minolta body

[rachel_warren]

I am a keen amateur nature photographer who had manual canon

equipment about 15 years old : a canon AL1, 500mm f8 mirror

lens and 70-210 zoom & 50mm lens. I did landscape and bird

photography. I now face the bewlidering advances in tech

having to replace all this since the entire kit was stolen!

[i got good amateur pictures before, only the mirror lens of

course, required a tripod in poor light, and was hard to focus

(especially since it had manual focus), and I needed a macro.]

My budget is #300 ish for camera, up to #1000 for lenses.

In addition I may get a macro lens & flash but will not discuss

this here and would be in addition to the #1000 mentioned above.

Camera bodies in this price range include Nikon F60, which

is too heavy for me; Minolta Dynax 500 si (light with

spot metering needed for bird photog, multiple expo and

bracketing also needed for same) - but no dept of field

preview, which is variously reported as 'useful' and

'essential' for macro photography which I intend to extend to;

and Pentax MZ5 which has spot metering and depth of field

preview but not multiple expo (though it had continuous

drive). I realise that I would benefit from mirror lock,

but this is only available on expensive bodies and I would

rather spend the money on a longer lens. The ability to

take succesive pictures very rapidly is also clearly related

to the very expensive models, but I can live with the

continuous drive modes offered by the above. I am puzzled

as to why, given that there are so many questions as to

whether mirror lock or depth of field preview is really

needed for the serious amateur why are these models of cameras

not discussed very much? If one is buying a top of the range

camera, then one would go for canon or nikon, but it seems to

me that if one is not, what is wrong with a 'whizzy' Minolta

505 SI super dynax or pentax MZ5? The bottom of the range

Canons are more expensive and 'plasticy' and the Dynax

super has a metal lens holder which would seem more durable.

The only other question is to the relative quality of the

lenses available - but the 400 mm f5.6 Sigma (APO?) lens

has good reviews, which would match all camera types. I will

decide between that or equivalent and a 500 mm mirror lens

(I am familar with the adv and disadv of the latter! Tempted

to try a 400mm f5.6 with 1.4x converter instead, but worried

about weight - my photog always involves a lot of walking

about usually carrying a birding telescope as well as

a camera!)

I guess the fundamental wish is for some advice on the choice

of a cheaper camera body without the luxuries of mirror lock

or fast picture taking, but with bracketing and spot

metering, in order to keep cost down. My feeling

is that spot metering is much more necessary for bird

photography than either of the other two things. For

macro photopgraphy I would have to rely on a table plus

experience to get a feel for the depth of field. Camera choice

needs to take into account the availability of high quality

lenses in my price range. (Price wise, I think prices in

$USA are about the same as in # here, you cannot use the

exchange rate to convert!). Most people on this web site

seem to use very expensive canon and nikon professional

bodies, but these are out of my budget. I also have to bear

in mind that there will be times when since already

carrying a birding telescope on a tripod, the camera and its

lens will need to be hand held.

Many thanks,

Rachel Warren

[mark_van_bergh1]

Rachel,

 

It is almost (but not quite) blasphemy to suggest using something other than Nikon or Canon equipment for nature photography, but I agree with you (I am a high-end Minolta shooter). But I believe you are basically correct. It is most unfortunate that people tend not to look at the quality, features and value that Minolta and Pentax offer to users, particularly in the price range you are considering. In addition to the models you suggested, you might also want to consider getting a higher range model on the used market (I quickly noticed that you can get a used Minolta 600si for about 300 pounds or a 700si for about 350 pounds - the latter has all the 505si features plus depth of field preview, faster AF and film advance, and is better built than the 505si). As for lenses, there are a few relatively exotic lenses that Canon and Nikon have that Minolta and Pentax do not, although the latter two offer some lenses the former do not as well. But all of these are out of your initial price range. Minolta has a quite excellent 400/4.5 lens which works well with converters (including maintaining AF with the 1.4x - but also is out of your initial price range), and an AF 500 mirror (if that's your inclination). If you go with independent brand lenses then the quality will be the same regardless of the make of body you get. Of the manufacturer's lenses in the price range you suggest, all manufacturers have some good lenses and some mediocre lenses (for example, you could get Minolta 24-85 and 100-300 APO lenses which will stack up as well or better than anything the other manufacturers have to offer in the same price range, and better than the independents). Again, you may want to consider what you can get on the used market as well. You may also want to consider whether image stabilization would be a useful feature for you. If so, then at this time you're basically limited to Canon, although Nikon is beginning to come out with this feature (at least in one lens), and who knows what the other manufacturers may have up their sleeves.

