david_bedell

I'm glad to see they're still trying to sell a normal lens (the 35mm f/1.4) for $1,000 or so (street). Leica pricing hasn't done Leica too well, so why emulate it?

The III is usually 1/2 or 1/3 the price of the IIIA. ;-)

 

With a sample size of one each, I prefer my III.

 

The lens (48mm f/2) is better, especially wide open. It's also slightly smaller, both in height (due to the traditional viewfinder) and depth (the lens is smaller). It's much easier to set aperture and shutter speed on the III.

 

The viewfinder of the IIIA is truly spectacular, though.

 

You can't go wrong with either. Really nice cameras.

The 7D looks better ergonomically, but the Alpha sensor should be better. Choose which is more important to you.

 

They use the same lenses and accessories.

 

There are no tests yet to determine whether the metering is better in the Alpha; if the flash metering is better, that might be a reason to choose the Sony. (the sync speed is the same)

 

Personally I'd skip the kit lens with either body and use primes I already owned, or buy a fast third party mid-range zoom like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or the 28-75mm, which is cheaper, if you prefer that range). I don't think the kit lens is considered "bad", but at least for me, it would be too slow. What lenses do you have now?

 

I don't think there's any way to make a "bad" decision here. As with any camera purchase, it makes sense to try them in person before buying.

 

I am surprised every time I see how warm and fuzzy seeing the name "Sony" on a camera makes people. If you weren't excited about Minolta cameras, how can you be excited about a camera designed and engineered by the same team, bought wholesale, simply owned by a different Japanese conglomerate?

Basically, some people have fully accepted the regression in viewfinder quality for the

average $500-$1,500 SLR you can buy today (an APS sensor digital) versus what $500-

$1,500 would get you in the 35mm film days.

 

It's not whining; it's a fact. Line them up side by side, and the worst $500 35mm film SLR

viewfinder is better than the best $1,500 APS digital viewfinder. Noone actually making

this comparison would ever, ever chose the APS viewfinder. It's not arguable, like the fact

that your Digital Rebel at ISO1600 has much, much less noise/grain than any 35mm

ISO1600 film.

 

Consider the viewfinder as part of the complete camera system and likely you'll take the

digital. That's progress. Some steps forward, some back.

 

"I think in camera reviews , people tend to forget that the viewing experience influence the

composition in a big way that makes for better pictures please I would like your feedback."

 

Absolutely 100% correct -- at least for me, for you, and for a lot of other people. For Mr.

Robertson, it seems it's not the case. :-)

Wow, grumpy responses on a nice Sunday...

 

Exposure latitude with digital SLRs _is_ a very real issue. But as other responders have hinted, it may not now be a sensor issue so much as an image processing issue.

 

Here's a typical situation. You're shooting indoors. You'd like some detail outside, through a window, but obviously you're exposing for the indoor part of your picture.

 

When I dropped film off at the camera shop, whatever processing they were doing would generally result in some pretty good stuff being rendered out of those windows. This might be film's response curve, or it might be automatic dodging. Someone other than I can probably answer this.

 

With my Minolta 7D, I know there _is_ in fact some detail out those windows even though they're badly overexposed. With the out-of-camera JPEG, you're definitely not going to see it. But I can see it in Adobe Camera Raw by dropping the exposure a stop or two.

 

Here's the rub: I -- and lots of other otherwise experienced photographers -- don't have the digital darkroom skills (yet!) to retain this detail in overexposed areas of the picture while retaining an otherwise natural looking image. If I do the basic manipulations I know about, I'm going to lose highlights in high-contrast scenes when I adjust for good-looking tonality in the most important parts of the picture.

 

It's not something that's automated, and perhaps it can't be automated.

 

So the data may be there, but for either a very difficult learning curve for otherwise experienced photographers, or true technical difference with film, it is harder to use. In that sense I do agree with Bill that it's a real issue.

Obsessed with a film standard? Yes, we are. Let's rewrite the original post:

 

Why are we still trying to get digital sensors bigger than APS film size? The inherent implication being that if the digital sensor is not the size of the 24 mm film it cannot be any good.

 

APS sized viewfinders suck. Being really happy with them is like being really happy with ready-made pie crust. You can eat it, but you're really, really missing out. If you don't think viewfinders make a difference in the quality of your photography...good luck.

 

Where are the affordable f/2.8 wide angle lenses for APS? For 40 years a decent, relatively fast wide angle was available and affordable to all SLR photographers. Now what do you have? I don't want a 10-20mm f/4-f/5.6 lens. Fantastic. That's useless.

Doug's right. In general, Minolta lenses marked "MD Rokkor-X" will have the best blend of mechanical construction, handling, and optical quality.

Unless you're pretty certain you'll be pushing the limits of your storage space, I'd shoot RAW+JPEG.

 

RAW because it's a "digital negative" with lots of post-processing advantages. If you've searched the web on DSLR technique you've already picked up on this.

 

JPEG because (1) to zoom into a photograph on-camera to check focus or small compositional details, you need to be shooting in some kind of JPEG mode, and (2) sometimes the camera-generated JPEG is close enough and you can skip post-processing.

 

Together you get the best of both. With marginal viewfinders and AF in all affordable DSLRs, reason JPEG(1) is pretty important, IMHO.

 

Once the files are on your computer you can decide whether or not to keep the JPEGs...

I can confirm that the 35mm f/2.0 sold by B&H is the older, "thin focus ring" type, NOT the rubberized focus ring w/ circular aperture type.

 

I can only guess that they found a large batch of "new old stock" Minolta lenses.

