OK, blast away!

[samn]

I have a few Minolta cameras. An X9, numerous lenses, a 7000, the the beercan, a

1.4 50mm and an 1.4 28mm auto focus, and a A200 with all the lenses available

for it. I have seriously been looking to upgrade the A200 as it has many miles

on it and a few limitations a DSLR would eliminate.

 

After very carefully looking at the Sony line, reading reviews and

specifications I could not do it. There is just no justification for me to

upgrade a feature rich 4 year old camera with a few limitations to any new

camera in the Sony lineup. I simply could not justify the expense. Instead I

bought a Maxxum 7 demo from Adorama. So, I'll continue to shoot 35mm and use the

A200 as well.

 

Maybe the Sony lineup will improve. Something full frame in the Cannon 5D range

would help sway me if they kept the current lens configuration. I have heard

there are problems with in body A/S and full frame. I hope they can get it

straightened out or Sony cameras may end up going the way of Minolta cameras.

[james_frater]

There is no way Sony will go the way of Minolta and end up vanishing. You are looking at one of the biggest companies in the world across the digital, media, and electronics world.

 

You should have bought the A700, great camera.

[samn]

Jimmy, for what benefit to me? So I can say I have a new A700 that has what? More megapixils. I'm printing 13X19 now with the A200, no problem, and it has similar features. I'm not saying that the Sony cameras are bad, only that they are not offering me enough to upgrade.

[Karim Ghantous]

Well, my friend has an Alpha and I rather like it. We'll see what Sony does with the 24x36mm sensor later in the year.

[david_stanton1]

Sam -- I have an A1 and an A2, and generally agree with you. I find the lens on each to be excellent. The anti-shake is great. The 28mm equivalent wide angle is very useful. The range of the lens is fine. So I was in precisely the same frame of mind as you are. Then someone in a forum (perhaps here) mentioned that Sony was selling refurbished Alpha 100s with full equipment as came in the original box and with a full factory one year warranty, cheap! I was hooked. I certainly like mine and the A2 has been on leave from action.

 

But generally I agree with you.

 

Dave

[samn]

David - I might go for something like that. That way I am not into all those $$ (A700) that really doesn't give me that much in return. I'll check out Sony's site and see if they still have any. As for the Maxxum 7 that I just purchased, I definitely don't feel bad about owning a 35mm of that caliber.

[ricardovaste]

Hi Sam :)

 

I think one of the problems here is your justification of your spendings and your end results.

 

End results: If you are happy with the A200 results, i agree, why upgrade? If you can afford to continue shooting 35mm, why stop? The Dynax 7 is not just an excellent camera, its one of the best every made. I'll never let mine go.

 

Personally, for me, after going digital (8 or so months ago) I cant get away from it. Its just in my 'mind set' now... shooting RAW, thinking more carefully for how i want the photo to look and how to shoot in camera, for after camera. Furthermore, as my first camera was an SLR (35mm) i would never dream of moving away from SLR photography in persuit of digital. So if was were to shoot digital, i would NEED and WANT the versitility of interchangable lenses and flashes and all the other features they come with.

 

Justification of spending; Well, if nothing is wrong, why fix it eh? Personally, I dont think the people who buy the A700 do it so they can "say they have it". Many people have been waiting many years for a camera of this caliber, and have had funds put back waiting for it. And now, how do you value your photos? No, not many of us get paid for them. But where is the boundary? I dont drink, i dont smoke, i dont do drugs; I take pride in spending a great deal of my money on the hobby that I choose, which allows me to stimulate a creative side of myself, along side my paintings. How much you spend on a hobby should be an easy justification, if its just not 'up there' on your list, then thats where it is, you shouldnt feel presured into buying simply because there are other options emerging.

 

Finally, I have no doubt that a DSLR system would be more versitile to you, that a 10MP or 14MP APS-C sensor would blow away any prints from your A200 at the 13x19 inch margin. DSLR's really arent that expensive; Sony A200? Sony A100? Those can be found VERY cheap nowa days, for not much more than you payed for your Dynax 7. The results can be stunning of course, but its about working with a system, rather than just having a 'digital option'. My dad uses a 7D, that is still a great camera - its had a new aperture assembly put in too, so it will last a fair while :-).

 

Just my thoughts on the matter. Not sure what the question was though, you seem to be throwing out your decision on here, with hope of some feedback i guess, as that always helps me, so I hope that helps you.

 

Best regards,

 

Rich

 

p.s.

 

This 1.4/28 lens sounds interesting ;-)

[robert_paul1]

"Maybe the Sony lineup will improve. Something full frame in the Cannon 5D range would help sway me if they kept the current lens configuration. I have heard there are problems with in body A/S and full frame. I hope they can get it straightened out or Sony cameras may end up going the way of Minolta cameras."

