How good is the Minolta Dynax 7D? worth buying still?

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

I want to buy the Sony Alpha 700 but cannot afford it yet. I was thinking of a

used 7D instead for the meantime.

 

How does the old 7D compare to other DSLR's such as D200, K10D, 30D and other

more recent models? I am thinking of issues with image quality, viewfinder

quality, battery life, speed of use, build quality etc..

 

cheers Steve.M.

[james_bocchino]

The body is built like a tank. I find the image quality to be very good but since it's the only digital camera I've ever used I have nothing to compare it to. You should check out the review at dpreview.com for more info.

[ricardovaste]

The Minolta 7D is a massively underestimated camera. Because when it was released it was a more expensive than the competition it was looked down upon slightly... and of course people had waited for SO LONG for a DSLR in Minolta mount.

 

It is an excellent camera and stands the test of time to a large degree. It will be a classic one day, no other DLSR has, or i suspect will ever have, quite the same incredible interface.

 

6MP is more than enough. Dont be confused by that. megapixel counts keep rising but thats just responding to competition and trying to lure us in. Not sure about battery life to be honest, i havent been able to use mine much. Build quality is excellent as mentioned, dont worry about that. Speed of use, well the ergnomonics are excellent, as mentioned (!) so everything you need to use is right at your finger tips. Some complain of the AF being a bit slow, especially in low light. But i wouldnt worry about this, put the right lens on it, and the AF will be perfect.

 

One thing that it has too is colour. You wont find the same in any of the new sony range, this has the old minolta colours still intact in it :)

 

Remember, the lens is far more important that the camera :) and the photographer more than the lens. Buy a second hand 7D and save the rest for something tasty like a 200/2.8 G HS :D

 

Hope that helps. It really is a fine camera and worth every penny.

[vrankin]

Many positive reviews and posts exist. I've yet to see anything negative, except that when I read reviews by Steve Etchels of http://www.imaging-resource.com he seemed to like the later 5D better, overall.

[john_mcmillin]

If you need instant autofocus and foolproof metering and flash systems, look elsewhere. If

you want an excellent viewfinder, ergonomics and image quality, give it a look. I enjoy using

mine and find its limitations don't much matter for my working style and subjects.

[craig_gillette]

I loved mine, my cousin loves it now. I went to Nikon because I was having trouble keeping up with some subject matter (and lens availabilty was problematic at that time. It isn't blazing fast in some situations. I have zero complaints about it's interface, quality or anything like that. Flash can be troubling but there are some ways to approach it for many types of subjects.

 

My only hesitation might be in the long term, if something breaks. it is an out of production item. There is an issue with first frame black but I think they've got that under control now.

[dw fletcher]

Great camera, but the AF is slow and many times inaccurate. Fast lenses will not help with the accuracy, or at least they haven't helped me. They help with speed, of course. When I got mine I had to send it back to KM twice and they never did really get it right.

 

Otherwise it's an awesome camera. From everything I've heard the a700 is better in every respect (flash, stabilization, noise) so it doesn't sound to me like Sony's simply keeping up with the megapixel race. With pixels, more is better as long as they're not noisier. Six is fine, though, for most shots. And when you do get your a700 the 7D will make for a great backup.

 

A classic? I'm afraid not. It'll be remembered for being an innovative camera, but no digital camera will ever be a classic. At some point in the future dSLRs are going to rival larger format film. Technology progresses. Film cameras will always be sought after, but I don't see people shooting with 20 year old dSLRs.

 

But all of that's off point. The 7D is still a very capable camera, and its only drawback that I can think of is the AF. It also tends toward underexposure but you can compensate for that. It would be at the top of my list if I were into KM/Sony lenses and an a700 wasn't within reach. Since I haven't used them, I cannot comment on the other bodies you were asking about.

[ricardovaste]

Well time will only tell about it becoming a classic. It is already certainly regarded as somewhat of a classic amongst <i>Minolta</i> users AFAIK (dyxum sources).<p><i><b>"My only hesitation might be in the long term, if something breaks. it is an out of production item. There is an issue with first frame black but I think they've got that under control now."</i></b><p>No need to worry about that luckly :). The <a href=http://www.camerarepairworkshop.co.uk/>Camera Repair Workshop</a> are excellent & have many years of repair supplies in them :)<p>I'm concerned about the AF issues you mention though, I've recommended the camera to my dad who is going to buy it soon...

