Who is a "Pro" using Minolta

[james_frater]

I have always really wondered how many professional photographers

out there use Minolta Gear.

 

From media events to sporting events, I have seen mainly Nikon,

Canon, and even Olympus camera's and lenses.

 

With Minolta always being one of the big three out there, I have yet

to see any modern day masters or Pro's using Minolta stuff.

 

So who here is a professional using Minolta, and what type of

photography do you do. And why are you not either with Nikon or

Canon ????

 

Just for once I would like to see a big event and see a minolta

camera. Especially the 7D with a good Minolta lense on it, making it

with the big boys.

[rokkor fan]

I use a Minolta (one of several), but only for my personal (non-paid) photography and only when I am shooting film. The rest of the time it is Canon. :o) The Minolta offering was too late to market meaning that I had already selected Canon as my digital system. Given what has happened I am very pleased I did so.

[matt_neighbour___york__u.k]

Hi,

 

Firstly, photography is not my day job. But, I am picking up more and more work on the side. I use my film Dynax 7, and for commercial stuff scan slides myself with a Nikon Coolscan V. The clients do not care what equipment is used as long as the photos are what they want. They don't really care that I am using film, as long as I can deliver a digital file. My pro lab can process the film and get it back to me two days after taking the shot, then I scan it and deliver a CD and proof prints. This timescale of ~5 days turnaround is acceptable to my clients, currently classical music ensembles wanting promotional shots.

 

The most important thing I think is not to have the coolest name across the top of your camera but to have a piece of equipment you know inside out, that you can use without thinking about where the controls are. A camera that doesn't get in the way of the shot.

 

I don't want to start a film/digital debate here but it was interesting to compare the two different types of wedding photos we had at our wedding last summer. One was a Kodak (Elegante) pro with Canon �5000 digital SLR, 70-200mm f2.8 etc, the other a friend with two old manual film cameras (probably cost no more than �60 for both) and 50mm lenses. I prefer the film shots.

 

Matt

[james_frater]

The way I look at it, my Minolta 7xi can produce great shots, but with My 7D, I am producing just so many better shots, even with my first more serious digital camera, the Dimage A2, I was getting shots that I do not think I could have ever taken with the Minolta 7xi.

 

Just before Xmas I bought the 7D and sort of became the official family Xmas photographer for the yearly get together.

 

Unlike previous years where I had cheaper digital camera, Minolta XG, Kodak 3200 or something. I created shots that were clear, vibrant, and using bounch flash create shots that looked like Christmas was jumping out the the picture.

 

Image as you will, A cute 5yr old girl, opening presents in front of a huge tree, surrounded by colourful wrapped presents, bounce flash to give a lighting up of everything, a glow I would say. And with a polished wooden floor, the images were just, totally professional, I think they are better than professional, they are supreme shots. (that is not to say the other shots on the day were not crap :)

 

At the time they were taken with a Konica Minolta 28-100 standard come with camera lense.

 

Yet again proves that person with camera plays an important part.

[doug_dyck]

I am a semi-pro photographer and I am currently using my film 7. I have used a 7D and was not happy with the results, although it was at the Canadian Fire Fighter Challenge and the lighting was poor. With my film 7 I was able to get 99% of the photos in focus, whereas with the 7D there seemed to be a focus problem. Again, I only had it for a day and it had the kit lens on it, and it may have had the backfocus problem that everyone was talking about.

 

For now . . . I will stick with film and scan my negs . . .

[bill_thorlin]

You got your answer which, as was to be expected, is virtually none. This was one of Minolta's problems.

 

Not sure what your second posting was about - are you claiming that the 7D has turned you into a "pro" ?

[james_frater]

7D has not only improved my photography, it gives me results, that can match what the pro's are using.

 

In the end, you put a $2000 lense on your camera, it is a pro camera with pro results.

[bill_thorlin]

I assume you accept that the "pros" are not using Minolta to any perceivable degree. This is for practical reasons and not through prejudice.

 

"That can match what the pro's are using" - I assume you meant to say "what the pros are doing" ?

 

I do not want to put a damper on your boundless enthusiasm but a camera and a lens are only tools and it is the photographer that gets the results. Good equipment can make things easier but "you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" - I am not suggesting you are a sow's ear but suggest you look at what Matt said.