 

Apparently you have been living under a rock. Sony has shown a prototype of a Full-Frame 24+ MP DSLR using the existing A-mount lenses that WILL have in-body A/S, now called Super Steady Shot. The camera will be released by the end of this year, most likely at Photokina, held in Germany during October.

[james_frater]

I came from a 7xi, to a 7D to an A700. I have used the A100, and also the A200. For me the the A700 sensor gives me better results than those fore-mentioned camera's. The results between my 7D and A700 are just simply a world apart.

 

Bottom line is you buy the best you can afford or are willing to spend.

 

If you cannot justify the cost within yourself, then you do not buy it.

[steve_c.5]

For the record, Sam is saying he has a Konica Minolta A200, which is a very different camera than the new Sony A200. Those get confused sometimes and you have to differentiate.

 

Sam, if you're happy with what you're using, more power to you. What's the complaint, anyway? That the new Sony models cost too much to switch? They're not "good enough" yet? Of course, each of us has to judge these things for ourselves. But, I really think you're not giving the A700 a fair shake (or anti-shake). Perhaps you've not held one or used it for awhile. Maybe your kind of shooting would not take full advantage of these new camera's features?

 

I'm not saying you need to go spend over a grand on an A700. But if your shooting demands that a camera be "light years" ahead of what you're using now (and to me, the A700 already is), and the A700 does not impress you, then perhaps the new A900 will when it drops soon. It will be over $3000, though, and I don't know that it will be worth it to you at that price, other than the fact that your full frame Minolta glass will drop right on it just fine.

 

I think you're being too picky, and stuck in the past (by using film and not fully embracing digital). But, that's really not for me to judge. Life is short. Do what makes you happy.

[samn]

Robert - "Apparently you have been living under a rock. Sony has shown a prototype of a Full-Frame 24+ MP DSLR using the existing A-mount lenses that WILL have in-body A/S, now called Super Steady Shot. The camera will be released by the end of this year, most likely at Photokina, held in Germany during October".

 

I read the same rumor or maybe it isn't. But, I also read that it will be in the $5K to $7K price range. A pro camera. That would be wonderful and worth waiting for, but I'm not a pro. $5000 up for a pro camera is not where I will be going. So, what it comes down to is a prosumer camera, full frame, in the $2500 range, something like the 5D. I also read (rumors) that there were problems with "Super Steady Shot" (A/S is easier to type) in a full frame body. Thats why Nikon and Cannon have gone with in lens stabilization. All of this is just speculation. The fact is that Sony does not have a camera presently that I am willing to buy.

 

Steve - There are many wonderful photographers shooting film or both film and digital. I plan to do the same. The Minolta A200 is not enough camera for me presently, thats why I'm looking. At any rate, I'll kick back for a while and see what develops (excuse the pun).

[carbon_dragon]

I won't say whether you did the right thing or not because the right thing can only be defined as what is right for you. I was using a variety of 35mm cameras when DSLRs finally started to be interesting (cheap enough/high enough in quality) enough to consider.

 

I had Minolta AF cameras already, so I was able to buy a KM 5D pretty cheaply and it constituted my toe in the water. Even at 6.1MP, the results were very competitive with my 35mm landscape (amateur) work and the immediacy of being able to see the results turned out to be pretty seductive. I didn't like the APS sized sensor though.

 

The A100 came out, but didn't seem like the solution to my problem, so I eventually bought a Canon 5D and 24-105/4L lens along with a 50/1.4. The MPs were high enough and the camera was full frame. The results were everything I hoped for, much better than I could achieve with my current film scanner, almost like a medium format camera. Since I like the wide angles and the 50mm lenses, and since the equivalent in APS is 35mm and since 35mm lenses are prohibitively expensive in Minolta Sony, I was forced out of Minolta/Sony and into Canon. I like the new Sony A350 model and it might work as a backup camera, but I'm glad I went digital and full frame digital at that. If Sony came out with a full frame digital body that would be pretty tempting.

[james_frater]

Ohhh you are talking about upgrading from a KM A200 digicam.

 

Well............. I have this camera. I can tell you with one million percent honesty. That camera and what it produces is nothing compared to the quality of a Sony DSLR, let alone even the older KM 7D and 5D models.

 

As I said, I upgraded to the 7D, and the KM A200 results paled into comparison. In my earlier response I did not even mention I had the KM A200. Cause it is a digicam, and honestly not even worth mentioning when comparing it to my DSLR's.

 

I thought you were talking about the Sony A200 DSLR. But if you are talking about the KM A200 digicam. Then you really need to try and use a DSLR, and if you cannot see the difference in performace and quality of your results. Then you ain't looking hard enough.

 

Just the noise level alone will improve your image quality with a new Sony DSLR.

