dslr: canon vs. minolta

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Rob & Wendy, Jun 2, 2006.

  1. Rob & Wendy

    Rob & Wendy Guest

    I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I need
    a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good enough
    quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently have
    a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    over again?
    Rob & Wendy, Jun 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rob & Wendy

    Jim Sant Guest

    start over and get the Canon. if you don't, you will always be the odd man

    Jim Sant, Jun 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rob & Wendy

    Kevin Agard Guest

    Rob or Wendy,

    I presume you are talking about the Minolta Maxxum AF lens? If not, it's
    a moot point as the non AF lens will not work on the KM DSLRs.

    If you are, then you need to look at how much you have invested in your
    current lens, how you feel about their quality and decide what you want.

    I personally choose the KM 7D because I have gathered a rather large
    collection of Maxxum lens over the years that i wanted to use and i did
    not want to have to replace them. I can not say I am sorry about that
    choice as I've been quite happy with the 7D.

    On the down side, now that KM has gone out of the camera business, OEM
    accessories are getting hard to find and more expensive.
    Kevin Agard, Jun 3, 2006
  4. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!
    GF3, Jun 7, 2006
  5. Rob & Wendy

    Kenny Guest

    That's your opinion and I can not agree with that statement. Canon
    outsell Nikon by a huge margin, have better and lower cost lenses and
    with cameras like the 5D and 1 series, leave Nikon playing catch-up.

    You invest in a system, not a camera, and Canon have the best system at
    this point in time.

    Kenny, Jun 8, 2006
  6. Rob & Wendy

    RW+/- Guest

    OK, so you state that you are going with a "system", then why not Olympus
    who have digital specific lenses? With large F stops as well.

    From what I've read seems that Nikon can use old lenses going way back and
    do it better than Canon users can. Again, both seem to have started
    producing "digital" specific lenses.

    Then again, when using older style/film lenses at what point does their
    aperture become useful, or how large can you open the lens before you start
    having problems when using these lenses with digital bodies?
    RW+/-, Jun 8, 2006
  7. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    If the best metering and exposure latitude in the business doesn't make for
    the best camera, what does?

    Add to that the most consistent lineup of quality lenses, and its a
    GF3, Jun 8, 2006
  8. Rob & Wendy

    ASAAR Guest

    You _say_ "If I was forced to start over again" but your logic
    says otherwise, since it assumes that one would already have, or be
    able to use a bunch of old lenses. Not exactly a good description
    of "starting over". Even if the old lenses could be used, they
    probably wouldn't provide all of the features of Canon's and
    Pentax's current lenses with their DSLRs. I currently have several
    Nikkor AIs lenses, and when I get a DSLR body, it will probably be
    one of Nikon's. But if I was forced to start over again, without
    having any lenses, I might well choose another brand of camera. The
    OP doesn't have ANY old Canon or Pentax lenses, so there wouldn't be
    a good reason to single out these two brands based solely on their
    ability to use old lenses. If I had a Pentax DSLR and an old K
    mount lens, I might be tempted to use it, but I'd have little reason
    to buy a K mount lens.

    The OP does state that many old Minolta lenses are owned, so that
    might make Sony's new Alpha system worth considering first. Other
    than a subset of professionals, few photographers will ever be
    constrained by going with a brand that doesn't have the extensive
    line of lenses and accessories that Canon and Nikon has, many of
    them belonging in the category "If you need to know the price, you
    probably can't afford it."
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2006
  9. Rob & Wendy

    RW+/- Guest

    So you are saying that barrel distortion, etc. are not a problem and any
    Have you tested 1.4 for distortion, softness at corners, etc.?
    I'm sure it is different with various lenses, has there been a test done on
    the full line of lenses? Olympus seems to have done this and lists the
    useful F-stops of their old lines of lenses.
    RW+/-, Jun 8, 2006
  10. ASAAR bedacht in
    Consider Minolta, or the new Sony Alpha. Your Minolta lenses are
    (probably) excellent, like most Minolta lenses. You don't want to buy new
    ones if you have perfectly good old ones. And then there's Minolta's (and
    Sony Alpha's) really useful built-in Anti-shake. I emphasize 'built-in',
    because it means you can use it with your old lenses, and you don't have
    to buy those very expensive Canon anti-shake lenses.

