Diehard Minolta Fans.. why??

[river side]

Why are there people still clinging to Minolta when they don't have a

DSLR on the horizon? Why don't you guys vote with your dollar and

enjoy the benefit of digital SLR's.. the technology is now years old

for crying out loud and Minolta still isn't 'there' yet.

 

I could never understand why anyone bought Minolta.. I mean it's not

as if the lens system is any cheaper or much better.. all tests

indicate that at most the Minolta lenses are at par with the Nikon or

Canon offerings... and almost always i've seen that the same Minolta

lens costs more than the ones from Nikon/Canon.

 

so help me understand .. in these days and times.. why Minolta?

[bacsa]

i never asked myself like this.

 

I just went to the camera shop, tried out the eos300, the f65 and the dynax5; the latter easily won. If i had cash enough at that time for the f80 nikon, e.g., i would have bought that. But that's the maximum. Have several lenses that i bought mostly second-hand, and I am perfectly happy with them. I will never be such a great and important photographer that I will miss any of those Nican wonderlenses. About the digital question,...this was asked hundred times before; all what I can say is, that if I would have a digital wondertoy, i (like everybody else I know with a digital camera) would take 100 times more photos...and they would rest on a big hard drive or a cdrom somewhere without anybody ever taking a second look on them, including myself. Now i think a bit before opening the shutter curtains for the light. Next step is medium format, where I would think even more before each shot. I have already a 30 years old yashica tlr for that :)

 

so, i'm perfectly happy with what I have. Canon, Nikon Leica, these are just names, makes no sense agonizing about our "decision" instead of enjoying and exploring our tools, now does it?

 

Finally, if you ask me, i find the style of the gigantic "EOS" logo quite ugly, especially on neckstraps :o)

[miguel_rodriguez3]

WHy not?

First of all, not all of us have the means to switch to digital SLRs, even if there were Minolta DSLRs. As an amateur, my 'dream' buy is the Maxxum 7. Maybe if I were a pro, then I would agree with you, thinking that you have to be nuts to stay with Minolta without a DSLR in the horizon. But even in that's case, I am sure there are plenty of minolta pro's.

On the other hand, I got my kit from my father, so I didn't actually choose the brand. I grew up seeing Minolta kit, so it is like when you grow up with a Ford car, it's very probable you get yourself a Ford as your fist car. Maybe in an attempt to keep the memories of when you first were introduced to photography with a Minolta camera.

I have got quite a range of lenses and a couple of MF cameras from ebay for a fraction of the cost of a digital compact.

As for AF cameras, I see in the magazines that either the maxxum 4, or the 5 and the 7 have won the European camera of the year(TIPA, EISA awards). Looking at the price of the maxxum 7, it seems that it offers you a lot for a fraction of the cost for the Nikon or Canon Pro cameras.

Anyway, I actually think I would be more than happy with the A1, for what I shoot, I find myself using only a 28-200 zoom on my film camera and I guess most of minolta users are amateurs like me and such a camera(A1) is enough. Just hope Minolta reduces its price so I can afford it.

[bacsa]

Btw, you say "almost always i've seen that the same Minolta lens costs more than the ones from Nikon/Canon" - two quick examples from B&H:

<br>minolta af 50mm f/1.7 80$, nikon af 50mm f/1.8 <i>90$</i>

<br>minolta af 100mm f/2.8 macro 480$, nikon af 105mm f/2.8 micro <i>540$</i>

<br> honestly, i think you pay the extra for the name, nothing else. Cheers!

[rokkor fan]

First of all, Minolta have advised the publisc that they will make an announcement about a DSLR in early 2004, so people won't need to wait long.

 

Secondly, the Minolta bodies tend to be much nicer to use than the top of the line Nikon and Canon equivalents. For example, the 7 (which is comparable to the 3, or F100) is much easier to use due to the screen on the rear. Ever tried remembering which custom function you need on the EOS? (eg. to leave the leader out) On the 7 the information is on a screen for you.

 

Finally, in some areas Minolta glass is superior to the competitors. Now I know that Canon make a range of super-telephotos etc that are incredible, but Minolta lenses used for general photography get my vote. They have what I see to be a smoother transition in the bokeh, which for portraiture is very important.