[james_frater]

The electronics maybe a touch old, The 6mp is not, and more than enough. The camera in my opinion is still one of the best I have used in terms of layout. I love the dails, makes things so much easier.

 

I have had my hands on many DSLR's old and new, and I cannot understand why no one wants to put dails on top of the camera anymore like the 7D layout.

 

I still use the 7D (my only DSLR). It cost an arm and a leg when it first came out, and the build like someone said is like a tank. No weak points in my opinion.

 

Yes is may not be built like the Pro camera's which have to handle being thrown around. But more than enough for most.

 

I would buy the A700 too if it was cheaper, the A100 was not enough to make me drop my 7D. I say get it. It actually is a DSLR that feels like a true camera.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

Thanks to everyone! The af is not an issue for me, as I much prefer manual focus anyway..and prime lenses. I also do not shoot people or sport, it always seems to be static subjects.

 

Any recommendations on prime lenses between 14-100mm? Anyone tried the Sigma 30/1.4? or the older Sigma 24/2.8?..or the Minolta 28/2?

 

I will need a wide zoon though and cannot decide between the Sigma 10-20mm or the Minolta 11-18mm...anyone have any thoughts?

 

cheers Steve.

[dw fletcher]

If you're manually focusing then you should be happy with the 7D. Of all the cameras I checked out from its "era", I found that it had the best viewfinder. Far and away. I honestly haven't so much as laid hands on anything produced after the 20D and 7D, but I'm willing to bet that you'd have to go way up the price ladder to find a comparable viewfinder. Perhaps the A100 has the same viewfinder...I don't know. I haven't used one but I've seen it up close and it didn't look like a camera I'd want, even though its specs may be improved in a lot of respects.

 

Jimmy, I wouldn't say the AF is awful by any means. It's just inconsistent. For me. I bought the thing when it first came out, and they were having back-focus issues like crazy. So I imagine they were simply overburdened with repairs when I sent mine in and that may be why it didn't get righted. I would think the 7Ds produced later would be more accurate. I'd like to hear others' opinions on that.

[ricardovaste]

Steve, <p>

 

This sounds like the camera for you then :). The only advice i would give you in lenses is to avoid the Sigma 30/1.4. It needs to be stopped down an awful lot to get sharpness across the board. The colours are iffy too. Get the Minolta 35/2. FAR better performer, and just forget about the difference between f/2 and f/1.4 :).<p>

 

I currently have the 50/1.7 and 100/2.8 macro. Both first generation lenses so can be found at really good value. I picked them both up for 70 GBP together, though i got a steal on the macro. Expect to pay 150 GBP for the macro. Alternately, get the tamron 90/2.5 adaptall 2 lens, 30-50 quid, its as good as the sensor on the 7D so will be an excellent match.<p>

 

14/2.8 Tamron is meant to be a good performer, but VERY expensive. Better off sticking with a zoom here.<br>

15/3.5 takumar M42 lens - great performer but very hard to find. expensive.<br>

17/4 takumar M42 lens - great performer, quite expensive though<br>

17/3.5 tamron adaptall 2. excellent sharpness corner to corner, though few seem to use it on minoltas/sonys<br>

20/2.8 minolta - not an excellent performer. but you get the old minolta colours and bokeh<br>

20/1.8 sigma - i would probably go with this over the minolta. faster, focuses closer, EX build. Sharp stopped down. Though quite large.<Br>

24/2.8 - good solid minolta performer. will do find on the 7d<br>

24/1.8 sigma - really want this lens. goes to 1:2.8 macro reproduction. really sharp, beautiful bokeh. great build.<br>

28/2 minolta - really sharp, no duobt about that. bokeh is not pleasing though, but that might not be important<br>

35/2 minolta - really sharp, beautiful minolta colours and bokeh.<br>

34/1.4 minolta - well its G quality so you get excellent optics but at its premium price<br>

50/1.7 minolta - a must buy really. 40 GBP, ovely bokeh and colours, very sharp stopped down<br>

