Minolta Thoughts..

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Kramer, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. Kramer

    Kramer Guest

    Does anyone have a good guess how long it will be until full frame sensors
    become the norm rather than the exception. (Like when they reach the
    cameras at the level just above a digital Rebel is a good example). I have
    a large investment in a Maxxum 7 and eight nice lenses that I am holding on
    to and I was thinking that IF I only had to wait a year or two for Sony to
    have a full size sensor in their Alpha's, I could make do with slide film
    for my KM stuff and my trusty Panasonic FZ20 for the family digital
    snapshots. It's not like a new kit lens is expensive, it is just that it
    would be nice to use my current lenses as I always have used them, plus it
    gives me something to look forward to as well...
     
    Kramer, Jul 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. There's no guarantee that Sony will make this move, but all the signs
    (especially the retention of some key full frame lenses, and the new
    Zeiss range including full frame lenses) are positive.

    If I had to guess their possible course of action, I would bank on Sony
    'stitching' two of the 1.7X factor CMOS sensors used currently in the R1
    to make a 21.5 x 28mm sensor of approx 20 megapixels - or using the same
    sensor architecture for a larger sensor approx 20 x 30mm, not quite full
    frame but able to operate with anti-shake - again in the order of a
    20-22 megapixel design.

    The trade rumour right now is that Canon will show a medium format DSLR
    using stitched 16 megapixel sensors for a 4 to 3 ratio 32 mpixel
    Hasselblad-beater, probably with a range of half a dozen very good lenses.

    Actually you get used to using full-frame lenses with the crop factor
    quickly enough. I was shooting today with a 500mm Min mirror lens and
    had to remind myself.. this is like 750mm! It does rather change your world.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kramer

    J. Clarke Guest

    What leads you to believe that they will ever become "the norm"? Canon is
    the only manufacturer that is making any real effort to produce full frame
    cameras.
    Not gonna happen from Sony in "a year or two". May never happen from them.
    They've got enough on their plate getting the APS-C line out the door in
    Sony-ized form.

    If you've got 8 lenses then the only area where you might need a new lens
    would be on the very wide end, unless you need a "walking around" lens that
    goes from somewhat wide to somewhat long and don't have one that would
    suit.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Kramer

    Alan Browne Guest

    I am disappointed in the A100 as it is more P&S than serious system
    camera. Sony have to come up with a Maxxum 9 class machine to keep the
    confidence of lens owners such as myself and likely you as well.

    The only time I miss full frame is when I have my 20 or 28-70 f/2.8's
    attached to the 7D. I'm heading off to Colorado tomorrow morning and
    the bag will have my Maxxum 9 and 20mm as well as the 'blad and the 7D.

    The lack of a FF has also dampened my ardour for a 135 STF lens. If
    they FF a body, then I would buy that lens as well (and that rather than
    the new Carl Zeiss lens).

    I won't be very upset if Sony never produce a FF body; but I will be
    upset if they believe the A100 is acceptable for serious photographers.
    IOW: kudos for the pixles, now take a serious look at the Maxxum 9 and
    make a real camera.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Never. Or, about the same time that 6x7 negatives will become the
    norm rather than the exception.

    35mm film quality was good enough that it had lots of uses, and the
    convenient small camera size and short lens focal lengths had
    advantages. Hence 35mm film became the most commonly-used format.

    Well, the 1.5x sensors are somewhere in that area now. People buying
    Digital Rebels now mostly wouldn't pay another $100 for a full-frame
    sensor.

    Full-frame will take on roughly the niche that medium format did in
    film -- a professional format for special situations that need it's
    special capabilities.

    Predicting the future is always *very* iffy; I won't be surprised to
    be wrong -- but quite possibly not wrong in the most obvious way,
    either.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Kramer

    tomm42 Guest

    What is being called "full frame sensors" are really 35mm sized
    sensors. With cameras like Nikons D2X or D200 and the Canon 30D you
    have a smallish sensor capable of giving nice 16x20 prints with good
    lenses. The standard DSLR sensors are better than all but the best
    lenses. You have costs too last I heard the estimate of the cost
    difference between a standard DSLR sensor and a 35mm sized sensor is
    5-15X, big range but hard figures to get. That is hard on market share.