 

Depth of field preview is certainly a useful feature and it is unfortunate that the 505si and most other cameras in that price range lack this capability. However, more critical to me in getting quality images is proper exposure, and here bracketing and a spot meter function are most useful, as you suggest. Additionally, test reports in some British magazines (assuming you can believe them) suggest that the Minolta and Pentax metering systems are a bit better than the others, particularly in your price range. As you noted, you can use a chart to guage depth of field. But that won't help if your images are over or under exposed.

 

In conclusion, don't let the prejudices of some people persuade you that you cannot obtain a high quality and cost effective nature photography kit centered around a Minolta or Pentax body.

[piotr_mikolajczyk]

Dear Rachel,

 

I was in your shoes a couple of years ago (switching from Minolta X-700). You did quite a lot of homework. Let me throw in a couple of cents.

 

One: I consider the possibility to check depth of field really essential. This primarily pushed me to Canon vs. Nikon (you're right, in Nikon some important-for me- features were available only on expensive higher end bodies, and some of them only after getting an expensive data back). Not only does Canon have the DOF preview on its low-end new Rebel, but it only has a nifty DEP program in which you can easily determine your desired DOF zone.

 

But I have to admit that I was also considering Minolta at some point and I was attracted mostly to 800si or the very nice retro-style (IMO) 600si Classic with an amazingly wide array of features (including spot and flash exposure compensation, another very useful thing to have, IMO). Don't know much about Pentax, sorry.

 

I think you have the right approach to get a cheaper body and save money on decent lenses. Also, you may find that after some time you will be able to upgrade to a higher-end body (such as 800si Minolta or EOS-3 for Canon) and will keep your low-end body as a backup.

 

Happy snapping,

 

Piotr

[cliffcalhoun]

Rachel,

 

The lenses and bodies from Minolta and Pentax are very capable of high quality images. Some people prefer Canon or Nikon for the availablity of new/used lenses, among other things.

 

I looked at the Minolta AF system when I switched from my Minolta X-700, but I liked the feel of the Canon bodies better and the reputation of their lenses. Also, the AF was faster on the A2/EOS 5 vs. Minolta 500/600si.

 

As others have suggested, look for the lenses that you want, and go with the system that will work best for YOU.

 

I would suggest buying the lenses from Minolta, Canon, Pentax, etc. for the best quality glass and assured reliability for your chosen camera body.

 

As for lens choice, consider a 28-105 and 70-210 zooms. Also, Minolta has a 100-400 f4.5-6.7 Apo for $700USA that might work for your long lens (not sure if it works with the 1.4x). The 28-105 and 100-400 also might be a good combination for your needs and still be "close" to your budget.

 

Good luck.

[Michael Eckstein]

Rachel last October I switched from Minolta to Canon. I had an extensive Minolta

investment. Three bodies, nine lenses, flash, ring flash etc. The reason I switched is

that I became very interested in bird photography. I found the Minolta autofocus

inadequate for in flight pictures unless the bird was flying directly towards the

camera. I am very happy with the change I made. The Canon autofocus is far

superior and Canon offers many advanced features on their lower end cameras.The

image stabilized lenses are a big plus. I do think that Minoltas equipment is well

made but did not do the job for me. I hope this helps.

[michael_moon]

I'll chip in with an endorsement for a 600si. When I added an AF system to my assorted Pentax K-mount stuff (which still gets regular use) last year I checked out the offerings from C, N, M and P. For ease of use, affordability, useful options, and sheer picture-taking capability the 600si was a surprisingly easy choice. The manual is very comprehensible. It suffers only from lack of weatherproofing, and I'd like to do better than one battery per 25 +/- rolls. As for affordable but good third party teles, you should give serious consideration to either the 300/4 or 400/5.6 Tokinas.

