Stick With Minolta For Digital SLR?

[bud_babb]

OK, first off let me say that I know this is a Minolta board. Let

me also say that I've never owned any cameras other than Minolta

(except a Pratika I had WAY back when). I have 2 X-700s, a XD-11,

and an XG-M. I have about 6 or 8 Minolta MF lenses from 24mm up to

70-210. I also have the Maxxum 7 AF camera, and one Minolta 28-85

AF lense with it (bought last Christmas). I'm pleased with all of

this gear, but I think I'm about ready to make a move to digital to

ADD to my film gear. As you can see, I don't have a great

investment in lenses that would work with the 5D or 7D so that's not

a big factor in the decision (I guess the choice of either 5D or 7D

is another decision, but that's already been discussed sufficiently

and isn't really part of what I'm asking). Simply put, my question

is whether I should stick with the Minolta brand or switch to Nikon

or Canon for a digital SLR. I'm familiar with all the various sites

that review/rate the various cameras, but I'm just asking more for

your personal opinion and why you would decide whichever option you

suggest. Thanks in advance.

Bud

[jpursley]

This really depends on how you use a camera, and how well the ergonomics and features of each brand fits your expectations.

 

Would anti-shake be a useful or even critial feature in your photography? What about wireless flash? Here's where Minolta probably has the edge.

 

Is it important to have a range of lenses in each focal length to choose from? Do you need exotic lenses, or need to rent expensive glass? Canon and Nikon certainly have the advantage here.

 

If I were in your position now, I would probably choose Canon for the ability to rent big glass, and choose from a wider variety of lenses in the shorter-than-24mm range. But I almost always use a tripod and mostly do landscapes; if I were into people, event, or wedding photography, I'd probably go with Minolta for the anti-shake and wireless flash features.

 

Hopefully that answered more questions than it created...

[bud_babb]

let me add a few points about how I use a camera. My use is strictly for personal reasons, i.e. I don't shoot for a living. My primary uses for a camera are landscapes (on a tripod), some macro (on a tripod), and more or less traditional "snapshot" type things like granddaugther's birthday party, family at Christmas, etc. I really don't have a need for super wideangle or large glass lenses. In fact, I guess the digital version of pretty much what I already have in the MF gear is what I'd need in digital as well. So, I guess I would probably be OK for my rather narrow set of parameters with either of the three options (I would like to stick to Nikon, Canon, or Minolta though I realize there are other very good options probably). Still, I would like to hear what others have to say as well. Thanks.

[bill_tuthill]

I think the principal downside with buying a 5D or 7D is the future

of Konica Minolta. Exiting the Canadian market is not a good sign.

Unless Sony comes to the rescue, which Sony has no real reason to do,

you might be saddled with an Olympus- or Yashica-like dead system.

 

Having said that, the 5D is a great value, only a few hundred more

than a typical crappy digicam, and antishake would be helpful.

If you'll be satisfied with a 42-127 crop-factor lens, then you won't

need to buy more extra than a memory card. The Canon 17-85 IS is

way overpriced compared to the 5D with similar lens. Nikon has an

even worse selection of VR lenses.

 

Just read Pop Photo's article on the 5D. The interface looks usable

to me, though I'll miss the panic button. I think their criticism of

the white balance knob is unwarranted because this is a highly useful

DSLR feature. I'm not sure what important knobs are missing, but I

don't recall a DOF-preview button.

 

I don't think wireless flash or ADI work well with K-M DSLR, do they?

Jeremy's point about lens rental is moot in my opinion, because you

can always rent a Canon or Nikon body to go with the long lens.

[bob_gentile]

<em>"... I guess the digital version of pretty much what I already have in the MF

gear is what I'd need in digital as well..."</em>

 

<p>You might consider getting into digital from an entirely different anglea film

scanner. Keep your present set-up, scan your negs, and... <em>voila</em>! Digital!