 

Get a DSLR, no doubt about it. you will in no way regret it. get the Sony A200 if you do not want to dish the money for the A700.

[ricardovaste]

If you are waiting, why are you talking? Are we hear to convince you that the A700 is the way to go? We're not going to do that, as you seem to have already made up your mind. But as you post now, are you in a rush to buy? Why not just switch and get a 5D? Or is this posting just you trying to convince yourself of your Maxxum 7 purchase maybe?

 

The A900 is expected to be in the 3000-3500USD range, not the range you mention. It is also marked as a 'flagship' camera, and not 'pro'.

 

I accept that there are still many excellent film shooters using our mount. A poster on here, Jed Smith, for example... you might want to look up his work. But he sticks with film because he can afford it, he likes its qualities, and he gets good enlargements out of it... though he fully accepts the 12MP APS-C of the A700 is near identical to his scans. But you seem to be 'hovering in between'... and you havent given any background on what you like to shoot etc etc. Seeing as 13x19 is your 'largest/preference', I do not know what is holding you back from the A700? I got a 18x12 from the A100 not so long ago, stunning stuff, not a fault. I was very suprised TBH.

 

But, like some have said, its your choice and you have already made it...

[samn]

Thanks all of you for your responses. I suppose I am trying to validate and investigate. Because of my indecision and inability to get all wound up over the A700 I'll probably wait for the A900. $3500 would be at the very high end of my capabilities. The article that I read did put it distinctly in the pro class, saying that Sony and Nikon had agreements over pricing account Sony was producing this CCD for Nikon, and that the Nikon was expected to be in the $6000.00 class. I can't cite the article though.

 

I'm not advocating film over digital. A really good 35mm seems like a good alternative right now if I can't get all wound up over the present Sony lineup. I've never stopped shooting film and enjoy it, have equipment to do it with, and I don't want to switch to Nikon or Canon.

[jamesdak]

Hi Sam,

 

I just read through all the posts and thought I'd chime in. First congrats on the Maxxum 7, a wonderful camera. I really enjoyed all the years with mine.

 

As to the Sony DSLRs, they seem to be pretty good products now but as you may already know, the workflow with digital is different. I held out for many years until finally buying a K/M 7D in 2006. Even though I had a DSLR I thougt I'd never quit shooting film. But you may find, as I did, that digital can be quite rewarding.

 

Like one of the other posters I too left the world of Minolta for my digital work. I know shoot two Canon's including a 5D. The full frame is sweet without a doubt and pretty cheap nowdays. If the Sony FF, it is coming, is just the equal of a 5D it will be worth putting some serious money down for it. So, if your gears not holding you back then bide your time and wait to see what Sony does. Then you can decide if you want to go that route.

 

I honestly hardly ever break out film nowdays. I mean I can go shot and print all in one day and that is sweet. Heck I can even combine a few digital images now to give me a final print that rivals or beats what I used to get shooting Velvia in my old Mamiya 645.

 

Checkout this link, this is a downsized image shot with a FF DSLR. It was either 6 or 8 (I don't remember) images combined. Ignore the dust as this was a working copy:

 

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/87408333

 

Good luck with your decision.

[steve_c.5]

If film makes a person happy, then I say use it. I just don't see what there is to be happy about with it, however. You have no idea what your image will look like until it comes back from the lab (or unless you have a darkroom with messy chemicals to develop and print yourself). Film is harder and harder to come by (wonder why? maybe cuz it's DEAD). Sometimes it doesn't engage the teeth right when you're loading it and you strip the holes out. You only have 36 exposures until you have to load up again (how many rolls of film would you have to load to get thru a Catholic ceremony?). If you want to get it into a computer format, you have to do a hi-res scan of some description, resulting in either an expensive film scanner, or the expense of having your lab create a photo CD. If you're shooting something like a wedding, and you have high speed film for shooting in the church, but you suddenly transition outside, you are stuck with the wrong film in your camera with no time to change it (I know, second body, still a pain in the butt). If you capture with T-max, you're stuck with black and white forever, but if you capture digitally, you can have color AND black and white forever. With film, there is only one set of negatives, and if they get lost or screwed up, you're screwed. With digital, redundant backup is a breeze.

 

Need I go on? Nahh, I've gone far enough astray from the original subject. I don't mean to turn this into a digital/film battle, but I just don't understand this romanticism people have with film, clinging to it like an old teddy bear.

 

But Sam, I do think you're right not to want to switch to Nikon or Canon, when the Sony platform fits your lenses and will surely produce something you'll love (or at least like). :)

 

"Some-daaay, my prints will come..."