[Former P.N Member]

Rachel,

 

You might want to take a serious look at the Canon Elan II or IIe (I believe it's the 50 or 50e outside the US). It should fall close to your price range, has DOF preview and mirror lock-up. When I was looking for my current system physical comfort was a primary consideration (I have fairly small hands) and the Elan II as well as the Rebel 2000 were very comfortable, and with small size comes (relatively) light weight.

[Former P.N Member]

I forgot to mention that the Elan has 2.5 FPS capability, auto bracketing and multiple exposure capability.

[bobatkins]

Don't rule out Canon. The 50E (ElanII) is around 300 pounds (UK) and is a great body. I have a 1n and an ElanII and I have no problems using the ElanII, in fact it's probably easier to use then the 1n and has almost all the feature (mirror pre-fire, DOF preview, etc.). The 50 is probably even cheaper and I personally don't miss the eye control focus (I've tried it but didn't find it particularly useful for me). Canon have the Image Stabilized lenses which are great if you can't use a tripod for some reason (Nikon are starting to make them too now).

 

There's nothing at all wrong with Minolta or Pentax (or almost any other major camera). All are capable of yielding excellent results and all have excellent lenses available.

[piaw]

Both the Canon Elan IIe and the Rebel 2000 are excellent choices. In fact, I'm selling my EOS-1 partly because despite the "higher end" nature of it, I still found myself reaching for the Elan IIe all the time. (I will get an EOS-3, though, now that they've been dropping in price)

 

The Elan IIe has a basic mirror lock feature, DOF preview, and all sorts of other goodies like the well-known CF-4. Coupled with a good selection of lenses there's nothing that it cannot do.

[frank_kolwicz]

Rachel,

 

Since you are already familiar with Canon FD equipment, why don't you consider getting used pro FD stuff to replace what you lost? There's a lot of good used equipment available (one of the main reasons to stick with Canon or Nikon) at reasonable prices and FD equipment is very reliable.

 

The one reason I would put you off Minolta and, to a lesser extent Pentax, is that a wide variety of all sorts of lenses and accessories is not always available and nature photography can be very equipment intensive. You don't want to be in a position of having to forego some shots because you can't get the right whatsit to do the job. Look at the lists of new and used lenses and accessories in the B&H Photo ads and see the differences among the brands - that tells you a lot!

[eric_onore]

Try to visualize what your shooting style will be. I know that I have bought bodies in the past because some feature sounds really great when I read about it, only to find it rarely useful to my style of shooting. Too much technology and complication will sometimes get in the way of making a photograph. Invariably, when I decide to try some little used feature of my camera, I forget to turn it off, complicating my next session. Do not obsess to much about finding a camera with the precise feature set you think you will need. Your talent and eye are much more important than whether the body has a multiple exposure capability.

All that having been said, I chose Canon because of the speed of the autofocus, and because I like the quick dial on the back of the camera. This enables me, in manual mode, to adjust shutter speed and aperture with my thumb and index finger, without taking my eye from the viewfinder.

[rachel_warren]

Thankyou so much to everyone who has replied to me - I have found

all of the advice most valuable. My local camera dealer has

recently told me that the autofocus on Canon is in the lenses,

whereas the autofocus on Minolta, Pentax is in the Camera. Don't

know about Nikon. He also said that only with Minolta could

you autofocus on an object moving towards or away from the camera

as well as from side to side, the others only do side to side he said. Presumably, the reason autofocus is faster on Canon is that

the autofocus is in the lens, or is it just instrinsically better?

Another twist is that there is a new version of the Sigma 400 f5.6

APO lens coming out, which is supposedly better than the previous

one that was so well reviewed. However, as the new one is #160

cheaper, I wonder that it can be better! I wonder if my dealer is

talking sense about the autofocus? Of course there are two issues

in the 'speed' of autofocus - how fast can the lens move to a

different focus, and how fast does it track a moving object...

 

Thanks again,

Rachel

[peter_olsson]

Rachel, your camera dealer misinformed you about the

autofocusing part. Minolta is not the only camera that

has a continuous autofocus system, a system that change

focus as the target moves towards or away from you.

My Nikon 90s had it for instance. This is among the most

difficult things for an autofocus system to do, generally

the heavy pro cameras are best at this.

 

By the way, are you sure you want a light weight camera

if you plan to use 400 teles or longer? Handheld you

get better balance with a little more heavy camera body

on a heavy lens, and on tripod a "pro-model" camera body

can be more sturdy.