[craig_gillette]

KM exiting the Canadian market, which I think is likely temporary and to fix a "broken" operation, really isn't an indication of a dying organization. It may be unusual in that it's evidence of a willingness to take action to stop bleeding.

 

However, since you haven't got a huge legacy, it comes down to deciding which camera you like and which fits your needs or likes best. It probably comes down to which body you happen to like best and if the body versus lens approach to AS floats your boat. There could be brand fans who can tell you to the nth degree which $8000 lens is best but if you'll never be in that league, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference. I carried over a small legacy and don't find it to have made the transition yet I'm quite happy with the 7D. Any of them will take some effort to get past the all auto modes to really get the most from the camera. The 7D has some unique and generally praised ergonomic advantages, the 20D is faster/more pixls - the speed is likely more important than the pixel count - or would be to me but didn't drive me to Canon. Nor would Nikon have been a bad choice. They are all good and how you and the camera fit together - your man-machine interface and compatibility is probably more important than the technonits.

[bill_tuthill]

The Pentax *ist models are also well worth looking at, because they

support old manual focus lenses better than anybody. Additionally,

they have the best viewfinders among partial-frame DSLRs.

[fmueller]

IMHO the only advantage in buying a Minolta DSLR for you would be that you could use most lenses you buy in the future on your film 7 as well as the DSLR. Whether or not this matters to you only you can decide.

 

Your MF system is obviously totally incompatible, and your single AF lens would be cheap to replace in any new system, so that all doesn't weigh in. You can simply look at the DSLR offerings like anybody who never owned a camera, and decide which one you like best.

 

If it was me personally, this would probably steer me towards a Rebel XT, but although your photography goals sound similar to mine, your decision might be different, because the entry level offers in DSLRs from Minolta, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus are all very similar.

[scott_lewis3]

I am so happy with my 7D, I almost sold all my Minolta kit and went Canon glad I didn't I used a 20D the other day and didn't like the menus. Give me my ergonomic camera with knobs, dials and AS. :)

[Jochen_S]

I'm a long time Pentax user and would love to have a 7D, because the AS seems essential for some of my needs. Todays window shopping revealed nice prices for used Minolta AF lenses.

 

Canikon can't make entirely wrong stuff, but can you afford their really good high end products? Do you need them?

 

If not stick with whatever you have or like most. If your Minolta AF isn't dissapointing why shouldn't you go for today's in fact best 6MP amateur camera?

 

Any argument against Minolta would be based on the uncertain future and slow R&D. When I decided to get my 6MP DSLR I knew that I really liked to have one. I didn't grab something to dump it ASAP. If Minolta will become outdated and decide to close DSLR business down, they might sell of the last bodys quite cheaply and you should get another one to be on the safe side for the next few years.

[jbs]

I just bought into the ad campaign from the early 80's; "from the mind of Minolta!" ;) But really, Minolta, as a general rule means, "Quality" and "Thoughtfulness". Quality in the making and thoughtfulness in how they make it and how it is used by real people. But don't do it for your legacy lenses, do it because you did some homework and you picked up a 7D and said, "Wow! This is the one!"

 

Jay

[julioamendoza]

"I'm pleased with all of this gear, but I think I'm about ready to make a move to digital to ADD to my film gear".

 

About ready?

 

If you are pleased, why add digital to your gear, specially when you don't do photography for a living.

 

If digital SLRs were not there, you would not be about ready! You would be fine!!!

 

I only have the Maxum 5, and have just placed my order for the 35mm SLR Minolta Maxxum 7. Great camera I think, without even trying it yet.

 

Maxxum 5 user and one more that does not do it for a living.

[dennis_fallon1]

Hi Bud,

 

Well, you'd have an easier time switching at this point than many of us ... the 28-85 goes for a whopping $50 on eBay these days ! But I'd seriously consider a 7D anyway.

 

You mentioned:

> My primary uses for a camera are landscapes (on a tripod), some

> macro (on a tripod), and more or less traditional "snapshot" type

> things like granddaugther's birthday party, family at Christmas,

> etc.

