Canon Elan 7NE or Minolta Maxxum 7

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Swirl The World, Nov 2, 2004.

  1. Swirl The World

    Tony Guest

    It's pretty much the same on both cameras - in my experience - however. I
    don't do any sports or action shooting so I have no experience with
    continuous focus on either camera.
     
    Tony, Nov 8, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Swirl The World

    DD Guest

    The 28-135mm IS is a generally fair lens. It has limitations in that it is
    not a very fast lens and in my experience it has poor auto-focus speed in
    dim lighting on lower end Canon bodies too (EOS 30, EOS D60).

    Apart from the IS it really doesn't have any other redeeming features
    optically speaking. You will get much better pictures with fixed focal
    length lenses such as the 20mm, 50mm 85mm and others. Decide what type of
    photography you want to do and then get the best lens you can afford.

    As far as photographic systems go, there is no touching Nikon, no matter
    what Tony Spudrocket says.
     
    DD, Nov 8, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. What a load of horseshit.

    Canon is nowhere near being the outright leader in lenses. What type of
    lenses? Telephotos? Mid-range? Wide-angle? FFL? Zoom? Professional?

    Nikon, Pentax and Minolta all have equally good consumer grade lenses,
    so unless you are buying L lenses, you are talking through your
    pie-hole (again).
     
    Dagwood Bumstead, Nov 8, 2004
    #23
  4. Swirl The World

    Tony Guest

    "What type of lenses? Telephotos? Mid-range? Wide-angle? FFL? Zoom?
    Professional?"
    Yes.
     
    Tony, Nov 8, 2004
    #24
  5. Where are your sources?

    You have none, and what makes it worse is that you have in all likelihood
    never owned, or shot with a professional grade Canon lens in your entire
    life.

    The only lens technology that Canon currently uses that has not been
    perfected and improved upon by other manufacturers is the Diffractive
    Optics teles. And I haven't seen a single person here comment on them.
    Why? Because like the rest of Canon's "professional" stuff they are wildly
    overpriced and add NOTHING to the end result, which if you didn't already
    know, is a printed or projected photograph.

    Like so many other "Tony's" on here, you are full of shit. Get a clue,
    numbnuts.
     
    Dagwood Bumstead, Nov 9, 2004
    #25
  6. Swirl The World

    Skip M Guest

    Canon is the leading manufacturer of lenses per volume, several sources have
    come up with this, I think I read it on DP Review.
    Canon is also the leader in innovation, like IS, and makes more image
    stabilized lenses than any other mfr. Some of their innovations may be a
    little questionable, like Diffractive Optics, but, for the main, they're
    pretty good.
     
    Skip M, Nov 9, 2004
    #26
  7. Swirl The World

    Alan Browne Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    I didn't know that "leading manufacturer of lenses per volume" was a useful
    metric for judging lenses.

    As Magnus said in his post, not many of the people advising Canon's best glass
    even own any of it or will likely buy any of it in the forseeable future.

    Innovation? Minolta's A-S is certainly innovative. What's more, it works with
    all of my lenses ... although on the 300 f/2.8 with 2X TC I don't expect
    miracles... OTOH, I don't handhold that beast either.

    Milnolta don't have the range of lenses that Canon have, this is true. But a
    careful selection of their lenses will provide very high quality, rivaling and
    in cases surpassing Canon and Nikon.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 9, 2004
    #27
  8. Swirl The World

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Well, whoever makes the most of cheap camera phone and digicam lens will
    win this one anyways...
    The same applies really to many pieces of Nikon glass aswell.
     
    Sander Vesik, Nov 9, 2004
    #28
  9. Swirl The World

    Skip M Guest

    Yeah, but Minolta's A-S is not relevant to this discussion, it is not in a
    lens (innovative lenses? No) and it is only digital, remember this is
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm, not rpd. <G> Not so say it isn't innovative, it
    is, and a solution that Canon wishes it had been able to provide. But
    Canon's, and Nikon's, lenses were originally designed for film cameras, not
    digital.
    True, number of lenses sold is not an indicator of quality, there were far
    more Trabants sold than Rolls Royces, but I wanted to point out that what
    Tony said was not, "a load of horseshit." as Dagwood Bumstead so eloquently
    put it.
    And as an aside to DB's comment, no one has improved upon Canon's IS, just
    equaled it. Sigma's doesn't work as well, and Nikon's is every bit its
    equal but no better, and the 80-400 doesn't have AF-S, Nikon's version of
    USM, another Canon innovation. Minolta is just now starting to put that in
    their lenses, how many years after Canon introduced it?
    As far as not owning any of it, I have the 100-400L, and often borrow my
    cousin's 28-70 f2.8L. I have that, or actually the 24-70, and the 70-200
    f2.8 on my wish list, after seeing the results from my friend Max's lenses.
    Just because I don't own those lenses, and the 16-35L, doesn't mean I
    haven't seen the results of using them, and can recommend them.
     