50/1.4 minolta - some say it is much better than the slower version, but its up to you weather its worth the extra cash<Br>

70/2.8 sigma - new lens so still pretty expensive but gets brilliant reviews.<br>

85/1.8/1.9 - takumar M42 lens. Good performer, nice bokeh, good alternative to the pricey minolta. SMC version quite expensive.<Br>

85/1.4 - great portrait lens obviously. some say its magical ;). the 1st generation version can be found for 350 GBP if you are lucky<Br>

90/2.5 tamron - great wide open, bargains about<br>

90/2.8 tamron - revised design, excellent choice if you like macro as the focus is ever so smooth<Br>

100/2.8 macro - depending upon weather you for for minolta or sony or which version you could pay from 150-450 GBP. great performer, but possibly only truely appreciated on film<br>

105/2.8 sigma - great performer. nice build. they can be found for 200GBP now.<p>

 

You could also include the minolta/sony 16/2.8 fisheye, but i assumed you wanted to keep everything rectolinear. But if not there is also the Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye.<p>

 

On the two zooms you mention. Just get what you fnid a good deal on. Neither one is faster optically, minimal f/length difference, and the reviews arnt much different as seen on dyxum.com I personally am going for the Sigma because of the EX build and slightly cheaper.<p>

 

There are many choices if you want to go longer, but you dont seem to want that gladly. <P>

 

Dont hesitate to ask anymore questions if need be.<p>

 

Hope that helps<br>All the best,<Br>Rich

[PaulCoen]

My only hesitation (as a 7D owner) would be the newly announced A200. The A700 is nice, but it's expensive, and the A200 intro seems to be timed to prevent having to discount the A700 anytime soon. Now that they're releasing something in the $600 range (about the same as a used 7D in good shape right now) that has a real VC control grip (unlike the A100) available, it's a harder decision. It'll depend on if the A200 improves picture quality substantially vs. than the A100, which just wasn't as good as it should have been. If the A200 drives used 7D prices down more, I'd probably still go for the 7D though :) I am glad they're introducing a VC grip on the low end model - I've had them for my 600si, 7 and 7D. It's sort of a "must" for me at this point.

[james_frater]

The focus on my 7D is fast and responsive, I have used the Canon 40D a bit of late (friends) and would not give up my 7D for that.

 

I mean I can point and shoot and most things and not have issues. As for back focus issues. Not an issue with mine, but was I know with other people.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi again,

 

Much thanks to all, especially Rich :) who has clearly spent some time on replying.

 

I am now looking for an exc 7D and also probably the Sigma 10-20mm and the Minolta or Sony 50/2.8 macro. I am also now stuck for a fast prime lens in the 30-40mm area...the comments about the Sigma 30/1.4 give pause for thought and the Minolta 35/2 seems very hard to find.

 

As a side issue, what adaptors are available for the Dynax mount?, clearly M42 are, but are there any others? Contax C/Y-Dynax would be great as I use Contax film gear. Were any of the manual focus Voigtlander SL lenses made in Dynax mount?

 

cheers Steve.M.

[dhe]

YES, it's still worth buying, well built and the 6MP is perfectly ok because it's the quality of the pixels that count in this camera and the less overcrowded sensor is capable of very fine results.

 

Dave

[rogerdaltx]

Hi Steve,

 

One question, do you have or have access to a legacy collection of Minolta Af lenses? If you don't may I suggest you have a look at a Pentax K10d before you buy a used 7D. The K10d is an amazing value and a very capable camera. Beachcamera.com / buydig.com has the body for $609 and it has a $100 rebate. You mentioned primes and that is one of Pentax's strong points. Their limited lenses while not exactly inexpensive have incredible build quality. And the system is compatible with almost every Pentax lens ever made; some 25 million of them. So manual and auto focus used lenses; many high quality and inexpensive are not too difficult to come by.

 

I shot Minolta for years as well as more recently Canon but over the last six months have made a near complete switch to Pentax. I am in no way disparaging the new Sony's. But if money is tight and you have no legacy glass for the system the Pentax offers amazing value great used glass options at reasonable prices and excellent IQ. It's worth a look.

