Is Minolta 7D or Canon 20D Worth Buying?

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Paul, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    Hello group

    I am thinking of putting the 35MM SLR to one side and getting a digital SLR.

    The idea of digital SLR's has always appealed, but they just didn't seem to
    compare with film SLR's without spending a lot of money, and even then I
    wasn't convinced they could really compete. So, I am after some advice from
    some of you guys.

    Firstly, I am interested to know if there is anyone who has tried digital
    SLR photography, but prefers shooting with 35mm SLR's.

    Secondly, I have been looking at digital SLR's, and the two which I like the
    look of are the Canon 20D and the Minolta 7D. Out of these two, the Canon
    20D seems to have more going for it when you look at the specs and therefore
    seems to be the obvious choice.

    So, are any of these 2 a worthy competitor for a 35mm SLR? If so, any
    advice/recommendations on which of these cameras is the better buy?

    Cheers.
     
    Paul, Oct 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul

    PaoloTCS Guest

    Could the PhotoLitterati here please also compare with the Nikon d70?


    Hello group

    I am thinking of putting the 35MM SLR to one side and getting a digital SLR.

    The idea of digital SLR's has always appealed, but they just didn't seem to
    compare with film SLR's without spending a lot of money, and even then I
    wasn't convinced they could really compete. So, I am after some advice from
    some of you guys.

    Firstly, I am interested to know if there is anyone who has tried digital
    SLR photography, but prefers shooting with 35mm SLR's.

    Secondly, I have been looking at digital SLR's, and the two which I like the
    look of are the Canon 20D and the Minolta 7D. Out of these two, the Canon
    20D seems to have more going for it when you look at the specs and therefore
    seems to be the obvious choice.

    So, are any of these 2 a worthy competitor for a 35mm SLR? If so, any
    advice/recommendations on which of these cameras is the better buy?

    Cheers.
     
    PaoloTCS, Oct 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul

    Fitpix Guest

    Hi Paul!
    Here is a longwinded answer. I bought my first SLR in 85, a Maxxum 7000. I
    loved it! I eventually traded it in on a 900 and then when it began
    malfunctioning I traded it all in on a Canon Rebel (yes I said Rebel) and a
    few lenses. I got my professional start in bodybuilding and fitness and had
    many shots in magazines such as MuscleMag, Muscular Development etc. During
    that period I began doing more traditional portraiture whil keeping my
    "day,night and all hours in between" job at the police department as a
    dispatcher. Last year in March I bought my Canon 10D and I have not shot a
    single frame on film since. I have since opened my own studio, quit the PD
    and bought a 20D. So , to answer your question, I have shot with both of the
    mentioned companies and got great film images from both, but I do strongly
    prefer Canon. As far as digital, I would go with the 20D because I feel
    Canon and Nikon are the top choices in digital. HOWEVER, your current crop
    of lenses may make your decision for you if you happen to own Minolta
    equipment. An excellent source for info, and I would look at the galleries
    they have, is www.dpreview.com . That is the site I used to help me make my
    decision to get the 10D and venture out on my own as a photog. With the 10D
    I get great 16x20's, looking at the 20D files I can easily believe 30x40
    would be a good print, in fact the 300dpi file shows as a little larger.

    www.pbase.com/fitpix Nature, swimsuits and the New Orleans cemetary stuff
    was on film, the rest on digital.

    sorry for the rambling!
    D
     
    Fitpix, Oct 19, 2004
    #3
  4. Paul

    Bruce Chang Guest

    Two big issues that I've had with my Canon D60:

    If I remember correctly, the focal length is multiplied by 1.4. That's nice
    if you're going for telephoto but for wide angle, your 28mm becomes roughly
    40mm.

    Also, having to adjust the camera for different light conditions. Sunny or
    cloudy, or indoor or florescent.. Other than that, I love it.. No more
    buying film and no more photo developing. I'll have paid off my camera in
    the cost of those alone within the year.

    -Bruce
     
    Bruce Chang, Oct 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Paul

    Alan Browne Guest

    PaoloTCS wrote:

    You can do a side by side for the technical compare at dpreview under the
    "Buying Guide".

    (At this level, you should look at the *ist D from Pentax and the Nikon D70 as
    well.)

    V. the 7D:

    The 20D has more pixels and a CMOS sensor (v. CCD in the Minolta). Strong points.

    The 7D has anti shake in the body, spot metering and a larger LCD display
    (almost 2X the pixels in the display). Strong points.

    They are otherwise quite similar in spec, although the 20D can shoot roughly
    twice as fast for twice as many images if shooting fast is a need.

    The 7D is the 'entrant' DSLR camera for Minolta. Likely to be upgraded in
    several respects over the next few years. So while starting with a very strong
    baseline, it will likely not last.

    Canon has a better range of lenses at the pro end (how many pro len$e$ are you
    going to buy?); Minolta's top end len$e$ are very good to excellent, just not
    very many.

    OTOH, the IS lenses from Canon are quite expensive (while giving up to 3 stops
    of anti-shake) whereas the 7D antishake will work with most Minolta lenses but
    provide about 2 stops of anti shake.

    The effect of IS will be visible in the viewfinder of the Canon; the effect of
    A-S will not be immediately visible to the shooter in the 7D except by reference
    to a meter in the viewfinder.

    The current price of the 7D is very high and will likely come down 200 - 300
    bucks after Christmas or so. The 20D is at the same price point right now. The
    questions becomes:

    Is the anti-shake of the 7D worth the 2.2 extra mega-pix of the 20D, esp.
    considering even the lowliest of Maxxum lenses will enjoy the benefits of
    anti-shake?

    Canon are a couple years ahead of Minolta in DSLR's and Minolta will take a few
    years to reach a par... and at that it may remain in the "consumer" range and
    not break up into full frame, very high res sensors.

