Switching from Minolta to Nikon?

[renee_daniels]

I'm a student and photographer for my university's paper. I have a

Minolta Maxxum 5D which is fun to use and takes quality

pictures...but I'm having problems with sharpness. Iﾒm sure my

lenses are at fault for this (that or my inexperience), they are low

end Tamrons and the anti-shake has problems compensating, especially

on the longer zooms. Last semester I switched my major to

photojournalism, so my job at the paper went from fun-school-

activity to portfolio-building-requirement. Between financial aid,

savings, and gifts from family, I should have around $4000 next

month to spend on new equipment.

 

My question is, should I stick with Minolta or switch to the bigger

Nikon (or Canon)? The Nikon D200 looks very appealing - with the

faster autofocus, higher resolution LCD (230,000 vs 115,000 of the

5D) and greater magnification (to make sure my images are in focus

before I go gallivanting off to take new pictures elsewhere), and

the faster continuous shooting mode (5 fps vs 3), something I use

all the time.

 

I do a lot of low-light work in local clubs, theaters, fashion shows

etc., and want a camera and lenses that can take sharp pictures (on

a tripod) without flash (which is not always welcome). While a lot

of my newspaper images are portraits or staged shots, I'd like a

camera that can handle more strenuous photojournalism, including

college sports events. I want to invest in something that will last

out of college and into graduate and/or professional work. At the

same time, I'm not knowledgeable/advanced enough to warrant spending

$5000+ on the top dog of camera bodies.

 

So, should I spend my money on better lenses and a flash kit for my

5D? Or should I buy the D200 with a few lenses and go from there?

(Also any recommendations for lenses, especially for low-light,

would be wonderful.) I've tried to ask my photo editor and some

instructors for help...but they are so avidly fans of Canon or Nikon

that I can't get a straight answer (that doesnﾒt involve bashing the

other system). Plus I hear this is the place to come for advice.

 

Thanks so much, Maia

[alan_chan4]

If you are going professional eventually, it makes sense to go Canon or Nikon sooner or later. Your Tamron lenses probably don't worth anything used, so you have no string attached except the 5D itself. Sounds like a perfect time to make the move now if you have the budget. Just remember cheap lenses are cheap lenses no matter which camera they are mounted on. And good lenses aren't cheap either, a pair of fast zoom could easily set you another $2k.

[tomweis]

<p>Yeah pretty much all PJ's are using Canon or Nikon. I wouldn't put any more money

into your Minolta system if I were you.</p>

<p>Since low light seems to be so important to you, I'd put most of your money into

some nice fast primes: Sigma 20mm f1.8, 35mm f2 or f1.4, 50mm f1.4 or 1.8, 85mm f1.8

or 1.4, and 135mm f2. I know this may seem strange becuause most PJ's use 16-35mm

f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 zooms, but you did say that low light was a

concern... and to me f2.8 is too slow.</p>

<p>You will need at least 2 camera bodies, but since you are a PJ you don't really need the

highest number of pixels so a used Nikon D2h (4MP), D1h (2.xMP), D1x (5.4MP), or Canon

10D (6MP), 1D (4MP) would all be great.</p>

<p>Get the best lenses you can first as you will most likely keep them. You will eventually

upgrade camera bodies no matter what you get, probably many times over your career.</

p>

<p>Which is better; Nikon or Canon? That's the eternal question for gear freaks. Find

other PJ friends to borrow their cameras for a little while, go to camera stores and hold

cameras, etc. to see what works for you. Best of luck from a former PJ. </p>

[basscheffers]

Sounds like a D200 + 17-55/2.8 + 80-200/2.8 + SB-800 flash will make a very versatile PJ

setup that fits in your budget.

 

The lenses will last you a decade (unless you upgrade to a 70-200/2.8VR, for faster AF and

VR) and so will the camera, if not as main body, as backup to a D2x, or whatever follows it.

[vivek iyer]

"Between financial aid, savings, and gifts from family, I should have around $4000 next month to spend on new equipment."

 

Maia, If you put this money in a bank, it will be safe, right?

 

I would strongly suggest to you that you stick with your 5D, get a real Minolta lens that is fully compatible with and try making sharp pictures.

 

If you can not make satisfactory pictures with this, no other brand or gear is going to do anything for you.

[devincorbett]

Minolta is a great brand and your 5D is an amazingly able consumer camera... that being said nobody knows where minolta will be next year. they are reporting losses like you cant believe and rumor mill is that they dont have ANYTHING new coming down the pipe for this year... (thats a bad sign). The nikon D200 with a 17-55 f/2.8 and a SB800 flash unit is one of the best suggestions i can come up with.

[lex_jenkins]

Before changing equipment be sure you've taken maximum advantage of the RAW files from your current camera. The digital workflow is, frankly, a PITA. All the work the lab used to do for us is now on our shoulders.

 

RAW files are inherently unsharp. They need tweaking to correct for noise, color, contrast and sharpening. Even the best lenses can seem disappointing if you're judging by uncorrected RAW files.