 

Given the choice I'd take the newer type, but at the same time I wouldn't hesitate to take the older versions. The 35mm f/2.0 is excellent in all respects (with the exception of some ugly-looking flare if the sun is in the frame -- nothing the new version would change).

I'd take the f/1.4 lens if given to me for free, but the 35mm f/2 is really good.

 

I use it wide open much of the time and it's very sharp and contrasty on a 7D.

 

It's also a fairly compact lens.

The Maxxum 5 is a very good camera for a beginner, but I wouldn't want to start someone off in photography with slow lenses like that.

 

Sure, if they're basically free, give them to her.

 

But even then toss in a cheap, fast normal lens and Fuji's 800 speed film from the drugstore and she can take pictures in just about any light -- with a brighter viewfinder, faster autofocus, and easier manual focusing in all conditions.

 

The current Minolta equivalent to the 5 is the 70 (not the 7!). It's $144 new from B&H. A new 5 is worth the same. Minolta The 50mm f/1.7 lens is $80 new.

 

After a few months she'll have enough experience to choose more lenses, if she decides she needs any. Great primes can be had for $100-$200 used, and a great zoom like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 are $350 or so new. That $100 you'd save not buying slow, likely mediocre lenses now is a good bit towards quality lenses later.

 

I hope she has fun -- that's a great gift.

<img src="http://www.lbbfamily.com/gallery/d/18597-2/towing_nip.jpg">

<p>

Upstate New York, USA

Chad -

 

Yeah, I know it's daydreaming, but it's what I want. ;-)

 

I can't wait for full-frame to get cheaper. I want my viewfinder back and want my 35mm f/2 to be a wide angle (again)! Lens lineups in general become much, much more interesting (i.e. you can get fast AND wide) once the sensor gets bigger...

Ray, I'll avoid answering your question directly but will stick to my guns: There are much bigger differences between the cameras to worry about. ;-)

 

The noise you see in a final print will be determined more by exposure and how good you are in the digital darkroom than by the particular characteristics of the camera's sensor.

 

And if you're talking about noise processing with in-camera JPEG, I'd wager you'll end up shooting RAW after just a very few exposures. In really low light, you'll want the flexibility. I couldn't care less about in-camera JPEG after six months with my 7D...

The lens I'd like to see is a Minolta f/2 version of the Leica Tri-Elmar.

 

I don't need continuously variable focal length in a lens, but having two or three focal lengths in a single lens would be useful.

 

f/2.0 is where I shoot 80% of the time, so I MUST have that.

Any digital SLR will have so little noise at ISO 800 comnpared with 35mm film that there's probably no sense worrying about one being slightly better than the other. Buy a 7D, a 5D, a Digital Rebel, a D50 -- anything at all. You'll be really happy with any of them in practical photography.

Since I do mostly indoor available light photography of people, f/4 zooms -- even really good quality ones -- would be totally useless to me. I wouldn't spend a dime on one.

 

What zoom would be useful to me? A 24-35mm f/2 for my 7D. ;-)

I think you'll find Chinese orphanages much better lit than 1/60 - f/1.4 - ISO3200. At least, that was the case with my niece when my sister- and brother-in-law went to get her. ;-)

I'd just save up for the Tamron version of the Minolta lens. It's $50 cheaper or so.

 

If I was in the market for a zoom -- well, that depends on having more money than I have now! -- that's the one I'd get. From what I've read, nothing beats its price to performance ratio.

 

But in roughly the same price range, you could also get a 35mm f/2. I know you didn't ask about primes, but it's a great lens -- a fast wide on film and a good normal on a 1.5x crop digital, where I use it.

 

You lose the zoom, but gain a little speed. And it's really compact.

Running through the fields...<div></div>

That sounds kind of weird.

 

Have you checked all the usual gotchas, like accidentally setting -2EV exposure compensation?

 

How are you getting the photos onto your computer? Could that software be set to do something bad?

 

I'll admit that I eventually moved to shooting mostly RAW because I wasn't 100% happy with out-of-camera shots from my 7D, I think that's standard for many dSLR users, regardless of brand.

 

Also, you should post an example or two...

Though many people want you to choose a "system" -- the implication being that you can and will want to buy half a dozen expensive lenses in the time you own the camera -- we all know that it's perfectly possible to live life with two, or only one lens.

 

I've had a Minolta 7D for six months, and I use only a normal lens (the 35mm f/2). I'm perfectly happy. With the current state of (affordable) technology, especially viewfinders, I'm not willing to invest more in a at this time. I'm used to huge, manual focus era viewfinders. With an f/2 normal lens I find APS cameras' to be just barely useable; with wides, especially at 17mm or 18mm (at f/2.8 or slower) I just can't see what's going on. So I'm skipping the wide until the next camera, or until I get one for free. ;-)

 

(With a 35mm film SLR I used a 50mm and a 24mm equally.)

 

I can positively recommend the 7D. The viewfinder is bad, but amongst the least bad of these cameras. The AF performance seems bad to me, but I've never heard people exeperienced with other cameras say it's any worse than its competitors. Anti-shake is nice, and the overall handling is pretty good.

 

Pentax was really tempting to me. Even their cheapish cameras have "not too bad" viewfinders and you can get both 35mm f/2 and an affordable 24mm f/2 lens, which other systems don't offer.

 

And there are the other usual suspects. I'm sure they're all fine. Your skill as a photographer and digital darkroom monkey will totally overwhelm any "image quality" differences amongst the cameras...So choose based on handling, or flip a coin, and you'll be fine.

MUCH, MUCH less likely to lose data due to overexposure. I was ready to toss my digital SLR until I tried RAW. Now I'm much happier.

Great stuff

Portraits? That's all I take these days. ;-)