Why don't you use Minolta SLR 35mm?

[duc quang]

Have you ever used Minolta Maxxum 7? Does it fit for nature

photograhy? I really need a camera with anti_dust and moisture like

Nikon F100? If you don't mind please compare Minolta Maxxum 7, Nikon

F100, Nikon F80, Canon EOS 3, canon EOS 7e. Thank you very much!

Because of rarely visit this forum, please send your answer

to: ducquang61182@yahoo.com

[ShunCheung]

This is too general a quation for this forum. This kind of topics has been discussed many times in the general forum. I'd say check the archives.

 

If you are a casual nature photographer, Minolta is fine. However, in these days, only Canon and Nikon have the extensive line of fast AF lenses, assessories, DSLRs ... for serious photographers to grow into. The problem is not just one camera body or a couple of lenses; it is the entire system, growth potential, the size of used market to buy and sell from, etc.

 

A short expiration for this thread.

[Two23]

The Minolta system has no lenses with the IS/VR feature. The choice was simple enough for me.

 

 

Kent in SD

[roto]

Would you like a coffee with your answer?

[joey]

I use a Minolta 35mm system extensively, including two Maxxum 7s and a number of lenses. These cameras can do everything you need them to, and they are very comfortable to use. There are a few gripes I have, though. First, the weather sealing could be better. It's fine in a light rain, but I would be worried about the camera in harsh conditions. Second, I would like a faster motor drive for sports, but that's not a big deal. The autofocus is more than fast enough.<br><br>

 

That said, Minolta has a very good and very underrated lineup. Unless you need IS/VR or an 800/5.6 lens, you won't be sorry you bought into Minolta. I think the Maxxum 7 is better than any of the cameras you mentioned above--the only more versatile cameras are the 1V and F5 (the Maxxum 9 doesn't have all the features of the 7, but it is built a little better). I'm leaving on a 5-week travel assignment in a few days, and I'm sure the Minolta can handle the job.<br><bR>

 

Hope this helps!

[kristian_s_oslash_rensen]

Don't let the "only top of the line AF lenses and SLRs made within the most recent two years can be used for proper photography - all other equipment are useless junk only used by idiots" mentality so prevalent on photo.net, affect your equipment choiches.

<p>

On my walls at home are images made with a no-name 3-element 200 mm lens that I bought in a shop for a price equivalent to five rolls of sensia 100 without processing. Also on the walls are images made with $1500 lenses. Visitors tend to point to an image made with the cheapo 10 years ago, of a fast moving circus artist, and say "ohh you should turn pro, it looks just like the images in the magazines". The camera behind the lens at the time of exposure was a Canon TX - their bottom of the line SLR from 1975. Did I just get lucky? No the rest of the roll has very nice images as well, not blurred and correctly exposed.

<p>

The reason I obtained better equipment was that the old stuff was falling apart, and I had the money to replace the cheap stuff with a comprehensible selection of very good lenses and two bodies.

<p>

What has the fancy top of the line equipment given me that I could not get with the 20+ years older bottom of the line stuff?

<ul>

<li>Better sharpness and color fidelity of long teles</li>

<li>Better coating == better contrast with light sources near or in the image</li>

<li>The ability to use fill flash with a shutter speed of 1/250 s. so it can be used for dancers and the like</li>

<li>TTL flash, especially with good center weighted or matrix meters</li>

<li>Zooms that has a prime-like optical quality</li>

<li>Auto focus, that results in more sharp images of fast moving subjects than manual focus, but is of no use in all the cases when I want to be carefull about focus and depth of field. It is also usefull at parties when you start getting too drunk to focus properly manually ;-)</li>

<li>Cameras with built in spot meters</li>

</ul>

 

<p>

If nature photography means a tripod mounted camera in front of a landscape, then do as the masters do, and buy a 4x5" large format camera (or larger). A good second hand set of a camera and three lenses can be obtained for less than a 28-70 f/2.8 wunder zoom, and yields much higher technical quality due to movements and due to the wastly larger film area. The are damn good at macro as well. If the cost of the film per shot for LF is a problem for you, then get any solid old 35 mm SLR and a bag of second hand lenses for the same amount of money, to put on your tripod.<br>