 

Don't be in too big a hurry to ditch your Minolta gear until you're sure you've eliminated image editing as a potential cause for the unsharp photos.

 

Check around the web for digital workflow recommendations specifically for your camera. Every dSLR has its own quirks and it's likely that someone else has already developed some ideas for how to get good results from the 5D.

 

If you do decide to switch, choose based on the entire camera system, not just one particular body. Lenses, flash, off camera flash accessories, macro accessories, teleconverters, etc., should all be considered. Also consider customer support, warranties, quality and accessibility of info on the manufacturer's website and other factors.

[mark u]

On the contrary, the rumour mill is suggesting that KM will have an upgraded version of the 7D (probably at PMA), and possibly a true pro level 9D at Photokina. Of course, that isn't of itself an argument for sticking with Minolta.

 

With PMA being so soon (Feb), now is a bad time to be making decisions, as it could open options in various directions - both in terms of lenses and camera bodies. In your target market, Nikon has come out with the D200, but Canon is widely expected to announce a replacement for the 20D which will be worth considering alongside your other options (e.g. 7D replacement?).

 

So far as lenses are concerned it's probably worth picking up a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 (or even f/1.4) now - you won't lose much on it even if you sell your Minolta system in the end (especially if you buy second hand), and it would give you a low light lens of rather better optical quality than low-end Tamrons.

 

Low light calls for fast lenses - clubs and theatre benefit from f/1.4-f/2 because of the low light levels, although fashion can usually be shot with something as slow as f/2.8 (you may be using a smaller aperture, but the extra wide open aperture helps with the accuracy and speed of focussing, both auto and manual).

 

Requirements for college sports depend greatly on the sport - indoor sports can require f/2 or faster lenses even shooting at 1600 ISO if the lighting isn't up to the standards that an NBA team would enjoy. Outdoor field sports put more of a premium on longer focal lengths, though you would want to get f/2.8 up to 300mm and f/4 beyond that for pro work. Your biggest expense in shooting sports will become lenses rather than the camera - by a large margin. If you don't have the right lenses, it will make little difference what camera you have - you won't be able to get fast enough shutter speeds to freeze action (night games/indoor or even dull winter day), or be able to blur distracting backgrounds adequately, and loosely framed shots from using too short a lens won't grab a photo editor's attention.

 

I suggest that instead of asking your instructors to recommend a brand, you confine the advice to seeking out what focal lengths and maximum apertures they would recommend for particular situations. You can do likewise here with some research in the dedicated forums and the Learn portion of this site. This will allow you to build a picture of which lenses you might aim for, and that may make choosing a system and a camera somewhat easier.

[roger_smith4]

Why not buy a few decent lenses for the Minolta instead of switching systems AND buying a bunch of lenses. Do you have the money to afford anti-shake Canon or Nikon lenses? Keep the Minolta and get a sharp Minolta 28 f2.0 prime, which should make for a pretty wicked low-light lens. There are some longer G-series lenses which you could look into as well.

[Jochen_S]

1st: working professionally means bringing something home anyhow, what means: Backup!

 

At the moment you have a quite capable camera and lousy zooms. Canikon provide the same at a higher level and maybe some good gear out of our reach...

 

Keep the Minolta, get fast 50mm and maybe Sigma 24mm to stay in the low light business with AS. AFAIK Canikon offer only comparably slow VR/IS lenses, so you'd lose chances, by droping Minolta.

 

Buy some 80-200 IS/VR f2.8 + fitting body to add for sports. - Any money left? - Find out who offers the best wide and flash and get them too. When this is done you might start thinking about the rest of a good set of primes, but don't ask me if these might still be necessary for journalism; I see lots of PJs with expensive looking zooms, but I'm dissapointed enough by my el-cheapos to miss pictures during prime changes.

 

2 flashes are still cheaper than a 2nd Canikon body. They and a standart zoom might be your only double purchase now. So far you didn't tell you ever run out of MP so why are you drooling over a D200 while you are unable to feed the 5Ds 6MP well? Keep in mind that Minolta lenses are comparably affordable (at least used).

 

At www.depreview.com they have good camera tests. On "luminous landscapes" you might find something about lenses. Good luck and happy shooting, I wish I had your current career chance too.

[ky2]

Vivek, you're a marketing department's nightmere ;)

[andrew robertson]

If you are into photojournalism, a fast wide angle lens is almost a necessity. Nikon doesn't

currently offer such a lens for their DX format.

[erik_escada1]

Get yourself a D200 and a D70s as a backup get a few Nikon or Sigma Lens for them, dont ever get tamron lenses anymore. Remember as a PJ you will need a couple of Wider lenses my choice would be to get a couple of fixed zoom lenses for quality. Also the D200 has a bigger CCD Sensor for yesterdays Lenses.

