec'd pro bodies, I

think you need to reconsider what ultra spec you're talking about.

The XK/Motor, while lacking the 100% viewfinder, was a high spec'd pro

body with interchangable finders and a version with a high speed motor

drive. The body offered nearly everything that its competitors

offered at the time, except for the 100% viewfinder - it was 98%.

There were plenty of accessories, and the camera had a heavy duty

build, and it came at a heavy duty price. The two things that the

9000 lacked compared to its competitors were a 100% viewfinder and

MLU. It could use a fast motor drive, but it was about the only mass

produced AF camera I've seen with manual film advance. It had a fast

shutter and fast flash sync, and was introduced with such things as

the first auto-zoom flash head and a program back that is still a much

used accessory because of its versitility. There was also an

accessory for programing the camera's shutter and aperture using a

handheld meter, something I haven't seen since. The camera is

still being used today by many people, and the camera is still

recommended as a solid workhorse camera - not bad for something

discontinued about ten years ago. The 9xi was the first

camera not requiring a booster to have a AF tracking speed of 4.5 fps,

the first (and one of only two cameras) to have a 1/300 normal flash

sync, and with the card system it had something Canon users are making

a big deal about with the EOS-3, multispot metering. The 9 is the

first pro camera with a built in flash (which is best used for

triggering off camera flashes), it has three different flash metering

modes - along with pre-flash metering with the 5400HS, it has exposure

data recording which no EOS has, mirror pre-fire which the F100

lacks, and an accessory back to record 400 rolls of information as

well as imprint info between frames (something that few camera backs

can do - there is something like it for the F5), not to mention it is

the only camera from the big three to have body shell made mostly of

stainless steel - with the rest being die cast zinc. The two features

that it really lacks compared to the F5 are the 8 fps motor drive and

5 AF points (three if you want to include true MLU instead of mirror

prefire). But the 9 can be set to automatically rewind film at the

end of the roll (no extra buttons to press), which it can do in about

6 seconds for a 36 exp roll, it can be set to leave the leader out,

which the F5 needs to be reprogrammed to do, it can do high speed sync

up to 1/12000th, its vertical control grip has control dials and AEL

and AF buttons rather than just the shutter release and AF button, the

9's finder illuminates the AF sensor being used, and it has a large

+-3 EV meter index which can be used to compare the locked exposure

with the exposure in the spot meter circle, and it has about the

brightest viewfinder available in an AF SLR. What it lacks in extreme

specs - like an 8 fps drive, the 9 makes up in usuablity functions.

It may not be an F5 killer, but it is certainly not a 2nd tier body.

Compared to either the EOS-3 or the F100, the 9 wins on a number of

areas, such as build construction, handling, bracketing (7 frame

bracketing built-in, neither can compete), and flash functions. And

at most it is $100 more than the EOS-3 and $200 more than the F100.

That's hardly a difference at this level. You can make it up by not

having to buy a wireless controller for the EOS-3 to use wireless

flash, or not having to buy an extra back to extend the bracketing

range on the F100 - when one comes out. For something you say is 2nd

tier, it seems to have a lot that the competition's second tier

doesn't - things that only their top tier cameras offer.

 

<p>

 

PS - Canon did make a power zoom lens.

[magnus_gustafson]

> and with the card system it had something Canon users are making a

> big deal about with the EOS-3, multispot metering.

 

<p>

 

Please note that you got this feature on a Minolta 9000 with the

Program Back Super 90 also -- and that camera was released FIFTEEN

YEARS ago!

[jeff_hallett1]

My God, what a can of worms this original question brought forth.

There used to be an old saying and it may or may not be true today...

 

<p>

 

"Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon

makes the best compromise". Whaddea think....onward with more

posts....HO HUM!!!