<a href="http://www.muenchphotography.com/">David Muench</A><br>

<a href="http://www.billatkinson.com">Bill Atkinson</A><br>

<a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com">Alain Briot</A><br>

<a href="http://www.clydebutcher.com/">Clyde Butcher</A><br>

</p>

 

<p>

If nature photography means flying birds and other wild animals moving around quickly, then you are best off with a pair of 35 mm fast long image stabilized lenses such as a 300 f/2.8 and a 600 f/4.0 combined with wimberley heads and fast SLRs. This is not exactly cheap, so get an old 300 f/4.0 + 1.4 TC or 400 f/5.6 with a matching SLR and spend enough days chasing wildlife with it, that you feel confident it really is something you want to pursue seriously before thinking about spending the big money.

<p>

[alex_lofquist]

Some years ago I came tantalizingly close to buying Minolta's top-of-the-line AF camera to replace my Leica equipment. The money that I had set aside for it was needed for an emergency so I didn't get it. As time went on, I began to research other systems: Nikon , Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Contax. Of the five, only Nikon and Canon had the features which I felt were important. There were just too many limitations to the others. Too bad, I had hoped that Pentax would have had more professional features as they had excellent optics. Eventually I based my selection on those features. It is not important as to my choice, as both systems are excellent. I think, of the ones that you mention, and for the purpose stated, the Nikon F100 or the EOS 3 would be equally acceptable.

[ShunCheung]

Unfortunately, some of our answers will make current Minolta owners unhappy. It is ture that if you only shoot landscape, modern features are not that helpful; in that case you don't even need a Maxxum 7.

<P>

But are you sure that you will never need fast AF with USM or AF-S, IS, modern TTL fill flash, DSLR, etc. etc.? Take a look at

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004p1H"> this thread</A> about the difficulty a current Minolta user faces concerning upgrading to DSLRs.

<P>

And even though you indeed don't need those modern features, what are the advantages Minolta gives you over Canon or Nikon? The only thing I can think of is that since Minolta is now out of favor, you might be able to pick up used Minolta equipment at deep discount. IMO, just because Canon and Nikon have a much larger used market is a good enough reason to stick with those brands.

[joey]

Shun,<br>

One of the big reasons I went with Minolta was the flash system. The TTL wireless flash is the best of any manufacturer. All you do is turn on a strobe off the camera, pop up the flash on the camera, and choose if you want a 2:1 lighting ratio or if the off-camera flash should provide all the light. It's really easy--no cords or anything. Also, with regards to USM/AF-S, Minolta will be releasing some new f/2.8 zooms and telephotos later this year with "SSM" (their version of USM). Still no IS, though.<br><br>

 

Cameras are just tools, and top-of-the-line models from any manufacturer are capable of high quality results.

[todd_caudle]

Because my Canon lenses won't fit on a Minolta body? Do I win?

[hique]

Nikon users also suffer when moving to DSLR.

 

Ai-s Lenses on D100?

 

Non-dx flashes on any DSLR?

 

That sux...a lot!

[christian deichert]

I do shoot with a Minolta 35mm camera. Four, in fact. They are between twenty and thirty-five years old, and I enjoy them very much.

[ben_lanterman1]

I had a Minolta Maxxum 7 and a lot of lenses and thought the world of it. It fit

the way I thought I guess. But I kept waiting for them to make it into a digital

version, and waited and waited and waited.

 

I sold all of the Minolta equipment and bought a Canon 1D and EOS3 and a

number of L lenses. The camera buttons are in the same places, the cameras

work fine and the IS lenses are useful at times.

 

The lack of a digital body was the final reason for switching.

[greg s]

"Nikon users also suffer when moving to DSLR."

Not me.

 

"Ai-s Lenses on D100?"

Yes, just completed 2 weeks of bird photography with an AIS lens (chip installed for $80)

 

"Non-dx flashes on any DSLR?"

On a Fuji S2 it's fine.

 

Studied the situation before I selected the Nikon supporting DSLR body.

[yakim_peled1]

It's the same old question - "which camera body should I buy ?" - and the same old answer. It's not the specific body which counts or the specific features it contains, it's "Which system is better for YOU ?". Changing a system is a very costly move so I advise you to this check well. I believe that for most amateur photographers, every system will do. However, if you really want to make this a serious hobby than Canon and Nikon have the largest selection of lenses and accessories. If you are interested in a DSLR, it's again those two, each will let you choose from several models. Pentax just made it's first DSLR and it seems to be an entry level one.