 

Cheers,

 

Antony

[bjmarkowitz]

Why Minolta? Because we already bought it BEFORE DSLR was an issue. Now that it is an issue, if I could afford to buy the 1Ds I would. However, with even the Digital Eos (or is it Eos Digital?) at $1000 why make a switch? All the lenses, flash, shutter release etc, that is not transferable, it does not pay to move.

 

Anyway, I am very happy with my DSLR and I would bet that Minolta will enter into the fray eventually. Hopefully by the time they do, I will actually have the money to support them.

[scott_j._little1]

If you have ever used, or held, a Maxxum 9 body, then you'd know why I have long

been partial to Minolta's 35mm gear. Also, as mentioned, Minolta glass is at least the

equal of its competitors...especially in the *normal* 20-200mm range.

 

Even today, shooting 35mm doesn't exclude one from the digital scene. Witness the

large number of film scanners on the market. Some photographers just prefer the

simple, analog operation of cameras like the Maxxum 9.

 

On the other hand, I'd be leery of spending too much money on Maxxum gear right

now...particularly on high-end lenses. I would like at least the option of using a

digital SLR with my current glass.

 

Anyway...

[p_sul]

I hate Macs, so my underdog to "pull for" against the big guys is Minolta. Minolta has always been my Macintosh. :) I honestly feel it's partly my desire to remain somewhat different, somewhat "out of it" if you will, that's kept me with Minolta all through the years. When I look back to my first Minolta purchase it had a lot to do with the way the camera looked. I liked it. When I got it, it took good pictures and was easy to use. We tend to use what's familiar most easilly. A lot of what Minolta sells makes sense to me. The nicest thing was when I got my digital 7hi, and having used a Maxxum 7, I felt right at home, because Minolta kept them similar.

 

Honestly, though I think it's silly, part of me buys cameras that look good, and Minolta has always had the sharpest-looking cameras out there. Now i wouldn't keep a camera that took crappy pictures, no matter what it looked like, but Minolta hasn't had that problem. They're all great picture takers. So I get the best of both worlds - good looks and great pictures.

 

Man, the Canon Digital Rebel and the Nikon (35mm) N75 have to be two of the *ugliest* cameras ever designed.

 

JMHO, of course. :)

[seth_hosler]

The main answer has already been given by others, but I reiterate: the 5/7/9 are just plain great cameras. Easy to use, feel-good cameras (with very accurate metering, I might add).

 

I feel, though, that there is also a psychological component to it all. I think some of us do take a bit of perverse pride in the fact that we use cameras that AREN'T Nikon or Canon, much as many music fans will make lengthy public denunciations of Mariah Carey and then launch into a diatrabe about how Guided by Voices (or some other band) is the greatest band ever (ever seen that John Cusack movie about the record store?).

 

I also imagine that among Minolta users you may find an unusually high percentage of Cubs fans and those who prefer Garfunkel to Simon.

 

But, it really does all come back to the cameras. And I have a hard time taking complaints about Minolta glass seriously after using the 85mm f/1.4.

[chris1664876655]

Minolta cameras and lenses are excellent. It's that simple.

[ray_vann]

A couple of months ago, I woke up and asked myself the exact same question. Why Minolta? I quickly realized that I had no answer. I loved my equipment, but was very frustrated in waiting for the DSLR. So that day, I listed on eBay my Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta APO 80-200 f2.8, Minolta 300mm APO and everything else in my house with the Minolta brand stamped on it. It all sold and I bought the same equipment in Nikon. I bought a D100, Nikon lenses and even a couple Sigma lenses. I haven't looked back.

 

I tend to get used to a brand and become a loyal patron. Well, Nikon, here I am, your new loyal patron. And to all of you who are holding on to your Minolta equipment, better start dumping it now...those Minolta resale values seem to be falling fast!

[rokkor fan]

I am sincerely hoping that Minolta prices continue to fall! In April or May next year when a Minolta DSLR is a reality, all those bargain lenses out there will once again be highly sought after! If prices keep falling now a kit like you used to have will be coming my way.

[StanleyBeck]

Money.

 

When you don't have any, you cling to what you have.