 

/Roger

[r._dennis_martin]

Hi Steven, and others,

I stumbled onto this site and thread while looking for a Win2000 driver to allow me to upload pics from my Maxxum(Dynax) 7D while on a weekend trip to my laptop instead of waiting until I got home to do so with my Mac G5. Being a passionate Minolta owner since 1978 (an XG-7) and the current owner of a 7D, I had to jump into the discussion with my 2 cents.

I bought a refurb body back in 2006 to take advantage of my investment in AF lenses that I had picked up in the course of buying several Minolta Maxxums from pawn shops, at a very reasonable price. The 7D has been the sweetest and most capable camera, but at a cost. Being a volunteer firefighter (among other things), I've subjected the camera to some incredible situations, and the camera has gone back twice for different repairs (autofocus and shutter-lockup) under warranty. At present, the autofocus doesn't work (hasn't for almost a year) and it's past warranty. Due to the cost, I haven't sent it in for repairs yet, but also, I can't afford to go weeks or months without her...so I've soldiered on using manual focus. With a Minolta AF 75-300mm lens and a Quantaray 28-90mm lens, I shoot several hundred photos at a time on given events, never coming close to filling the 4 GB CF card, and not-so-infrequently shooting multiple action photos at full resolution JPEG at 3 fps with no problem. The manual knob, switch, and button controls are, in my opinion, much easier to work with and understand the functionality of over menu/icon driven displays on other cameras. The ability to push the ISO/ASA setting up to 3200 often allows long-range telephoto flash photography with good depth-of-field with shadow noise no worse than high-ASA film grain. The Quantaray QTB 9500A flash that I'd acquired with a Maxxum 5si some years ago was another legacy component that went right onto the digital 7D and makes it gangs of fun to shoot.

Battery life with the original KM battery is good...200+ photos before the battery is exhausted, and spares are affordable on eBay. I bought one that recently died for no apparent reason...the original, over 2 yrs. old is still carrying a good day's worth of shooting charge, and it rapid-charges in a hour.

The one caveat that I could provide otherwise is, the startup time is not competitive to other cameras, if you need to power up and start shooting right away. Even the power-up from standby can be a few seconds because the CF card, being a microdrive, has to spin up as well.

The question you have to answer for yourself is, do you have an existing family of Minolta lenses you wish to use, and are you a devoted, passionate Minolta user? If the answer is yes, then get one with no hesitation. The camera is rugged, the photo quality is great if you're a good photographer to begin with (I echo all the above color comments), and the controls will allow you to manipulate shutter speed with aperture and get the picture you want under many varied situations. If you're starting new...you might want to consider the Nikon family along with the Sony Alphas. Then it comes down to price, even factoring in the used Minolta lenses that may or may not be on the market.

It broke my heart the day Konica Minolta sold off the photographic division to Sony. If it didn't bother you a bit, there's no real reason to consider one. The Maxxum/Dynax 7D is a photographer's camera, not a point-and-look-at-the-screen-digital-Brownie. If you like what you've read and heard, you're not going to be disappointed with getting a 7D. Shop well. Oh, and what someone said above...to us diehard-all-I've-ever-owned-is-Minotas-types...it is a classic...a very powerful classic by which all others will be measured.

[dw fletcher]

CF cards are not microdrives, and my 7D is ready from stand-by just about immediately. I don't know why anyone would use a microdrive. Is there some advantage I don't know about?

[paj]

I love my 7D.

It's about as hands-on manual as you can get, if you like to have "knoby" control,(instead

of menu stepping), this is the camera to have.

And, as mentioned above, it's built like a tank.

 

 

I do LOTS of black and white stuff, I am old-style film junky...and this camera has made

me feel very comfortable with going DSLR. And the 6MP is all that for what I do.

 

I've got the Minolta 28/2

and the AF 50.

I use a Vivitar 28-210 with happy results.

 

 

 

Oh yah, and my Film SLR is an old Minolta SRT 201.

So what does that tell ya?

 

Good wishes.

 

 

p.s.

I too was disappointed when they went Sony. :(

[james_bocchino]

I put some pics from the 7D on Flickr. www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbobo

 

Leave a comment if you'd like.