[james_frater]

I read what Matt said, but it is not only skill but also mental, you could have the best gear in the world, also be techically perfect, but if you do not enjoy or get excited by what you are using, then you will not go about getting the best image possible. Well at least in my view

 

I am saying that the 7D makes me a better photgrapher. You give a pro a $100 Kodak point and shoot over his usual $8000 fully spec, Canon EOS Mrk II.... whatever camera.

 

You tell me what camera gets him excited and what will give him the results even in simple point ans shoot shots.

 

I have had a Canon 20D camera in my hands, and by all reviews some say it does better than the 7D. I use and look at the 20D, and I use and look at the 7D. The 7D makes me feel like I want to take photo's and be creative.

 

In my view and the people that look at my pics, they like the Minolta images I take, more than the 20D images I take.

 

And out of pure interest, I was watching the news tonight, used my digital recorder and was freeze framing the red carpet thing for the grammy awards.

 

I saw Nikons, Canons, Simga, Olympus, and then I saw it. A Minolta 7D, with vertical grip, a 5600HS flash and a lense I could not make out, other than it was long and big, maybe 200mm type lense.

 

So there you go, pay enough attention and you will see Minolta's.

[bill_thorlin]

Your original post asked how many pros use Minolta and I think your latest post answers your own question - very, very few and the pro market was a problem for Minolta for a long time. It may change in the future and one hopes so, but one swallow does not make a summer.

 

I find that I get excited about what I want to photograph. For me that is the joy of photography and a camera and a lens are there to help me do this. I do not take photographs just for the pleasure of using a camera and a lens. Yes it is better to use good equipment but it is peripheral to the main objective.

[james_frater]

I cannot get excited using crappy equipment, at least in digital terms. I can easily pull out an old manual SLR camera and take pics. But then again. I like the instant satisfaction of digital. I am past waiting to see film developed and the cost involved in getting it to print.

 

Shots using a 2 meg Polaroid digital camera. Well lets just say at the time when I bought it, it may have been fun, but not these days.

[bill_thorlin]

It would appear that you are interested in the equipment and not really interested in photography - each to his own.

 

"Instant" - ah yes instant, absolutely essential to good photography.

[dg1]

I think a real pro in any field does not need to be excited to do professional quality work. That's why they're called professionals, you call them, you pay them, they get the job done with skill and efficiency. I'm sure the money paid is more exciting than the camera used. And I'm not saying that most pros don't enjoy their work, just that in order to be professional you can't _require_ that. Art photography perhaps, hobby photography certainly and other discretionary photography are different matters. As long as you are attached to your gear, you are a hobbyist. Or put another way, if you require to be excited to take a good picture, or having fun, you are not a professional. I don't mean anything negative by that, I am a hobbyist, I do this for enjoyment. You are too from what I can tell. Whether or not you get some great photos is beside the point.

 

I think a lot of professional photographers use other kinds of cameras than Canon and Nikon for their personal or art photography if they are into that. But most professional equipment is chosen for many many other qualities than simply the quality they deliver. Hobbyists tend to obsess about "great image quality" whereas a pro may require that, in say photojournalism the first priority would be to get the shot, meaning reliable proven equipment, and reliable support from the manufacturer, and often a camera for backup that you wouldn't expect. These are just opinions of mine, but based on the pro photographers I know.

[james_frater]

I am an amature. I have not gone and got a degree in photography. I love taking photo's, but I love having something in my hands that makes me feel good about taking photo's

 

I actually had a Ricoh XR1 manual camera, with a nice lense on it, then came my Minolta 7xi, and now in SLR I have the 7D.

 

I took great sharp photo's with that Ricoh.

 

But a pro is a pro, they will do the deed whether they enjoy it or not. But a pro usually wants the best of the best, and not the rest.