[tom_montemarano]

Before I bought my Maxxum 7, I had an entry level Minolta AF camera (XTsi). I took great shots with it, but there were a few things that I missed from my old manual focus cameras. But it made great exposures, it AF well enough for me to catch birds and sports. (I actually used it as a meter -- 14-seg and spot -- for my old TRL and Bronica S2 medium format cameras). So I started looking around at more advanced cameras. I was also on a budget (just couldn't see spending too much money to replace something that worked well.) I had little investment in other Maxxum equipment so I considered all the other brands.

 

For about a year I tried different cameras that I felt that I would be willing to pay for. I also looked at the high price cameras (Maxxum 9, EOS 1V and 3, Nikon F100). They did not do anything special that I really need/wanted, and since I didn't want their extra weight and didn't need their strong build, I dropped them from consideration.

 

I didn't like the handling of the mid-low end Canon cameras (dark viewfinders, push 2 buttons and turn this interface, lack of a spot meter), although the IS lenses did tempt me. I liked the full lens compatibility of the Nikons since I wanted to use some MF lenses/attachments, but then I found out that I couldn't use the in- camera meter with them. (One of the features that I won't compromise on is the need for an excellent TTL metering system.)

 

That led me back to Minolta. I intended to buy a used 800si, but was in no rush, since I wasn't partricularly in love with its user interface. Then Minolta released the 7. It had all of the features I wanted plus a few I hadn't really ever expected (DMF and 14-segment display), and a great user interface. It was also the right size and weight. The only problem was that I had to convince myself that I wanted to pay $800 (about 2x what I was planning at the time). I did and have been extremely happy.

 

Now sure, I'd like a digital SLR. I can see some advantages. But digital is just not that important I still want to have the features of the 7. (I still used other cameras including manual focus and medium format and still feel that the 7 is much better for my style of photography). I am definitly not in the mood to trade those features for digital and pay about $1000. The Canon digital Rebel costs about $1000 with a lens, that is about $800 just for digital capture. If a person needs the immediacy of digital then it may make sense, for me it doesn't.

 

Tom

[craig_gillette]

I've also had Nikon and Canon products and use a Fuji S602 extensively now. Minolta users aren't necessarily immune to the bandwagon effect but there is truth to the question, "If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it?"

 

But I have an investment in gear that is neither growing nor depreciating significantly while I wait. It still works. If Minolta comes out with a dslr, it will be tempting. If they come out with a $5000 camera that is not only a full frame studio masterpiece but also a hardened professional camera suitable for use in a nuclear blast environment at a continous 10 frames a second? I still won't buy it. If they come out with a $1K camera that is similar to my Maxxum 5 in feature set/usability? Maybe. I'd still be roughly $500 or more ahead of buying another body because of the lenses I already have.

 

It all depends on your personal circumstances. Waiting is free. If you were starting at ground zero, then there is some logic to going with what is available and a known quantity today. But if it isn't a pressing need, then there is some advantage to hanging in there, to use what you have.

[william_vickers1]

Why does anyone develop brand loyalty to any camera manufacturer? Probably because they bought a particular camera and were happy with the results. And perhaps they then invested in the lenses and accessories of this brand. I am not a Minolta user, but I have friends who are and I know they produce wonderful photographs. As good as any out there.

[lai_ming_f_]

Being an unbias photographer, I am so regret that you are really INNOCENT if that

answer is what you knew! (all tests indicate that at most the Minolta lenses are at par

with the Nikon or Canon offerings...)

e.g. AF17-35 is the best super-wide range to control the distortion due to its f3.5

aperture, AF28-70/f.28G, AF80-200/f2.8G & the AF85/f1.4G is the best optical

performance lense among those brand, STF135/f2.8(4.5) is the best diffusing lense,

AF70-210/f4 is the best value for its performance,....etc,etc.

Please understand and analysis what is true & which test is comprehensive!

I am sorry if you feel any uncomfortable!

[joey]

If I didn't have such a big investment in Minolta gear, and if I wasn't a poor student, I would probably switch to a different 35mm system. The main disadvantages for me right now are build quality in the bodies (I like weather sealing), USM (the focusing can be a bit loud in some situations), and of course, the digital option. However, I know that my images won't improve if I switched to a different system, and I have to say that I have been extremely happy with my Minolta gear (2 Maxxum 7's and a bunch of lenses and accessories). Besides, there are many reasons to choose Minolta, including:

 

- The Maxxum 7 body. Definitely the most comfortable 35mm body available. Quick and powerful enough for most applications. Just as capable as an F100, but almost half the price used.