 

Now, Canon or Nikon ?

 

In addition to what's written in http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/general.html#which, http://photonotes.org/articles/why-canon, http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/canon-v-nikon and http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html (click on CANON vs. NIKON ? WHAT ABOUT MINOLTA ? AND PENTAX ?) I'd say that there is one major reason to prefer Canon over Nikon. When Nikon releases a new line of lenses, some of their features are not fully compatible with older bodies e.g. you have no light-meter readout or VR does not work. And "older" can be just 3-5 years old. See http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm and http://www.nikonlist.com/lens.htm for details. Useful even though VR and DX lenses are not listed. This can be VERY annoying and completely not understandable to anybody living in EOS land. Here, things are much more simple. Any EOS camera is fully compatible with any EF lens, period. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say something silly like "Canon is better than Nikon". I only say that life can be much easier in EOS land.

 

There are some minor reasons as well. For example, Canon's USM is much more abundant than Nikon's AF-S and generally cost less. Canon's IS is much more abundant than Nikon's VR. While optical quality is about the same, an advanced technology can be a very nice and handy thing. A note, to me they are the minor ones but for others consider them as major issues. It's what's right to YOU.

 

And if you do not want to ever mount an MF lens on your AF body, Canon have a larger selection of AF lenses. For landscape and buildings (straight ones, that is) you can't beat the 24/3.5 TS-E L. Some Nikon users bought an EOS body just to be able to use this lens. Others did so in order to get IS on their longest primes (e.g. 300/2.8 and 600/4).

 

MLU (Mirror lock up) is very handy feature for tripod shots. It is very rare in Nikon's AF bodies (I think that only the F5 has it) while is abounded in the EOS line.

 

Another unique feature of the Canon system is DEP mode. DEP mode allows you to designate near-far points of focus and the camera sets depth of field between those two points. In DEP mode, you merely focus on the nearest point you want sharp, then you focus on the farthest point you want sharp, then you re-compose your picture and the camera sets aperture, shutter, and focus to achieve the depth of field you designated.

 

Combine all the above with the fact that Canon's prices are the same as or less then Nikon's and you begin to understand the EOS dominance in recent years.

 

Remember that after you buy the body you invest large sums of money in lenses, flash etc. Thus, swapping a system is a very costly move so I advise you to first look carefully into the pros and cons of each system and then - and only then - choose the system which best suites your needs. From now on, choosing the right body is much easier.

 

Remember, though, that no system is perfect. Yes, although I am an EOS user and fan, I do not think it is perfect (e.g. http://www.behrens-home.de/photo/eoslimit.html). I think it is the best one for me. Each system has its pros and cons and you have to decide which is more suitable to you. Here are a few examples.

 

1. Canon and Nikon have the largest selection of accessories. Does that mean that you will not be happy with Pentax or Minolta ? Of course not. They have enough to make almost any amateur happy.

 

2. Canon's AF is considered to be superior to any other brand. This means a lot to the professional photographer but what does it mean to the average armature ? Just another thing to consider.

 

3. Nikon's flash metering is considered to be superior to Canon's. So what ? Take a look at any flash photo and try to guess which body did the photographer used. Any success ? No ? Why am I not surprised ? Because a good picture relates heavily on the photographer side. It's not what you have, it's how well you know its pros and cons. How and when to exploit the formers, how and when to override the latters and in what way. When to switch metering modes, when to bounce the flash, when to use a different focal length for a different perspective etc. I think you got the point.

 

Whatever you choose, shoot a lot and be happy.

 

Regards ,

Yakim.

 

BTW, all of those bodies are very good. Choose the right system and any of them will give you many satisfactory moments and pictures.

[ShunCheung]

My very first SLR was a Minolta SRT-101, purchased back in 1972. I was in 8th grade learning photography from a teacher who had a Minolta. Several fellow students all used Minolta; we used to go hiking together and interchanged lenses. Back then Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta all had strong product lines and there were also Olympus, Rolli, Mamiya (making 35mm cameras), etc. Nikon had more accessories but Minolta made all the important accessories and was a fine choice.

