jamesdak

<p>Glad to see someone really enjoying one of these. I had two of them for awhile and have still hung onto one of them. This camera along with my XD-7 will never leave my hands. </p>

<p>Lucky you, if you 24 performs like mine you will be really happy with it.</p>

<p>Well, I could not afford a modern AF big tele so I went with an old Nikon 800/5.6. Works well for most of my wildlife work and is plenty sharp.</p>

<p>A bunch of samples of the len's work on my pbase site, start with this gallery:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/eagles</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I'm late in on this post. But the XD-7/11 is the one to go for in my opinion. It's hard to explain but everything about this body just feels right. If the leather has shrunk it's real simple to replace. I've owned pretty much every 7 series Minolta body from the SR-7 to the K/M 7D and the XD-7 is my favorite manual focus camera. I can't truly believe I'll ever sell mine. <br>

Once you hold and fire the sweet shutter on a XD-7 you will understand appeal. As to the original question on the XG-7, I'd pass for certain. I've got one but I've handed it off to my teenage son to use. When I sold off most of my Minolta collection the XG-7 never got anyone's interest even at a dirt cheap price.</p>

<p>Stumbled on this while googling some info about the refuge. After reading the tone of the theads it is quite apparent that it is time for an update. <br>

I've been successfully shooting at the refuge since at least 2006. I have never been harrassed or had any other problems with the staff. Seems like there's a new group and they are photographer friendly. They even run and annual photo contest now try to keep an ongoing exhibit of refuge photographs going in the visitor center at all times. <br>

The water situation seems to vary year to year. But the whole area is growing so much and water is in demand. Still, except for winter I always manage to find plenty to shoot out there. I suspect the trapping still is going on as I don't see much out there in the way of foxes, skunks, or other furred critters. The photo blinds are still there and readily accessible. You just need to reserve them with the staff. I've called a couple of times and been told I could use all three at me leisure on the day I was visiting. Of course, two of them are normally several feet in the water so plan accordingly. <br>

Some days can be fairly busy out there but most days I normally only see a few folks as I pass through. Most are considered and do pull over to allow you to pass. I've never run into a single belligerient photographer out there. <br>

All and all I'd say things have changed at the refuge and I do recommend those considering a visit do come. </p>

<p>Greg is dead on about how easy it is to adapt lenses to the EOS mount. Here's what I currently use on my two EOS bodies.<br>

Contax Zeiss - 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 100/2.0, 135/2.8<br>

Leica R - 50/2.0, 60/2.8 macro, 90/2.8, 135/2.8, 180/3.4 APO, 560/6.8<br>

Pentax M42 - 50/1.4, 135/3.5<br>

Olympus OM - 24/2.8, 35/2.8 PC<br>

Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 with C/Y and M42 mount<br>

Nikkor - 800/5.6 ED<br>

Mamiya 645 - 200/2.8 APO<br>

So, as you can see, the Canon EOS mount is quite easy to use alternative lenses on. I have focus confirm adapters for the Contax Zeiss, Leica R, M42, and Nikon systems and they do work.</p>

<p>Sure you can in most cases. It just requires an adapter so that you can do the physical mounting. You will loose autofocus and aperture control. There are additional issues with the G lenses also. <br>

By coincidence I just recently adapted a Nikkor 800/5.6 to my Canon 5D and it works great. Manually focus wide open, set aperture to desired setting, and shoot. <br>

This was taken with the 800/5.6 on my 5D:<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/108239670.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Gil - I can give you my viewpoint on alternative lense. I switched to Canon after 20 years of Minolta. I found Canon's wide and standard options to be a bit lacking so I went looking for solutions. Since I mainly shoot nature, landscapes and routinely manually focused alternatives were a viable option. During this process I discovered the wonderful variances in image appearence that the various lenses could give me and now use these differences to better capture a scene the way I want to.

 

I have rented and compared side by side several offerings by Canon and just found them not to be comparible in terms of contrast rendering, color, edge to edge sharpness, etc. Plus a lot of these alternative lenses are actually cheaper than the Canon equivalent while offering a superior image quality and build.

 

So, I now use 6 different Leicas, six different Contax Zeiss, some Olympus Om's and a few Pentax's on my EOS bodies. I do have some Canon telephoto's that are great. In fact, IMHO this is where Canon shines. Yet, in the right situation my Leica 560/6.8 can give me as good as or even better appearing images. It really all comes down to our individual needs and preferences.

Well, I'm using a Contax Bellows setup with an C/Y to EOS adaptor on my 5D. This bellows cost me under $100. The front standard can tilt and shift. The front also comes apart and is manufactured to accept reverse mounted lenses on it for some serious magnification.

Well, let me just say that I placed an order for one yesterday. And, like you, I also have and love my Pentax SMC 50/1.4. Oh, but I use my various lenses on Canon EOS DSLRs. My rational was that I really liked the tonal quality I saw from the 60 images and that was enough justification for me.

I picked up the same lens from KEH just a couple of weeks ago. Mine too is a bit stiff and I just bought the supplies to clean and lube the rods. Mine did loosen up some with use. The body and optics also appear quite new. I've got mine adapted to EOS also and am using it with my 5D.

 

Several samples from the past two weeks on my pbase account. Still working to get to Doug's level but I have no doubt the lens can perform.