    Since most lenses for DSLRs are 35mm based there is a desire for them
    to work as they worked with 35mm film, after all it is where most
    current pros started. Canon currently has 2 35mm sized models out and
    they are the only ones. Nikon may have one at Photokina or PMA next
    winter but that is mainly based on hearsay. There is also the question
    of how many units will they sell at $8-10000 dollars. Won't be your
    vacation camera.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jul 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    Besides, the smaller sensors encourage customers to purchase new lenses,
    rather than continue using their trusty old 35mm lenses. The use of classic
    lenses is not good for the new "throwaway" mentality.
     
    jeremy, Jul 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Kramer

    Kramer Guest

    Well, I guess it was wishful thinking on my part then...

    I admit that I don't spend very much time researching digital camera
    technology, so forgive me for my ignorance. To be honest, the lenses that I
    was holding out hope for were my 28-70 2.8, 20mm and 24mm Minoltas. If I
    have to buy a new digital body, couple of new lenses to get my wide angles
    back, new flash that works with the new digital body (mine is an oldie but
    goodie) then I am going with either Canon or Nikon. Much more availability
    in my area and I can then rent lenses etc... Most of my investment is in
    quality wide angle lenses, so I am out of luck in my opinion....
     
    Kramer, Jul 14, 2006
    #8
  9. Kramer

    tomm42 Guest

    Yes but I have bought 4 2nd hand lenses for my d200, very happy with 2
    (55 f2.8 Nikor micro, 24mmf2 AIS) happy with one (Tokina 17mm f3.5) and
    OK with the other (70-210mm f4) all are full format lenses and I've
    spent less than $1000, so my wife is....
    The only real lenses you need in APS format are the super wides but
    then Canon has the 24-105, Nikon the 17-55 and the 18-200 (one of the
    only decent 18-200s or 28-200 ever made). So consumers HAVE to have
    them.
    For the OP, it would be interesting for Sony to bring out a 10mp camera
    based on the Minolta 7D for $1200, to compete with the Canon 30D and
    the Nikon D200.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jul 14, 2006
    #9
  10. Kramer

    tomm42 Guest


    Tokina 12-24 (have they started to make a Sony/Minolta mount?)
    Sigma 10-20 and 12-24
    Tamron 14mm f2.8
    Minolta 14mm
    Tamron 11-18
    Sigma 14mm f2.8
    Tokina 17mm f3.5

    The Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 have a following, I have the
    Tokina 17mm and it is almost as good as my old Canon 24mm f2.8. The
    14mm Tamron has good ratings as I imagine the Minolta does. It would be
    nice for you if Sony has Zeiss make a wide zoom for their cameras, so
    not all gloom and doom.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jul 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    I'm glad that your setup pleases you. But I started in photography using a
    TLR, at the age of 9, along with a Sekonic "Brockway" incident light meter
    (the TLR had no metering). When I was 22 I bought my first SLR, a Honeywell
    Pentax Spotmatic IIa. And there is a sense of tactile gratification that I
    get from using this classic equipment--a sense of gratification that just is
    not there when using digital, with its menus and buttons and the need to
    learn how to use a camera all over again, after I've spent 3 decades being
    able to photograph in my sleep, figuratively speaking.

    I have a full compliment of really fine, classic prime lenses. Metal
    barrels. Aperture rings. Distance scales. Smooth-as-silk focusing.
    Beautiful bokeh. Multi-coating. Metal lens mounts (I will never be
    comfortable with a plastic lens mount!)

    It's hard to set that all aside or, even worse, to port those lenses over to
    a digital camera where their effective focal lengths will all change. And
    there is also the cost factor. I can flesh out my contingent of lenses in
    the used market for dirt-cheap prices (I have 17 primes and 4 zooms already,
    so I need very little.)

    I do have a digital camera, I do use it, I do appreciate its convenience and
    versatility. But there is no thrill in using it. It is great as a
    take-along camera, because it is small and light and has a 3x zoom, built-in
    flash and requires no film. But there's no thrill in it (I am an amateur,
    who shoots only for his own pleasure, not to satisfy an editor or deadlines.
    So my perspective on photography is different than, say, a newspaper
    photographer or sports photographer.)

    I stumbled across this web page for the first time today. Have a look at
    the comments, and see if they don't strike a chord with you.

    http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/old-slrs
     
    jeremy, Jul 14, 2006
    #11
  12. Kramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    Help me out here. Why would anyone need 17 primes? And why 4 zooms on
    top of that? I should think that 17 primes would pretty much cover it.