[chuck_greene]

Rachel,

 

If Nikon interests you, their latest body, the N80/F80, has depth of field preview, spot metering, and auto exposure bracketing. The user interface looks to be much like the F5 and F100, which uses front and rear dials, rather than pushbuttons. The cost is just under $500 USD, but I don't know what price this translates to in the UK. The film advance is relatively slow, only 2.5fps, and I think you have to use stop down metering with non-CPU (i.e. most manual focus lenses). I think it's a shame that Nikon doesn't include depth of field preview on all their bodies, or a spot meter for that matter.

 

FWIW, my N90s does not have mirror lock up and I haven't noticed any problems with camera shake doing high magnification macro work (1/2 to 2.5X life size). Either the mirror damping is pretty good or I just don't know what I'm missing.

[bob_swift]

Rachel,

I've been using a Minolta 600SI for a couple of years now and would'nt hesitate to recommend it for your consideration. Friends of mine also have the Canon ElanII/IIE and are very pleased with them also. For features, don't settle for less than what one of these two cameras offers, whatever brand you choose. The Canon has slightly more features than the 600SI (rear curtin flash sync, mirror lock-up),

but they are pretty similar. In my view, the Minolta has better metering, the Canon has slightly faster autofocus tracking, but they're both good. I'm also a fan of Tokina lenses. They seem to deliver high optical quality for the price. Good luck and don't forget to have as much fun shopping for new gear as you do using it!

Bob Swift

[bobatkins]

Both Canon and Nikon have predictive autofocus to follow moving subjects, so your dealer is wrong. AF in the lens allows for somewhat better "fine tuning" of AF because you can tailor the response characteristics of the AF system for the lens. ALL Canon lenses have the AF motor built in. Some Nikon lenses do also. Canon claim the fastest AF system (with an EOS-3 of EOS-1v body), but the difference from the second fastest AF system (Nikon?) is probably very small. Note that you probably won't get optimum AF performance using 3rd party (e.g. Sigma) lenses.

[gary_voth]

Rachel, nothing inherently wrong with Minolta, but take Bob's advice and go examine a Canon Elan II. In conjunction with Canon's EF lens line, it really is the world-beater in this SLR class. It is far from plasticky feeling--you were referring to the Rebel bodies? If you are a bit adventurous you can buy a good condition used Elan II on eBay for around $300.

 

You should also look at the new Nikon N80, though I don't believe this body has mirror lock up (could be wrong tho).

[george_j.q.zhang]

Rachel,

 

Vote for Canon in the reason additional to above mentioned (I switched from Minolta X-700 system to Canon EOS at the begining of this year after a whole year of thinking and trying)

 

1.Investment for an amateur is focusing on the long run sustainable system. Unfortunately, it is Canon who leads the competition in AF world with Nikon trying to catch up.(You may know all the goodies like eye focus, ultra-sonic motor lens, image stablization lense, etc, which are all led by Canon)

 

2.Ergonomics wise, nothing really can compete with EOS handling particularly EOS50 with CF4 and USM lense. You would never look back to other AF system driving from body. All buttons and wheels are so nicely laid where they belong to!!! Particularly important to manual system users. EOS AF just removed all the pain in the MF realm and add all the goodies to use your camera

 

3. As per price concerned, nothing stack up against EOS50/50E in about 300 dollar ball park. Feature to feature, EOS50 beat competition like hell! It has all basic features you need without ripping you off like Nikon. USM lens is far cheaper than Nikon SW lens and available from consumer grade to pro options. IS technology is provided also in cheap lens like 28-135 or 70-300 up to 300/4L IS which is a nice start on wild life shooting and not that expensive (about USD1000 used)

 

5. Macro photography wise, Canon has catched up with MP65 and ring flash on top of full range of macro lense from 50mm to 100mm to 180mm

 

6. Finally, I can not see any other reason that ameteurs switching from non-backward-integeratable system(stolen in your case) are not going for Canon EOS50 as a first step into AF world

 

There is a wealth of information about Canon for your consideration on this site if you look into them carefully. Last but not least, most of the moderators on this site are using Canon EOS system but not all top of line pro gear.

 

Hope this helps