[basscheffers]

<i>If you are into photojournalism, a fast wide angle lens is almost a necessity.</i><p>

Huh? I'm no PJ, but the only ones I see at work have a 28-70 zoom permanently mounted on

their cameras, only to be swapped for a 70-200 if required. And none of the images in any

papers I see here look like they have been shot using anything wider than 28mm, so I am not

sure what you are on about.

<p>

Besides, they have the 12-24 and f/4 is plenty fast at such a wide field of view where the

extra stop down to 2.8 wouldn't give you significantly less depth of field.

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents, before spend $5K on a brand new system, KEH currently has a 50mm/f2.8 sigma macro lens for $84. You may want to get it and see if you can get good picture from it. The Minolta 5D is capable of producing good result with a good lens. If your result is still not up to par, you may want to solve that before put $5K on a new system.

 

http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=13168845&SKID=MA0800903960504&SID=newused&BID=MA&CID=08&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0

[andrew robertson]

Many PJ's favor a 24 or 35 f/2 or faster lens.

[vivek iyer]

Yaron,

 

I view photo.net for the benefit of the photographers and not for the minions of various brands or stock holders (Disclaimer: not directed towards any other contributors here. Only a general ramble).

 

I hope the R&D folks at various camera companies are like me and not like marketing department folks!

 

also, I can make my own soup :-)

[bill_thorlin]

There is a saying in pro golf - "you drive for show but you putt for dough" - consider your camera as your driver and your lenses as your putter.

 

If you want to know exactly what Minolta lenses exist I suggest you go to - www.mhohner.de - the best resource I know. See if anything is of interest to you and then Google your way to reviews and hands on experiences ( Photodo, Photographyreview etc. ). Be prepared to buy second hand.

 

What does the future hold for Minolta ? In this wonderful digital age who knows and the rumour and speculation is just that - rumour and speculation - the only ones who know are Minolta. I would suggest, however, that it is significant that Minolta and Sony announced a link last year to jointly develop dSLR cameras, either that or they are having a laugh.

 

There is a major benefit from all this negativity about Minolta for the existing Minolta user - very good glass is becoming ever cheaper on the second hand market - keep on with the knocking chaps !

 

However in the long run there will be a major downside - if things continue on the same path we will end up with only two camera companies in total - Canon and Nikon - and the reduced competition is NOT in the consumers interest. It would be very easy to come to a nice comfortable arrangement to carve up the market and not aggresively compete - before people throw up their hands in horror - it has been done before !

[mark u]

"Don't ever get Tamron lenses"

 

Tamron produce a few excellent lenses - their macro lenses are outstanding, for example. There's every reason to get lenses that are good. And every reason to avoid lenses that are poor - regardless of manufacturer.

[basscheffers]

Andrew, what do you base that statement on? I have never seen a PJ in the wild shoot with anything other than a zoom, unless they were shooting sports with long telephotos.

[lex_jenkins]

Nikon *does* offer a fast wide angle zoom in the DX format, the 17-55/2.8. But a DX-design lens is irrelevant anyway. Other than saving a bit of money (the 17-55/2.8 is a bit less expensive than the "full frame" 17-35/2.8 AF-S Nikkor), there's no practical difference between using a DX or full frame lens on a Nikon dSLR. I use both on my D2H. No difference. Nikon offers some fast AF wide angle primes if anyone needs 'em. Nobody makes an f/1.4 wide angle zoom so if there's a serious need for speed the only solution is a prime.

 

But this doesn't directly respond to Renee's original question, which is primarily about whether the gear she now owns is capable of producing the kinds of photos she needs. I don't think it's really necessary to switch systems or spend thousands of dollars on a body to get significant image improvement.

[johnclinch]

That sounds like a lot of dough for a student

 

minolta make some great lenses

 

try a couple of used minolta zooms, 100-300 APO etc. See how it goes

 

If in 3 months you still think you need to spend big money what you will have lost on the minolta gear you will save on the drop in price of a new body

[andrew robertson]

I base the statement on being a fan of many of the higher grade photojournalists out there

(Magnum, Nat. Geo, etc). Of course, 'local paper' guys covering the city council meeting are

just using whatever zoom lens / flash combo they can get away with, but people who are off

shooting 'story' pieces in interesting parts of the world usually don't shoot with a zoom lens

/ flash set on 'stun'.

[basscheffers]

I think you are right in the fact that there are still a fair few people out the shooting

reportage with Nikon FMs, Canon A-1s or Olympus OMs and primes, as well as Leicas and

Voigtlanders.

<p>

This can be by choice but is more likely simply due to what you are used to; they have

probably been shooting with this gear for the better part of their lives. But that doesn't

mean it's appriopriate - let alone necesary - for newcommers to use the same gear; in fact

I doubt many do. You can take the same images - or different equally good ones - with

pretty much any camera. If that sounds extreme and you don't believe me, simply ask

Magnum photograper <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?

cid=7-6468-7844">Alex Majoli</a>.

<p>

And a DSLR with standard zoom is about the most versatile tool you can have.

[les_lammers]

I'd hold off on the D200 till later in the year. It may be a bit cheaper and the bugs, if any, might be worked out.