 

I thought that was a lot more healthy(?) competition and choices. Unfortunately, today, there are major holes in the products lines other than Canon and Nikon. For example, nobody else makes a 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 with build-in AF motor, an important tool for wildlife photographers. For all practical purposes, DSLRs with interchangable lenses are only available in those two lens mounts. (The ill-fated Contax DSLR is being discontinued, after a 2-year delay followed by 1 year of negligible sales.) If you want a large selection of IS/VR type lenses, Canon is pretty much the only game in town as Nikon still has a very limited selection.

 

It is very possible that Canon will pull further ahead and we'll soon have a monopoly in the 35mm SLR market. IMO that is a very unhealthy situation compared to the many valid choices we had 30 years ago.

[chris_browne]

I currently use Minolta and am quite happy with the equipment I have. I run a part-time photography business and I've never had someone refuse a sale because the print I was selling was shot with a Minolta camera.

 

Please allow me to address some of the issues raised above:

 

I understand that Minolta does not have all the lenses of Canon/Nikon (C/N). Minolta covers the 16-600mm range as well as anyone, with the exception of no 500mm lens (a potentially serious drawback for wildlife shooters who don't want to use a 600mm). Minolta does offer the only 400mm f/4.5 (and it's under $2000) - this is an extremely sharp lens that is a great compromise between weight, speed and expense.

 

Minolta does not currently have a DSLR. Quite true, and a lot of people have abandonded the line because of that. But seriously, how many people NEED DSLRs? There seem to be two types: 1) working professionals who are tired of spending thousands of dollars on film. Now these folk can spend thousands of dollars on a new top of the line body each year instead. If your competition is so fierce that ONLY the latest DSLR body will provide you with marketable shots, then this makes sense for you. 2) people who need/enjoy the instant feedback DSLR's offer. Although I admit it can be a useful feature, most modern cameras (including the Maxxum 7 and 9) have matrix metering that is hard to fool. And shouldn't most pro shooters have the experience and knowledge to get the exposure right without having to look at the little screen after every shot? I seem to not have many exposure problems shooting with my Maxxum 7 (the only camera that provides a readout of what each of the 14 metering segments are reading vs the locked exposure - check this and you can see for sure if your composition is within the exposure latitude of your film). Actually there is a third type, those who feel insecure about not having the latest gear to flash in front of their camera club 'buddies'.

 

Most of this is potentially moot point anyways. Recent rumours floated by some Minolta and non-Minolta reps both here and overseas suggest Minolta will be releasing a DSLR by year's end. Not confirmed of course, but logically, how could they not? Yes, they do not have Canon's RD power (even Nikon doesn't as evidenced by the fact they are falling more and more behind Canon every day), but their consumer digi-cam line up is competitive with everyone else and I suspect they are using that market to work the kinks out before offering a DSLR, knowing it will be out of date soon after it is released anyways. But let the record show I am hoping their DSLR will be competitive with the 10D and will be interested in getting one if it is (so I can check the screen after every shot and fit in with everyone else).

 

Minolta is set to soon begin shipping their new scanner, the Elite 5400. This will be the most feature-full and hi-res scanner available for under $1000. Those photographers who would like to display or print images digitally will have a high quality option in this scanner. Yes, it's an extra step in the workflow, but it has advantages as well (if you like your films palette better than your CCD's, for example).

 

As mentioned above, Minolta is releasing SSM lenses with faster autofocus, albeit 10 years or so after the technology was available. Again, you don't know you need this unless you have it, and I imagine few actual shooters truly need this (AF speed is partially driven by the camera, and the Maxxum 7 is one of the fastest AF bodies available). If you are shooting professional hockey and basketball to feed yourself, then yes, maybe Minolta is not currently for you. But I imagine these pros are not the kind of people who spend all day on photo.net.

 

Canon is clearly leading the field with image stabilization technology. While I enjoy shooting handheld in certain situations, I find pushing Provia 100 a stop or using Provia 400 allows me the same advantages of a couple extra stops speed with only minimal loss of image quality, if any. The new Velvia 100 will help also. Further along this line of thought, decent DSLR's allow you to shoot up to 400 or even 800 ISO with again minimal loss of image quality. Does it not seem that this will make IS somewhat redundant? And when on a tripod you can't use it anyways, right? Don't get me wrong, I think IS is great and I wish Minolta lenses offered it, but for the casual shooter right up to the semi-pro like me there are ways around not having it. We'll see what the future holds.