    Skip M, Nov 9, 2004
    #29
  10. Swirl The World

    Skip M Guest

    As far as lens technology that has not been "perfected and improved upon by
    other manufacturers," IS hasn't been improved by others, only equaled (VR
    vs. IS) and ring USM, while used in one form by Nikon(AF-S), has only
    recently been introduced by Minolta. Both IS and USM are far more widely
    far more widely available in Canon lenses than in others, and is certainly
    only equaled in quality by those others.
    If Canon's professional lenses are "wildly overpriced," where does that
    leave Nikon's, which are just as expensive, if not more so, and many lack
    USM or IS, which do, indeed, add to the end result, a better, more easily
    acquired image

    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 9, 2004
    #30
  11. Swirl The World

    Alan Browne Guest

    er, the point being that regardless of what Minolta lens one has, all of them
    will be A-S on the digital body. From the $69.00 50mm f/1.7 to the $4500 300
    f/2.8 (both versions). I have 6 Minolta lenses that will given an extra 2 stops
    of hand holdability in the shooting. Others have more...
    Minolta has not put it at all in their lenses, and I'm not holding my breath.
    But what stands is Magnus' observation that not many camera owners will have IS
    / VR glass ... including many who slobber while advising people to buy what they
    don't own.
    Nope. Not allowed. Can't do it. Stop. ;-)

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 10, 2004
    #31
  12. Swirl The World

    Tony Guest

    I've never had to buy Canon Professional quality lenses as their consumer
    lenses are so good. As for you. I suspect you are our old troll under a new
    name. You're still pullin' your pud, Bud. Back to the killfile, Schmendrick.
     
    Tony, Nov 10, 2004
    #32
  13. Swirl The World

    Skip M Guest

    As far as this, a large number of Canon shooters have IS glass, the 28-135,
    75-300 and now the 17-85 IS lenses are very accessible to the average
    photog. "L" glass is another matter...
     
    Skip M, Nov 10, 2004
    #33
  14. Swirl The World

    Magnus W Guest

    That wasn't, however, my point. I was rather pointing out that people
    howling "consider the system not the camera" are basically wannabes. There
    is nothing you can't do inside each and every one of the four major
    japanese systems, except some very specialized tasks (that can't be
    identified as "needed" or "wanted" for a newbie anyway). The things you
    /can't/ do involves specialized lenses that costs way too much for the
    average howling wannabe. Of course, there are exceptions, and IS was a
    deciding factor for some photographers; however, with in-body image
    stabilization and the world moving to digital this is no longer so. Oops,
    35+ stabilized lenses in one swift move... not counting the used ones.

    In fact, my take on this is: "screw the system, choose the best camera for
    you", as the camera you like and can work best with will make you a better
    photographer, and that's what counts.
     
    Magnus W, Nov 10, 2004
    #34
  15. Swirl The World

    Skip M Guest

    But the OP was asking about the Elan 7NE or Minolta Maxxum 7, both film
    cameras, and IS is not available for the Minolta, only as a future upgrade
    if he goes to digital. IS is available on the Canon camera, on some lenses.
    I'm no wannabe, and I am one of the ones that say to consider the system.
    Think you might want to shoot architecture? Canon has T&S lenses, Nikon has
    bellows, what does Minolta and Pentax have? IS for film, again, Canon and
    Nikon. USM? Canon and Nikon and, what, two Minolta lenses?
    I say "consider" the system, but don't make it the only thing you consider.
    The ergonomics are key, if the camera is awkward to use, or illogically laid
    out, it will affect one's ability and/or desire to get good images. We had
    a Minolta digital P&S that I pretty much refused to use, it was so poorly
    laid out. And my wife hates tussling with a Qflash on a stroboframe so much
    that it truly affects her creativity.
     
    Skip M, Nov 10, 2004
    #35
  16. Swirl The World

    Alan Browne Guest

    It can be stated with that the Maxxum 9, 7 and 7D (800i too, I guess) are
    arguably the best camera bodies with respect to ergononmics. The only way to
    know this is to use them and compare against the others.

    Comparing this with a P&S is frankly pushing it. I bought a Canon PowerShot A30
    for the office and I wasn't exactly impressed either.

    As to the somewhat esoteric lenses you mention, how many have you got?

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 10, 2004
    #36
  17. Swirl The World

    Aguyathome Guest

    That wasn't, however, my point. I was rather pointing out that people
    Holy crap! Finally, a voice of reason.


    I've been Minolta user for the past 30 years. Shots from 5 continents with zero
    problems. And yes, I've used just about every brand of Japanese camera out
    there. Some of the Konicas, Pentaxs and such I've also owned provided excellent
    results, even if Nikon/Canon fans would look down on them. I still have the
    same SRT303b that I bought in 1975, and have owned the 800i before buying my
    Maxxum 7 a couple of years ago. Looking very much forward to the 7D and will
    buy one the minute they come out. Never a single problem with any of them. The
    800i and Maxxum 7 literally have had many thousands of rolls of film run
    through each one.

    Take care,
    JD
     
    Aguyathome, Nov 10, 2004
    #37
  18. Swirl The World

    Mr Jessop Guest

    Would you have read HOGFATHER by Terry Pratchett by any chance?
     
    Mr Jessop, Nov 10, 2004
    #38
  19. Swirl The World

    Skip M Guest

    I recomended the Maxxum 7 to two good friends, based on features and
    ergonomics. I went with Canon because my wife liked it when she went to AF,
    when I made the switch a little over a year later, I went the same way to
    keep interchangeablity.
    If you mean T&S as esoteric, none. I don't photograph architecture enough
    to warrant it. If you mean IS and USM as esoteric, I have one 28-135 IS
    USM, one 100-400L IS USM, one 100 f2 USM and one Sigma 17-35 HSM, Sigma's
    version of USM. And, as I mentioned above, I regularly borrow a 70-200
    f2.8L IS USM.
     
    Skip M, Nov 11, 2004
    #39
  20. Swirl The World

    Magnus W Guest

    USM is not esoteric but not really better than in-body focusing motors
    (tests have shown that they are on par, speed-wise, but USM is perceived as
    faster due to the nearly total lack of sound, and is also faster in
    really small adjustments). IS is not esoteric, either, but the lenses
    having them are -- excluding the 28-135 and 75-300. None of those two are
    exciting performers, though, optically speaking.

    T/S and long teles (and really wide WAs) are esoteric.
     
    Magnus W, Nov 11, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.