 

- Good quality glass--especially the 20/2.8, 85/1.4, and 200/2.8. I can't afford the 2.8 zooms so I have no comment on those.

 

- Cheap used gear. Some excellent lenses and other toys can be had for peanuts on the used market, where comparable C/N stuff costs much more.

 

In the future, depending on which type of photography I decide to pursue, I might switch to a different system. Right now, I shoot most of my commercial work on medium format, and the Minolta handles any stringing I do for the local paper. When I have the need and the money to switch, I will, but right now neither one of those factors are present.

[fmueller]

I shoot Minolta since I bought an XD-7 in the mid 80s, and have been extremely happy with this camera. At one stage I contemplated to upgrade to AF, but then I found out at what ridiculously low prices Minolta manual focus lenses sell these days - and I knew that their quality is simply outstanding. I have been collecting ever since, and upgrading to AF is no longer an issue for me. I might snap up a digital SLR for peanuts when all you guys have moved up to the next best thing - maybe hologram recorders ;-)

[Brian]

<P>Anyway, <B>River Side</B>, why are you asking? What difference would it make to you? Are you teetering on the brink? Just need a little convincing to buy that Minolta camera?</P><P>It's funny, I never thought of myself as "clinging to Minolta". I've got 3 Minolta cameras, 2 SLRs and a rangefinder. They feel good in my hands, they do what I want, what's the problem? I don't have a burning urge to buy stuff, I just like taking pictures. I don't need a DSLR to make my life complete.</P>

[michael_moon2]

I don't care what brand name is on my equipment. It's a system, and it's a system that works for me. When I chose Minolta it was the system that made sense for me. My photography is a part-time but not insignificant income for me, and I have no reason good enough to make me switch from Minolta (because it doesn't meet my needs - it does meet my needs) or to any other brand (because no other brand, for me, has any significant advantage. With a camera like the 7, and a 9000 for backup, and top quality affordable lenses, why switch?

 

I laugh when I read amateurs talk about resale value of their equipment. If you want investments, see your stockbroker. If you're a photographer, the value of your equipment is irrelevant - its functionality is all that counts. If you're a pro you're going to use it up until its value is irrelevant - or trade it every few years regardless of value, and you're taking depreciation anyway.

 

River Side, if brand name is important, just go Leica.

[christopher kink www.digi]

I think that I might have an interesting perspective on this� Sorry in advance about the long post...

 

I have used Minoltas since the 7000i and currently use a 7 and a 9. The 7 and 9 are the best cameras that I have ever used � no exceptions. Minolta�s philosophy seems to center around usability and features that actually make the task of photography faster and easier. Canon, on the other hand, is more interested in winning the marketing war with questionable features that appeal to people who would rather debate their cameras abilities rather than use them. That doesn�t mean that Canon hasn�t come up with a few great ideas too (IS, and TS-E lenses). That just goes to show you that if you throw enough ideas out, some of them are bound to be very good, but many will just be silly (barcode readers anyone?).

 

I�m not even going to talk about Nikon because their idea of innovation seems to be (with a few exceptions) to do what Canon did, only 5 years late.

 

Okay, back to Minolta� Basically, when using my 9 (or 7), it just works. I don�t fight it. It�s fast, intuitive and I always know what it�s doing with nothing more than a quick glance and the dials. I can use it with the heaviest gloves (I took it to Antarctica in January of 2002 and let me tell you, that�s a big plus � you can see some of the images from that trip at the URL below) or in the dark. Basically it has the best UI that I�ve ever seen on an AF SLR, giving me the features that I want to use 95% of the time right at my fingertips.

 

With a single exception, Minolta has all the lenses that I could ever want. I�d take IS in a heartbeat if it was available, but my IS has always come in the form of a $40 monopod that works with every camera and lens that I own, so it�s not worth switching over. A DSLR would be nice, but why limit myself to 6MP (or 11 if you have deep pockets) when I can get over 30 from my film scanner. USM sounds great on paper, but anytime it has actually been in a head-to-head test, it preformed no better (or not significantly) than the in-body motors, just quieter. In a head to head test with the Maxxum 9, F100, and EOS 3, the EOS with USM actually lost to the other two with the Nikon and Minolta being basically identical.