[brandon_draper1]

I am a self employed professional full time photographer. Portrait/Wedding's for over 11 years. I went digital with the 7D a year ago. Was using a Mamiya 645's & RB's. Why did I go with Minolta? My 35mm gear was always Minolta. But when they came out with the 9, I was in love. That is when I started buying G glass. When you could still find it on the used market. The 9, 7 & 7D is just a pleasure to use. The 7D is just very user friendly & the color out of the camera is great. I will not need to make a upgrade until next year. Will I keep with my A-Mount? I will, if Sony comes out with a pro level dslr. If not, I will be forced to change. The world will still turn. I just hope they keep the Minolta body type style. I love my dials.

[chris_at_vividoptic.com]

I think in the UK, if you earn more than 10% of your income from photography you are a considered a pro

[cmphoto1]

I think in the US it is what you put on your business card. LOL

 

chad

[kishansinh]

I have used Canon and Nikon in past but since I started serious photography, I only use minolta Dynax 7 (film). It is one of the best suited for wildlife. I also like Minolta lenses, especially 100 MM & 300MM. Produces excellent colour rendering..(I faced some problems with my first Dynax7 camera, but Minolta Japan replaced my camera and it is working perfectly fine since last 4 years.) Recently I added Dynax 5, which is also an excellent stand-by camera.

[rokkor fan]

If you are refering to the normal perception of professional photography then let me put your mind at rest - there are virtually no professional photographers using Minolta AF gear. Sure there are some people who make a little money using it, but the vast majority of sport, portrait, wedding, event, commercial photographers use something different.

 

Wedding event and sport photographers shoot Canon or Nikon. Why? Because of reasons like pro support and company policy. Canon and Nikon both provide services to pros that mean you would be crazy to select anything else. As a CPS (Canon Professional Services) member I get cheaper and faster servicing, and a replacement body couriered to me if something goes wrong. That way I never lose money by not having a camera. Imagine if your 7D packs it in on the week before a wedding? What can you do? Answer - nothing except buy another one. With Canon (and Nikon) I can get a replacement body from the service teams, or if I choose I can hire one from several local pro stores, all of which only carry hire bodies/lenses in Canon or Minolta mounts.

 

This service aspect is a good reason. Additionally, Minolta don't sell many of the more exotic lenses (eg. 600mm f/4). God forbid if one breaks! There was a poor guy online a year or so back with a busted 600mm that Minolta couldn't fix because they didn't have the required part, and wouldn't again it seems. At least with Nikon and Canon their commitment to the larger news agencies (and the vast numbers of long lenses out there) means that they provide good support for these lenses for many years after they cease production.

 

Architecture photographers shoot larger format than 35mm. Portrait photographers often shoot medium format (film or digital). Why would anyone choose to select Minolta as their 'pro' system? Don't get me wrong, I love the look I get with my older Minolta lenses, but for making money, I need reliability, dedicated support, and an upgrade path. I think Minolta have demonstrated that they can't really deliver that.

 

As a final note I can say I have seen someone at an event shooting with a Minolta lens. At last year's Australian Airshow I saw a guy with a 300mm f/2.8 shooting away. Now here is the hilarious part - he had a red elastic band around the front of his lens in imitation of the Canon "L" series red band!!! I just found that too funny - I just wish I had a photo to share! I am certain that the guy was an amateur (probably doesn't qualify for your desire to see a pro using Minolta) but it was very funny.

 

Minolta is, and always has, appealled to amateur photographers. The design of cameras like the 7 and 7D reflects this with all its knobs etc. These are great for amateurs - I can see at a glance what my settings are by looking at the camera. Pros use their cameras every day - buttons and a good viewfinder information system are all they need because they know their cameras inside out. They want to see all of that in the viewfinder, and be able to change settings without removing their eye from the viewfinder.

 

In summary, pro photographers seek things that help them make money, like reliability and support, as well as image quality. All of the major camera makers deliver good image quality, hence it comes down to more mundane issues. The fact that a Minolta lens might deliver a more pleasing bokeh than a similar Nikon lens means nothing to a pro if the camera system lacks the other important attributes they need. Amateurs have different requirements. Small differences in body design may make a difference, as my the lens characteristics. I used Minolta manual focus bodies for years because I loved the glass. When I went pro I realised I needed AF, and after considering all my needs I went Canon.

 

Best regards,

 

Antony Hands

[jd_rose]

Rokker Fan,

 

 

What an honest, well-written answer to the question!

 

Thank you for taking the time.