[ricardovaste]

I can understand, in your line of work Steve, that film can almost be joked about. Digital may have changed your workflow and many things about your photography, but does that mean that it is dead for everyone? That some talented people dont have to worry exposure etc etc because they have mastered it?<p>

 

Its true, you cant work without it. But for some, there work is BETTER with film and they 'cling' to it because of its high qualities. I dont mean to point him out again, but <a href=http://photo.net/photos/jedtsmith>This guys old gallery (not updated) shows how film can shine for a landscape photographer</a> where you rely on technique and dont need instant results. This work is some to be admired IMHO, even if it is quite old/not updated by him for a while. <a href=http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=2088889>There was also this guy, that used to use a selection of minolta primes and a dynax 7... but i think he may have moved upa format since, some of them are still with the 7 for sure though, he was featured in a UK magazine some years ago</a>.<p>Now, as inspriing as this work if for me personally, I'll never "seriously" go back to film. I might shoot an odd roll of B&W (as i have a darkroom) just for the fun of it (if you can call it that ;)), but even my low end A100 body has transformed my photography TBH, but i wont blabber about that. A full frame DSLR would really silence that voice in my head pondering over the qualities of film though :)<p>No doubt it would also destroy my bank account....

[steve_c.5]

Hey, I understand your points, Richard. Like I said, if film makes a person happy...it just doesn't make ME happy.

 

Best!

[samn]

As a serious hobbyist I enjoy the work flow and the results of film. I enjoy just as much the convince and functionality of digital. To me, they are the same, only one is more work. I even like the chances you are forced to take with film Steve. This post was not about that though, but it seems to have taken on the eternal debate of film over digital. Now everyone seems to have to justify the digital work flow. I remember belonging to the Nikonians group when digital just started to get popular. It was these similar arguments only in reverse. "Digital can never have the quality of film" and on and on. "You shoot too many shots with digital". You don't take your time and compose with digital". To me each has its place. If I am in a situation that I know is going to require a lot of shots, of course digital. If I am composing a landscape on a tripod and going to shoot 5 or 10 shots I may decide on film for some reason. No big deal either way.

 

At the risk of starting another debate, I do like the advantages of the increased tonality that film seems to give me. Especially in very bright situations like glare on water. I like the grain of Tri X 400 and I like the saturation of Velvia 50. (I know you can do it with Photoshop)

[timb196]

Just to chip in! I think you will find that any comments regarding SSS and the full frame are just speculation and have no foundation in fact..

 

The ex Minolta engineers now at Sony have had over 10 years to figure it out and the actual movement is actually very small. I think it is reasonable to assume that Sony introducing FF SSS will have spent considerable time working out any bugs and testing it. I especially say this since SSS is going in the Flagship camera and clearly you would not want to introduce that camera with a specific reliability/or failure mode.

 

Cheers

Tim

[glyn r]

The nearest Sony DSLR with all the KM A200 features and better image quality is the A300, this camera or the A350 have the live view tilt screen as well as an optical viewfinder.You could of course go to an Olympus E-3. I always thought the A200 was inferior to the A2 as an all in one camera.

[steve_c.5]

Great insights on film, Sam. As I say, if film fits your work, then use it, for sure. I'd never tell someone they're crazy for shooting film, particularly if they're a serious hobbyist, or like to do fine art/landscape things with it. You certainly don't have to tell me the incredible quality even a cheap Hassleblad (relatively speaking) can produce for fine art portraiture or stuff like that. I've even toyed (pun intended) with the idea of picking up a $25 Holga and playing with it for creative effects. Then, I just talked myself out of it. As I say, life's short. Use what makes you happy!

[glyn r]

Just been looking at my scans from my 700si. They are not in the same league as images from my A350 or my E-330. I could not go back to film seriously again even though all the processing kit is in the attic.

[drjedsmith]

Wow, it's been a while since I've been here. Nice to see some familiar names and a few new ones.<BR>

Glyn, you need to try either better film or use a better scanner. ;-)<BR><BR>

Sam, congrats on the 7. Wonderful camera. Just got my 9 back from Runtime in Germany...shipping was expensive, but upgraded to SSM/ADI compatible now.<BR><BR>

RE: your thoughts on digital being worth the money - it is, if you shoot a lot. I like color transparencies and they are not cheap to shoot or process. This is coming from a film die-hard [landscape photographer - if I was into action photography like my wife, I would have gone digital with her back in the 7D days.]<BR>

The results from the latest round of DSLRs, such as the A700 are beginning to rival my best scans of Velvia in 35mm format. I have tested this with top lenses such as the Minolta 100mm macro. You will not lose anything by shooting film in that Maxxum 7, which you now own, so go use it.<BR>

But, you would not really lose much by purchasing a nice DSLR and shooting with it, either. The sensors & camera response time are now good enough and the time has come for many...and will probably come for me someday as well. When I can afford a full frame Sony DSLR, that will probably be the day.<BR>

 

Jed