    I'm a Minolta user and bound to a lot of their glass, so you know where I'll end
    up....

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Paul

    Mike Kohary Guest

    I'm not, but what I can say is that I first intended to buy a digital camera
    to merely supplement my film SLR camera. My first digital camera was the
    Canon Powershot G2, a high-end point-and-shoot. What ended up happening is
    that I took the new Canon on a shoot, and haven't picked up my film camera
    since. That was over 2 years ago. :) I've since gotten myself a digital
    SLR (Canon Digital Rebel), a couple of nice lenses ("L" series, very
    expensive and very spoiling of all other lenses) and will be buying the 20D
    any day now.
    The 20D is the better camera and offers the best long-term investment with
    regards to lenses - Canon makes the best. But, don't take my word for it,
    because I'm biased. :) Read reviews at dpreview.com and decide for
    yourself.
    Absolutely. Both cameras offer quality that equals and sometimes exceed
    that of film, though there are tradeoffs (mostly in dynamic range). The
    convenience factor is what kept me from ever touching my film camera again,
    though, and I suspect you'll experience the same. Have fun!
     
    Mike Kohary, Oct 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Paul

    Dirty Harry Guest

    If you were using film wouldn't you need a different filter for different
    lighting? Ie, that ugly yellow color u get on film when shooting under
    tungsten lights, but it magiacly gone with a custom WB on digital :)
     
    Dirty Harry, Oct 19, 2004
    #7
  8. Paul

    Bruce Chang Guest

    I'm just not used to doing the processing myself. With a film camera, the
    developer does all the color processing and I never had to deal with it.
    Yes.. I'm not a pro but an avid amateur photographer.

    -Bruce
     
    Bruce Chang, Oct 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Paul

    Tony Guest

    I know the 20D will probably be my first digital. Everything abut it strikes
    me as "ready". If I were a Minolta shooter I would probably say the same
    thing about the 7D, but I really have not checked it out, as I'm not a
    Minolta shooter.
     
    Tony, Oct 19, 2004
    #9
  10. As one wh osells cameras, it is getting very hard to recommend autofocus
    film SLRs over autofocus digital SLRs. IMO, all enthusiasts, gearheads and
    would-be-debtors should buy DSLRs and sell off their film kit, just so
    wierdos like myself can pick up their cast-offs dirt cheap...
     
    Martin Francis, Oct 19, 2004
    #10
  11. Paul

    GT40 Guest

    You use tungsten films for that light.
     
    GT40, Oct 19, 2004
    #11
  12. Paul

    Alan Browne Guest

    Digital cameras allow frame to frame adjustments in every parameter including
    the light color temperature. Shoot a portrait with the table lamp, set camera
    to tungsten. Shoot with flash - set to flash or daylight (5500K), shoot someone
    in open shade, set a higher temp yet...

    Can't be controlled as well on film. Most film shot is daylight and can be
    controlled with additional pain of filters, emphaisis on distraction and
    inconvenience.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 19, 2004
    #12
  13. Paul

    me Guest

    I'm with you brother!
     
    me, Oct 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Paul

    Alan Browne Guest

    Concur. I need a 500CM, 150 f/4 and a couple A12 backs.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Paul

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yep. More expensive. Less opportunities to shoot it. Better a blue filter and
    lose 1.3 stops. Or better yet, flash.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 19, 2004
    #15
  16. Paul

    Mr Jessop Guest

    I often advise to go with the camera that is the same brand as your existing
    ones. The lenses will fit and you will be familiar with the layout to begin
    comfortably shooting straight away.

    If you plan to make use of image stabilisation the minolta is the cheapest
    in the long run should you not already own IS or VR lenses from canon or
    nikon.

    If continous fast shooting is a priority then the 20D reigns. As for 8mp
    versus 6 this is not an issue unless you plan to print A3 on a regular
    basis. Considering the canon sensor is not physically larger it has to make
    the pixels smaller to fit the same space. This may cause noise issues.
    However canon are extremely good at dealing with noise in the first place.
    iso 1600 should be acheivable relatively noise free and it goes to 3200 if
    need be.

    How computer literate are you? Really serious users shoot in RAW. in this
    format no processing is done in camera so many of the extra wizzy features
    (except antishake) are useless. You are supposed to take the basic digital
    negative and process it to your liking. I personally only use jpegs. They
    are of a high enough quality for my needs. I use my camera on the default
    settings for colour, saturation, contrast, sharpness etc. I also rarely do
    sport at the moment. Finally i don't go bigger than borderless A4 so i
    found the 6mp canon 300d sufficient for my needs.

    Finally how big are your hands? 300d and 20d are big beasts. d70 is pretty
    large. The only small one is the pentax istd. olympus and pentax are also
    bringing out smaller and simpler versions of existing systems is jan and feb
    2005.

    So how much existing kit do you have. Do you shoot low light (antishake
    minolta), do you have big hands (pentax istd), how much in camera processing
    control do you think you want (d70) do you plan to print very large images
    (d20)?
     
    Mr Jessop, Oct 20, 2004
    #16
  17. Paul

    Patrick L. Guest



    Do they have tungsten at ISO 800? Digital does have some advantages.



    Patrick
     
    Patrick L., Oct 20, 2004
    #17
  18. Paul

    GT40 Guest

    Depends on what you doing. Also sometimes you want to have some extra
    yellow to provide a warm feeling to the image.
     
    GT40, Oct 20, 2004
    #18
  19. Paul

    Dirty Harry Guest

    Dirty Harry, Oct 20, 2004
    #19
  20. Paul

    Dirty Harry Guest

    With digital you can go from one to the other, on the same roll ;-)
     
    Dirty Harry, Oct 20, 2004
    #20
    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.