    Justus Lipsius, Jun 8, 2006
  11. Rob & Wendy

    ASAAR Guest

    It depends on what type of photography is of interest. If there's
    lots of time to get everything right (portraits, landscapes), old
    lenses can be useful. For fast moving objects (race cars, athletes,
    birds, young children), fast, accurate AF, and tracking ability
    isn't likely to be possible with old lenses. One thing I appreciate
    about the old lenses is that many of them are very well built and
    have the feel of precision objects. Some of the cheap kit lenses
    (Nikon and especially Canon) may perform moderately well, but have
    the feel of the cheapest junk, and I'm almost embarrassed holding
    them. But where I once favored getting many good lenses, I now
    prefer having a small number of good multipurpose lenses, since I
    was rarely willing to carry more than 2 or 3 lenses years ago. So
    even though I can appreciate some of the older lenses, I'm not
    likely to be an old lens collector, even if they're "available for
    peanuts". But I reserve the right to flip-flop if I come across an
    oldie but goodie. :)
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2006
  12. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    Wrong on ALL Counts!!!!
    GF3, Jun 8, 2006
  13. Rob & Wendy

    RW+/- Guest

    A hypothetical fact, eh?
    Ok, so you didn't test it, I understand.
    Because they do not include the full line, nor do they address the question
    I asked you. Purposefully they resist addressing the real issue and help
    propagate the lens con on everyone.

    In what little research I have done on this Nikon seems in the best
    position regarding use of older lenses with digital SLR's.
    I understand what you are surmising, but one really needs to do full tests
    to confirm it. Why do you think so many are suggesting that others just
    stop down their lens to F9 or better for sharpness, etc.? It's almost as if
    they consider it a standard rule of thumb, which is nothing more than a
    sorry excuse on how to get by with slop lenses.

    A 1.4 50mm lens that worked fully open would be nice, but I want to see the
    evidence especially under low lighting conditions and a portrait of an
    older person with a nice crinkly face with low natural lighting would help
    clarify the issue. (unaltered, in RAW format preferable.)
    RW+/-, Jun 9, 2006
  14. Rob & Wendy

    RW+/- Guest


    So now you admit that you really do not know what your lens is or is not
    capable of. I gleaned that from what you "didn't" say in your earlier
    posts. I called you on your crapola and now you get all pissy. Too bad, and
    now I get plonked by a wanker? LOL, dear me! What am I to do?

    Just LMAOAY
    Cool, now you'll never know you were caught faking it a long time ago and I
    get the last word. You Suh, are a fraud.
    RW+/-, Jun 9, 2006
  15. Rob & Wendy

    J. Clarke Guest

    I'm a bit puzzled as to why owning a Pentax that can use old Pentax lenses
    is more fun than owning a Canon that can use those same old Pentax lenses
    but also old Nikon, Leica R, Olympus OM, and Contax/Yashica lenses.
    J. Clarke, Jun 9, 2006
  16. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    There are only a couple of Canon models that can safely mount Pentax lenses.
    Also, I am not aware of any mount adaptor that allows true infinity focus.

    I must warn everyone that Canon's have poor "highlight" exposure latitude
    that can become a serious problem when used with manual lenses.
    GF3, Jun 9, 2006
  17. Rob & Wendy

    J. Clarke Guest

    Would you care to enumerate the Canon DSLR models that can _not_ safely
    mount Pentax lenses and for each explain the cause of the difficulty?
    Then you have not made even the tiniest effort to look for one. Google
    "pentax EOS adapter" and you'll get about 622,000 hits. The flange to
    focal plane distance for a Canon EOS is about 1.5mm less than for a
    screw-mount Pentax--that's plenty to machine an adapter.
    Like there's something special about manual focus that makes them need more
    exposure latitude than autofocus?

    You're grasping at straws here.
    J. Clarke, Jun 9, 2006
  18. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    All Pentax lenses that I am aware of extend deeply past the mount at
    infinity. Only the 350d/XT and 20d/30d? have the mirror ressesed enough to
    handle it.

    None of the adaptors which I have seen or used allow true infinity focus
    with other makers lenses! There may be acceptions using Pentax.
    Canon EOS DSLR'S appear to perform poorly when used with non-chipped lenses.
    GF3, Jun 9, 2006
  19. Rob & Wendy

    J. Clarke Guest

    Well, since that pretty much covers the range of Canon DSLRs, where is the
    So how many "other makers' lenses" have you used on a Canon DSLR?
    I see. So setting the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed has a different
    effect using a "chipped" and "non-chipped" lens that are otherwise
    identical? Do tell.
    J. Clarke, Jun 9, 2006
  20. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:


    I have no use for trolling idiot's!!!!
    GF3, Jun 9, 2006
    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.