 

Page 9 and 10 of this gallery has several images:

 

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/temp_stuff

I shoot panos alot and use a variety of methods. Sometimes I hand hold, sometimes tripod mounted and rotate the

head, and sometimes I do use my pano heads. The tough ones are the closeup panos or inside where precision is

key. Make sure to use a constant manual exposuer, keep focus constant and do not use AWB.

 

Check out this gallery to see both good and bad samples:

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/ogden_valley_images

 

If you go to the end of this gallery you will find a closeup pano of a barn where the perspective is all jacked up. This

has been my most challenging shot and one I still don't have right.

 

Also, check out this pano to see what can be done handheld. If you select the original size for the image you will

get a much larger version to look at. This was a work in progress but the final copy is now dust spot free and the

mountains are more defined. Still it can give you a better idea of what can be done versus the normal tiny print.

This will print at over 13" x 50+"

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

I'm not around here much either nowdays. So you went digital too huh? I think when the FF Sony comes out you will be real happy. I've been using a Canon 5D for about a year now. Combine that with the Contax Zeiss lenses I'm using and I've even put my Mamiya 645 away. If I combine 4 or so shots from the 5D in photoshop I get a printable image with more detail than my Mamiya shots on Velvia. The only shortcoming I see lately is that digital still does not equal some of the tonal quality you can get from film. But all in all I'm very happy without. Still not selling the XD-7 though, LOL!!

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.

Hmmm, what is the best solution. In my final Minolta days this was my setup:

Minolta: 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 macro D, 300/4.0 and the APO II teleconvertor. Then a Sigma 400/5.6 rounded out my prime setup.

 

I went all Canon about a year ago and am still sorting things out. Right now I have the following primes:

Contax Zeiss: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 100/2.0 and 135/2.8 (in transit)

Leica R: 90/2.8, 135/2.8, and 180/3.4(in transit)

Pentax m42: 50/1.4 and 135/3.5

Olympus OM: 24/2.8

Vivitar Series 1: 90/2.5 macro

Canon 400/5.6 and 1.4x teleconvertor.

 

And I just sent a Minolta made RF 800/8.0 mirror that was fitted with a Leica R mount by Minolta. This lens was not as sharp as my Canon 400/1.4x combo mounted on the 30D. So no since in keeping it.

 

I do have some overlap but the lenses give a distinctive "flavor" to the image and one lens may be better suited than another for certain circumstances.

 

Bodies are great but it's the glass that makes the image.

B+W list series 7 filters in stock. I take it there is a difference though from the series 7.5. Is that correct? thanks

Thanks for the quick responses and especially the pictures. A little more info. I picked up a 90/2.8 and 135/2.8 for $300 a few months ago. Both are series 7 anyway so I already have this to deal with. There aren't too many 180/3.4 out there for sale so I wanted all options covered versus the two versions.

 

Oh, and when I use step up rings to mount my 77mm polarizer on other lens I have a few different screw on rubber hoods I attach to the filter itself.

 

Good to know B&W will make the custom filters, thanks all!

I want to purchase an APO 180/3.4 to handle my midrange telephoto landscape

work. I know there are the two versions of filter mounts but can't find much

info on the series 7.5. Can someone educate me on that. For the most part I

want to be able to mount a standard 77mm circular polarizer on the lens. What

will it take to do this if I buy a series 7.5 lens?

Well my foray into Leica lenses started with 1st version of the 90/2.8 and 135/2.8. I picked up both of them for $300. Resolution wise they seem on par with the Contax Zeiss I am also using with maybe a bit better tonal graduation. I use them on a Canon 5D and cannot find anything with them to complain about.

Hmmm I used to have the original Minolta 85/1.4 and now have a Contax Zeiss 85/2.8. Unfortunately I did not have them both at the same time. I always liked my Minolta 85mm but actually used my 100mm more. But, now that I shoot 5 different Contax Zeiss primes (on EOS bodies) I can honestly say that there's just something about that Zeiss glass that give an extra pop to the image. I find it very appealing but that may not be the case for everyone.<div></div>

Yeah I was warned about the same thing when I bought one to use on my Canon body. But it fits just fine. I've got 5 different Contax Zeiss primes that fit directly on the body. I want the 100 S-planer so I can take full advange of the front stadards movements. Are you aware that the front standard comes apart to allow you to also reverse mount a lens on it?

Well, the 28/2.8 was never considered that good but the f/2.0 version is supposedly outstanding. I can also vouch for the 35/2.0. My version was incredible. Most will tell you that the 50/1.7 is a better choice unless you really must have the speed of a f/1.4. Some have mentioned the 24/2.8. Of all my primes I considered that my only one that was sometimes soft.

Why not just use a Contax Zeiss lens? They aren't that hard to find. I have the Contax bellows and it is sweet with it's tilt/shift front standard and the built in ability to reverse mount a lens. How are you mounting the bellows to the body?

I used to do a lot with my Minolta gear. Main lens was the sharp 300/4.0. If you hit my pbase account you can find lots of examples.

 

www.pbase.com/jhuddle

I used a Pentax SMC Takumar 50/1.4 with my 7D and had no problems. I now use that and a Pentax SMC 135/3.5 on my EOS bodies. I actually prefer the value/performance ratio of the alternative lenses and use them almost exclusively on my EOS bodies now that I have switched. I have 5 Contax Zeiss, 2 Leica Rs, 2 Pentax M42, an Olympus OM, and a Vivitar 90/2.5 macro which is M42 for the lens and Contax/Yashica for the 1:1 macro adaptor.