    It's good that you have fun with your old camera system. That's what
    it's all about, after all. But your idea of fun and mine differ. I
    don't find changing the roll of film every 24-36 shots to be fun. And
    it's no fun having to change film just to change ISO. And waiting days
    or even hours to see my pics only to discover that Mongo at the lab
    messed them up or scratched the negatives is definitely NOT fun.
    Choosing which lens to use from my 17 primes might be kind of fun, I
    guess.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    I acquired all this stuff over a 30+ year period. Only a few pieces were
    bought new. The rest were in used, but near-mint, condition. In any given
    year I'd pick up one or two items. It sounds like a lot, but I built my kit
    over a very long time, and I paid low prices for what I did buy.

    If I were just starting out, or if I had only a few pieces of film gear, I'd
    probably follow the crowd and commit to digital. But my particular
    circumstances are such that I am unwilling to part with equipment that has
    given me much pleasure over the years. It all falls within my comfort zone.
    And, remember, I am an amateur that does mainly landscapes, cityscapes and
    documentary photography--not sports, news or fashion work--so my present
    setup already meets my modest requirements very nicely. Finally, if I did
    elect to switch I would have to either pay out a small fortune to duplicate
    my current setup or I would have to make do with less in terms of lenses,
    bodies and accessories. The numbers just don't justify my abandoning film,
    especially since I am basically satisfied with what I already have.

    The digital P&S takes care of those situations where I need speed--and there
    are really few times that I require fast turnaround. I admit that my
    situation is somewhat unusual, but it just serves to underscore that digital
    photography is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution.
     
    jeremy, Jul 15, 2006
    #13
  14. no Minolta 14mm - never has been

    DK
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 15, 2006
    #14
  15. Kramer

    bmoag Guest

    I just got back from a 3 week trek through southern France, using only a
    digital SLR. This is the second such trek I have completed since moving to
    digital.
    My photographic experience dates back to the original Minolta SR7, handed
    down to me by my father. Film and me go way back. I wish I still had that
    frigging camera.
    Prior to switching to digital my trek camera of choice was my beloved Nikon
    N80; however I have also made similar treks with vintage Minolta gear (1970s
    and 80s, not all the way back to SR7 days).
    While it is inconvenient and more expensive to use film, and there is the
    worry of umpteen airport x-ray searches, there is one uncontestable
    advantage to film cameras.
    They weigh a lot less than their dSLR counterparts.
    This is a big consideration for us aging baby boomers.
    While I love the quality of raw images from my Nikon dSLR I am not all that
    fond of having it dangling from my neck while traipsing through, over and up
    a variety of terrains. I see some people struggling with really high end
    dSLRs which weigh even more than prosumer dSLRs.
    There has to be a better way.
     
    bmoag, Jul 15, 2006
    #15
  16. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest


    I agree with you but would modify it a bit.

    If you generally use long lenses, you *love* 1.5x sensors.

    If you generally use wide lenses, you *hate* 1.5x sensors and
    would much prefer full frame or larger.

    In my particular case I do both (and rather little with
    "normal" lenses) and simply have to get along. In that
    case cost was important and so I went with 1.5x (acually
    Canon 1.6x).

    There is no perfect format for all uses.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #16
  17. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I don't agree with this at all. Your trusty old 35mm lenses
    just don't cover the same angular dimensions any more. But
    they are perfectly good lenses.

    I shoot portraits now with my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I'd have used an
    80mm with 35mm, but I never had one then -- couldn't afford it.

    Now I've got a neat portrait lens and I didn't even have to buy
    it with my digital camera!

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #17
  18. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Why don't you stick with film? I'm not being nasty. I understand
    *exactly* what you are saying. My photographic knowlege was all in
    my fingers back when I used similar cameras. I just looked at the
    image in the viewfinder and my fingers adjusted focus, exposure
    time, and aperture.

    The only real gain with digital has been variable "film speed"
    which I would have died for way back when which would have meant
    that I no longer had to carry two bodies.

    On the other hand I'd given my good Minolta equipment to my
    daughter and not done much photography for a while. So when
    digital came up I was primed for it. And I love it, but it
    isn't quite the same.

    In your case though, I repeat: why not stick with film?

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #18
  19. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You speak much truth, but I worry about one thing: I find
    dSLRs much lighter than film SLR's. My Canon 300D is nowhere
    near the weight of my all metal Minolta SRT-101 or my Pentax
    K-1000.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #19
  20. Kramer

    Tim Guest

    Bret, no one cares what you think. He's using film and he's happy with
    it. That's all that counts.
     
    Tim, Jul 15, 2006
    #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.