sammm

<div></div>

When the Maxxum 9 hits $400, I'm buying, even if I've got too many cameras already.

 

In the mean time, it strikes me that the vertical grip is likely to go the way of the 7 very quickly. I think the databack is also only used on the 7, and not a combined 5/7 or 7/9 product. Any other significant accessories likely to be discontinued in the wake?

I thought it had been confirmed that the Maxxum 7 was being discontinued, not the 9. Adorama is selling the Dynax 7, which is identical but for the label. At $399 its a good deal; I'm betting the 9 and the 7D each decline in price over coming months to close the gap between the $1000 and up and $200 and under categories - a pretty big gap!

 

I'm planning on accelerating the purchase of some 7 accessories, so maybe this is the right marketing move for them in a strange way.

Is this discussion morphing into the development of a variation on "Picture This" (see http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=617763 )? I find the Picture This experiment fascinating, and wish I had time to be a full participant. If we could do a variation of it that was more open ended and focused on controversial photos, however selected, I'd love to participate.

I'm taking the blanket 6/6 ratings with a sense of humor, and considering them a spoof on all of the Brilliant! 7/7 ratings/comments out there.

 

Once you think of them this way, they'll become an excuse to smile every now and then.

Yes.

Let's not worry about individual ratings or images here; I hope my suggestion wasn't about them. Let's just say multiple people did indeed share the view that my ongoing efforts to apply ultra-fast grainy film in daylight conditions is a fools errand, so I take back any suggestion that any rating was ridiculously low (even in my not-so-humble opinion).

 

But, the issue I wanted to raise was more the negative reaction I've seen to perceived low ratings, and how that effects new users. But it's not an issue with any one comment, but with many I've seen (though I'll email you privately on what the one comment was). And, the flip side, probably much more serious, is the number of new users who quickly learn that giving 7s gets 7s, diluting the critiquing nature of the site. I'd rather not lose critical raters who turn out to have thin skins (not implying you do, I'd say the opposite, just that some others may) and I'd rather not see the inflated ratings get too much encouragement.

 

I hope you found my visit to your portfolio useful, and I've marked you "interesting" so you'll get more visits in the future. Best,

 

Sam

I have both, though the 24-85 is rather dusty from sitting in the equipment closet so much. From experience, I would never have even thought to compare them - the 24 prime is heads and shoulders preferable.

I just uploaded a shot that got two ratings I couldn't imagine

justifying (one ridiculously high, one, in my humble opinion,

ridiculously low) from photographers who are new to the site. I went

to look at each of their portfolios and, sure enough, the low rating

person already had a few comments and ratings that I'd consider an

unfriendly welcome to the site from folks reacting to their low

ratings. I'd bet there is a 50/50 chance they'll leave in short

order, probably feeling jumped on for rating what was, in their view,

honestly if strictly. My bet is the high rating person will soon

have quite a bit of relatively uncritical praise that will do little

to help him develop, and may even find that it's fun to join a mate-

rating circle and bask in the glory of high ratings without improving

their craft much at all in the process.

 

I think it might be useful to find a way to highlight when someone is

new to the site, perhaps using an icon, or to provide a way to

specifically critique photographs of new people. The better we are

at giving them substantive input, the better habits are going to be

developed on the site as a whole in the long run. If people could

try to give new people particularly substantive comment, and cut them

some slack as they figure out the "ratings game", I think it would do

much to improve the site in the long run.

Good change; thanks, Brian!

Films for classics (www.filmsforclassics.com) did a good job for me.

Carl,

 

If you're looking for an approach that forces selectivity, you're talking about a fairly radical shift in photo.net's rating system. Here's one way of doing it: eliminate all rating approaches other than a systematic one, and in that systematic approach, make everyone give comparable ratings -- so, for example, 4 photos show up on the screen and have to be rated 1-4 in each of several categories; then after going through several screens of these, you can have a fifth screen that compares the "best of the best", etc. You might give one point for a 1 or 2 in the first round, 2 points for a one or two in the second round, etc.

 

The upside is that this would directly compare different shots, and would perhaps also let you compare similar shots (e.g., compare portraits against portraits and abstacts against abstracts). It would result in a process that looked more like a "juried" appraisal of the photographs.

 

But the downside is there would be less ability to participate in ratings as you traveled through the site, so I couldn't, for example, look at Dave N's favorites and rate a few that I particularly liked or disliked as I reviewed and commented on them. And I couldn't go into the most highly rated photos and give them my own honest ratings.