 

Everyone makes great macro lenses; the viewfinder on the 7D is going to be about as good as you can get shy of a pro camera, for DOF preview. And mirror lockup is pretty convenient to use (aside from it not being "true" MLU and only suitable for things that work with a 2-sec delay). 8MP on the 20D is a nice plus if you're going to print very large (and some will argue for cropping). Again, for landscape photography, the viewfinder on the 7D is nice, as is the control layout ... someone with experience with manual focus cameras will probably find the 7D about as "cozy" as a DSLR can be. (If you like the 7, you'll like the 7D :) And for snapshots, the easy-to-switch and easy-to-see ISO setting is handy; I regularly change from ISO 100 to 1600 when doing family "stuff" and antishake is genuinely handy ... I get enjoyable shots of people at 1/25s (ISO 1600 and f/2.8) that show no subject motion or some minor subject motion (which can enhance the shot in some cases).

 

The 28-85/3.5-4.5 is an interesting lens. My favorite lens on the 7D is the 28-75/2.8 for the speed in low light, but I think I'm going to start doing a bit more with the 28-85. I recently upgraded to the "restyled" version of this lens, and autofocus performance is greatly improved and is substantially better than on the 28-75/2.8. The 85mm tele end (128mm equivalent) is handy for outdoor candids, too.

 

24-210mm coverage on an APS sensor isn't too tough ... the 17-35mm for WA and then you only need to get up to 135 on the long end.

 

FWIW, if I were to buy into a DSLR kit from scratch, I'd probably (50%+ likely) buy a 20D, BUT it would be because of certain lenses that Canon offers that KM does not (like the 24-70 and 70-200/4). If you can find a lineup of lenses that from KM or 3rd party that suits you (and I do have a lineup in KM lenses that I enjoy very much) then I'd rather own the 7D body (even at only 6MP) than any other.

 

Another option to think about, depending on your plans for the future, would be the Olympus E-1 ... not quite as usable in low light, but a great camera at a nice price, particularly for someone with modest lens requirements. The small sensor makes it more difficult to do much for future upgrades - the 8MP cameras are noisier and unlike KM, Nikon, Canon, there's no room for increasing the sensor size.

 

You can see some of my 7D landscape and family photos (mostly my now-3-year-old daughter) here:

http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

Digital is fantastic. Previously, I shot lots of film - slide film for nature photography and print film for the "snapshot" stuff ... and the prints are stacked up in envelopes, waiting for us to have time to edit them and sort them into albums. Meanwhile, since shooting 100% digital at the beginning of this year, I've put together a couple of photo books (shutterfly.com) that came out great ... good image quality (tremendous for snapshots), inexpensive compared to how much I would have spent on film, processing & album supplies, easy (took much less time than putting together an album), and lets you put in captions to make the book much more interesting to look at than an album. I still have my film 7, but no plans on using it. (I also still have a 9 that I want to sell if anyone is interested !!!)

 

- Dennis

[dw fletcher]

For 35mm stuff, I'd always shot with Minolta manual focus cameras and rented Canon bodies and lenses when a job warranted it. When I finally decided it was time to get my own AF camera, it was also time to move to digital and the real choice was narrowed down to 7D or the 20D. What I shoot doesn't really sound that much different from what you do, and I decided to go with Minolta. There are a number of things that drew me to the 7D, principally among them AS and the layout (I like knobs and switches like a lot of people here).

 

I've been very happy with my choice. Honestly, I haven't shot much with my 7D because for the last eight months most of my stuff has been MF, but when I have used it it's been a real pleasure. Compared to other cameras in its price range, the best thing about the Minolta is the viewfinder. That's really a big deal if you're like me and you have the AF off most of the time.

 

But that's just me. There's not really a wrong choice as far as I can tell because all the DSLR's that I've used are pretty damn good.