 

There is one area where Canon has something that I want and can�t get from Minolta. TS-E lenses. I shoot a lot of architecture and I�ve been using a Mamiya 645e with a 50mm shift lens for a few years but the combo is big, slow and heavy. With post 9/11 airline restrictions I�m more limited in what I can carry on to a plane, so I can�t easily take my Maxxums and the Mamiya on trips.

 

The praise I heap on my Maxxums isn�t just brand loyalty � it is the result of what I believe to be a reasoned look at the alternatives. Because of the lack of a shift lens in the Maxxum mount I�ve been entertaining slowly selling my beloved Maxxum gear for some similar Canon stuff. I did a lot of research into what I�d be getting with Canon. The EOS 3 has no appeal to me. It�s not �pro� enough to compete with the Maxxum 9 and not small/light enough to compete with the 7 (it doesn�t win on real and truly useful features either, but that�s another topic). So I�m stuck with the ~$2000 1v that drops to 3.5 fps if you remove that horribly useless grip. I lose the 100% viewfinder (1v�s is 98% - not bad, but it should be better for $2K), I lose the fact that I can remove the 9�s grip and retain complete functionality and speed while cutting size and weight, I lose the built in flash that can trigger off-camera strobes, I lose the tactile controls, I lose the near perfect metering, I lose the truly useful vertical grip and I lose the wonderful Maxxum lenses that I have been able to depend on for years. What do I gain? Multi-spot metering (a really nice feature, no doubt), IS lenses that I don�t really need, a compatible digital body that I don�t (yet) want, USM that doesn�t really matter in real life, those versatile TS-E lenses and finally, I gain a big hole where my money used to be. No way � not yet at least.

 

Oddly enough, the Elan7e appeals to me. It�s not stupidly expensive like the 1v, it�s smaller than my Mamiya, doesn�t pretend to be a pro camera like the EOS 3, and still takes the TS-Es (albeit with a sad 82% viewfinder coverage, but what do you want for the price?) For the money, I�d be more willing to get myself used to the UI while still using the Maxxums for the �real� stuff. So I�ll soon be ordering an Elan7e with the 24mm TS-E and the 28-135 IS (like I said, I don�t need it, but I�ll take it if I can get it.). The Elan7e will replace my Mamiya, not my Minoltas. That should say something.

 

Having said that, I�m also leery of getting any more Maxxum glass. I�d eventually like to get into digital once the affordable bodies hit 8-12MP and are full frame. I�d like to know that there is a future for my Minolta glass before investing any more in it.

 

Christopher Kink

http://www.digtial-daydream.com/

 

[sknowles]

Gee, maybe because I've been using their great manual focus equipment for 34+ years now, and with new digital scanning and printing techniques along with traditional methods, film still works for me. The real question is why do I need a digital camera system?

 

And I do vote with the dollars. I don't need to replace by camera system because the digital camera I bought has been replaced or isn't repairable anymore. Will your digital camera last as long as the film-based cameras?

 

From the tone of your entry, you don't appear to want to understand. You simply want to provoke a response. Have you used any Minolta cameras and lenses, or really researched their value for the quality? Where have you seen their lenses are more expensive than Nikon or Canon's?

[sammm]

We are one defensive lot!

 

I was a Mets fan growing up, and have been a Democrat my whole life. If that's not a recipe for a Minolta user, I don't know what is.

 

BTW, I suspect Minolta will come on the market with a cutting edge DSLR solution about the same time DSLR becomes truly affordable for the nonprofessionals; right now I look at DSLR costs and lens costs and have more interest in the lens. When Minolta does hit that market, they will hit it without the legacy systems bought into during the over-priced phase of market development.

 

I think Minolta serves its market, the serious amateur, quite well; that means they don't always have the neatest new high-priced toys, but when they deliver something to me, my experience has always been good.

[ian_greant]

Minolta is like owning an old chevy truck for me. I could care less that a chevy truck is never going to be entered in the Indy 500. I carry bricks.

 

Or in other words. Good inexpensive gear that is highly replaceable on the used market... That and I'm used to shooting it. Sure other stuff is just as good optically but why would I switch and confuse my fingers?