 

So, are we looking for ratings as a real judge of the photographs on the site, in which case, will a mass of users of an internet site actually tell us what photos are "good" or just what photos are "popular"? Or are we looking for an ability to allow a very diverse mass of people to meaningfully comment? Or just a series of filters to help us sort through an enormous mass of photographs? Over time, I've come to view ratings as serving the last function only, and while they do so imperfectly, I can't think of a better way. If we're looking for something other than that filter, I'm tempted to think of it as an entirely new feature, and not try to reform ratings to meet those needs.

It strikes me the rise in ratings is an inevitable reaction to making the front pages respond to the numeric rating instead of the number of ratings. Nonetheless, I think shifting the way the pages are selected has done a good job of bringing some new stuff to the fore, and one approach that could have an impact would be to shift periodically to other ways of sorting the pages (e.g., sum of ratings, originality only, etc.).

 

Since there isn't a juried panel, there will always be a dynamic driven by the behavior of a large and diverse group with different goals, many of which have nothing to do with rating. So, in this imperfect world, I just want to keep having tools to mix the pot with and see what I can find in here.

 

In the meantime, whenever I want a juried panel, I tend to look at the photos being commented on or rated highly by many of the people posting above, so as long as you guys keep finding new and interesting photographers, I'm OK.

Joe,

 

Nice shot that really shows off the lens. You can just about read the newspaper story, and it looks shot in low light.

If we're going off-topic to portrait lenses, I tend to use the 135/2.8 and the 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 is good for environmental shots where I'm not too close, but I like the 135 for the head shots and such.

My take -- much of what Michael says above is right on point, but I'd say the 50/1.4 is also a slightly higher optical quality than the 1.7. Both get reviewed as a tad soft when shot wide open, and the sharpest 50mm Minolta is supposed to be the 50/2.8 macro (which I haven't used). But I've found the 50/1.4 to be sharp even when wide open, and to be an all-around great lens.

Just in defense of Adorama, I bought mine there recently, the camera did have a problem (some issues with the electronics in the prism), and they were courteous and helpful in replacing it, replaced it very quickly, and generally treated me in a way that earns them some loyalty from this customer.

Feels great, not at all plasticky. The "3" is in a very different market. I love mine.

Put the first money into a camera! Most of us have been there before.

You can certainly still get them at Adorama.

 

I thought I'd heard the 5 was being discontinued and replaced with the Maxxum 70 (and the 4, a camera which really didn't have a good reason to exist, is being replaced by the 50), but the 5 is also still being sold at Adorama.

I'm in the middle of doing the same thing you are, replacing zooms with primes.

 

My first attempt to do this in the portraiture range was a while ago, when I picked up the Vivitar 100/3.5 macro. Nice glass, but the autofocus is slow as molasses and has trouble in low or even moderate light, and the 3.5 is less than I'd like.

 

More recently, I picked up the 135/2.8. Wonderful lens. I got a used one, and it's autofocus is sometimes slower than I like, but the glass is great (better than the Vivitar) and the speed is much more useful, especially at 135. I find it an easy focal length, especially when taking pictures of kids, and I find it is enough of a tele to have some broader uses than portraiture, too.

 

Maybe in a year or two I'll add the 85/1.4. If you get it, let me know how it goes, as all I've heard are raves!

Kent - thanks for the participation you've given - I have enjoyed many of your insights. Sam

Pick up the cameras and see how they feel to you. That's going to be very important.

 

Then, look at what distinguishes the full lines of each of the makers, because you are worried about the full line of lenses, flashes, and accessories when you buy a body. If you are looking to take wildlife photos and want a great 300mm lens, and are willing to pay, my impression is that Cannon leads; likewise if you want a tilt-shift lens. If you are going to be using flash, for fill flash or for indoor shots, and are ready to buy the 3600 or 5400 HS(D), my impression is that you will find nothing equivalent to Minolta.

 

Cannon and Nikon are generally viewed as having superior specialty lenses, but I would say that Minolta delivers a better system for less money to the person who is look for three or four good prime lenses and one versatile tele-to-tele zoom.

Unfortunately, you're not going to get a comparable feature to the wireless, ratio HSS available with the 3600HS(D). I had functioned with a lesser flash, and having recently acquired the 3600HS(D), I'd say it was one of my best expenditures ever. I would like the power of the 5400, and buying the 3600 and seeing what it can do with limited power really does make me wish I'd stepped up to the 5400.

 

This flash is one of the things that really distinguishes Minolta from the others; I'd have to say that there is no better camera/flash combination for someone who will be using flash - the next best thing to a full professional light set up.

I have been much happier with my Minolta lenses, especially my 50/1.4 and my 24/2.8, than with my off-brands in general. I have the Vivitar 100 macro, and I like it optically, but it has trouble with autofocus in low to medium light and its electronics sometimes get confused. When that happens, I simply treat it as a respectible manual focus lens.