 

I have stuck with Minolta so far for a number of reasons. I'm stubborn. I can't afford to switch anyways, and Minolta gear is available used for a steal these days. These are quality optics. I'd rather have a full lens line-up on my budget and shoot with a Maxxum 7 (hoping for a DSLR I can afford in a year or two) then switch now and only have 28-200 mm available with what I could afford. Plus I doubt any body other than the Maxxum 7 would be as intuitive and fun to use. Plus their wireless flash system rocks, their 100mm macro is rated sharpest of all 3, etc etc.

 

If someone gave me a bag with $20,000 cash in it, I'd go buy Canon stuff. Or if I was depending on my gear to provide me all my income I'd consider it also. But as a semi-pro who is growing his business and financing it out of our family budget (augmented with occasional sales) I need to use what I got and not sweat the details.

 

This post may seem to some like a huge feel-good self-justification for sticking with a losing system, but that's a little arrogant I think. All those great photos taken before 1990 are still quite good. Yes, maybe exceptional technique was required whereas nowadays a fat tourist with a 10D and IS lenses might luckily get the same shot (after checking the LCD to be sure - as sure as HE can be - that the exposure is correct) from the window of his RV, but it was possible, and I'll bet, quite rewarding. If I seem defensive it's perhaps because people dismiss Minolta gear as second rate, while we all know deep down inside that you can't tell the pictures on my website were made with a Minolta anymore than I can tell yours are Canon. Use what you like, use what you can afford and what makes sense, and have fun doing it.

 

I wonder if artists 500 years ago had discussions about what type of brushes they used and whether IS-brushes helped them make more sales?

 

Cheers everyone, and please don't turn someone away from any type of gear just because it's not what you use.

 

CB

 

www.chrisbrownephotography.com

[chris_browne]

I forgot to mention that if Michael Reichmann (www.luminous-landscape.com) is correct in his assessment that the 1Ds' sensor is out-resolving even Canon's best (optically) lenses, then we'll all be buying new lenses soon enough anyways if we need the absolute sharpest images possible to stay in business.

 

So even if people feel they can switch to Canon and get used stuff reasonably cheap they'll still be behind the curve as these new lenses designed for the latest CCD's and CMOS's are developed and released.

 

And don't worry, the marketing folks at Canon will make us all feel inferior for having anything but the latest optics. It's amazing how much these sentiments drive our consumerism in the photography world.

 

CB

 

www.chrisbrownephotography.com

[ShunCheung]

I think the issue is more like the other way around. If you are still using Minolta today and don't feel any problems, it means your style of photography doesn't require the new features missing from Minolta. I think Kristian puts it very well. If you specialize in large-format landscape work, those cameras haven't changed in decades and have zero high-tech features.

 

I happen to need my 500mm/f4 AF-S and D100 very much, but not everybody does. If you are a Minolta, Pentax, Olympus or whatever user and are happy with what you have, just ignore this thread as it won't make you feel good. If you are new into nature photography, IMO it is unwise to get into any camera system that has a lot of holes in it toolset; you'll never know when you might need those missing parts. New technologies are introduced into small-format photography every year. Unfortunately, the gap between the market leader(s) and the rest of the field is widening, not narrowing.

[marcus_erne]

I am using Minolta 35mm systems for 13 years now. Nowdays, for some 7 years, I use the Maxxum/Dynax line with aufofocus.

 

Although I am very happy with my Dynax gear, and especially with my Maxxum/Dynax 7 body, I am not sure whether I would choose Minolta as "my" brand again. Don't misunderstand me, I am not starting a brand war, and my Minolta equipment can do all it needs to do, plus Minolta offers a very affordable 400mm lens!

 

My major reason for Canon is the rapid and advanced development in the digital and optical arena that has been shown by Canon throughout the last years. No doubt that you must pay for what you get/want (e.g. IS and DO lenses) with Canon. But at least you can get advanced equipment when you can afford it!

 

I would love to go digital now-now, but would have to switch brands for at a substantial loss when I sell my Minolta gear! As my funds are too limited at the moment, I am giving Minolta only one more year to come out with either a DSLR or an advanced Dimage 7xx to bridge my digital needs!

[michael_mitchell8]

If anyone wants to sell their Minolta gear, I'll be a package for 1500$ US... email me at Intrinsic@ToughGuy.net