Minolta vs. Nkon and Canon

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Wayne Dyer, Dec 14, 2003.

  1. Wayne Dyer

    Wayne Dyer Guest

    About 14 years ago I used to play with my wife's Minolta SRT101 (by the way
    our daughter is now using this 40 year old camera and if still functions
    flawlesy - it also has a 50MM f1.2 (yes 1.2 that is not a typo) - what I
    wouldn't give to have that lens work on my new body!!). Last year I bought
    a Maxum 5 and just recently moved up to a Maxum 7. I use a 28-80MM and
    75-300MM, 2X teleconverter, and 5400HS flash. This set up has more than met
    my needs, the only thing remaining is to get a fast 50MM or 35MM lens.

    My experience with my wife's Minolta and its longevity is what prompted me
    to select Minolta. Since then I have followed with some interest the
    various debates on the pros and cons of Minolta versus Canon or Nikon and at
    the end the day I have arrived at the conclusion that all three produce fine
    products. However, Minolta bodies deliver more bang for your buck. The
    drawback is that while Minolta produces fine glass they do not have the
    depth in their lens line up and they are a bit heavy handed in pricing on
    their accessories.

    I do not have the experience to comment based on actual use of the
    competitive product. My opinon is based on the specs. What I will say
    though is that I was literally astounded by the ease of use and the
    flexibility of modern SLR's and the Maxum's (most especially the 7) are well
    laid out and durable.

    For those affiiciandos of metal bodies please note that the bodies are
    graphite not "plastic". You may have noticed that this is the same material
    used for ski poles, ultra expensive bicycle frames, etc. Applications which
    require a very durable and flexible material. I acutally field tested this
    by dropping the Maxum 5 with the 75-300 MM lens mounted about five feet onto
    concrete - camera strap got tangled with strap of pack and camera went
    flying when I picked up the pack. The lens hood snapped off and had to be
    replaced. There was not so much as a scratch on the lens or the body and
    the camera continued to function flawlessly. I am convinced that the Minolt
    a camera bodies are not fragile but I am doing my best to avoid any further
    field research on this aspect. I will leave it to someone with a bigger
    budget and better nerves to do the more definitive testing.

    In my experience the AF on both cameras has functioned well. The 7 is
    decidedly faster and of course has the upper hand in low light conditions
    given the AF illuminator. Both exhibited excellent AE but the 7 again gives
    more flexibility with center weighted metering and overriding the aperture
    or speed chosen by the camera can be done directly in Program mode. No need
    to switch. The flexibility of the 7 is nothing short of remarkable. It's
    features are too numerous mention (and I would think it pointless anyway-
    most know them) but the bottom line is that this camera gives you the choice
    of using it like a point and shoot or you can take control over virtually
    every aspect of its operation without a 7 layered menu system or pressing 3
    button in sequence. The 5 is a delight in that it's size and weight makes
    it easy to live with. However, I do admit that some of the controls take a
    bit of practice to get comfortable with. The buttons are small and take
    getting used to. The 7 on the other hand is as close to perfection as
    anyone is likely to come with respect the layout of the controls and that
    LCD screen is great. Custom settings can be changed in the field without
    refernce to a manual (or the memory of an elephant). Imagine that!

    Conversion to digital, well to be honest I don't think digital is there yet.
    If I were a photojournalist the ease of use and advantages of uploading
    images directly to a PC or network would no doubt make the capital
    investment worth it but with all due respect I think film will continue to
    offer advantages for some time to come and is currently a lot cheaper
    (consider if you want to play in the digital realm you need to facotr in
    costs such as the PC, printer, paper, ink cartridges (and I thought lithium
    batteries wer priced rediculously high), etc...). With any kind of luck we
    might see the development of digital backs for 35MM's the same as in the
    medium formats. To my mind this would be heaven. I believe that Minolta
    will no doubt join the DSLR crowd at some time but for myself, I am in no

    In summary, when I consider Minolta versus competition, I think it stacks up
    this way:

    * Fast accurate AF and superb AE as good or better than any camera in their
    respective class
    * Noisy shutters and film transport
    * Excellent lenses but limited selection
    * Well thought out ergonomics most especially with the 7
    * Very competitively priced

    I would be interested in hearing the views (balanced views) of anyone with
    longer experience with Minoltas and other makes.
    Wayne Dyer, Dec 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne Dyer

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Wayne Dyer"
    I used the Minolta manual focus system for many years ... SRT-101, 202, X-700,
    XK, 24 mm, 28 mm, 35 mm, 50 f/1.4, 100 macro, 135, 200 f/3.5, 300 f/4.5, 500
    f/8 reflex, 800 f/8 reflex ... a lot of lenses. I have no bones to pick with
    Minolta, the systems worked fine for me.

    About 8 years ago my wife and I decided to switch over to autofocus for 35 mm
    (we also shoot 645 and 6x7 medium format) and checked out Minolta, Canon and
    Nikon. Canon was just bringing out the first IS lenses at that time and after
    looking at the bodies and features we decided on Canon, mainly for the advanced
    features of the lenses.

    My impression is that the guy who owns one or two non-pro bodies and has two
    lenses that cover all his/her needs, say a 28-105 and a 75-300 (or whatever ...
    you get the drift) will be fine with pretty much any system made today, whether
    it's Canon or Nikon or Minolta or Pentax or anything else reasonably well made.

    But if you're really serious about photography and think you'll grow as a
    photographer and need the very high end gear later on then you should stick
    with Nikon or Canon (personally I chose Canon but I can see Nikon as a strong
    2nd). Why? Because they offer high end goodies the others don't have, like
    say a 400 f/2.8 lens or a 500 f/4 (does Minolta have these? didn't see 'em in
    the B&H ad, dunno) Or Image Stabilized lenses in a wide range of focal lengths
    (Canon is ahead of Nikon here because Nikon lacks IS/VR on its longest
    telephotos but Nikon is catching up, and well ahead of Pentax, Minolta, etc).
    Or tilt/shift lenses. Or strong digital support, with digital bodies that
    accept your current lenses.
    This and lack of dSLR support and lack of IS lenses would keep me from
    considering Minolta, personally. But I'm not a "two lenses covers all" kind of

    Bill Hilton, Dec 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    (Bill Hilton) wrote in

    There are people in between, you know. Actually there are lots of people in
    between. I have never understood the need for some people, speaking
    generally and not specifically about you, to recommend something from the
    standpoint of a professional wildlife or sports photographer -- in the
    latter case obviously a freelancer, as most publications have pools for
    such equipment! It gets even more interesting when most of the people
    giving those recommendations are themselves not in that class -- rather,
    they tend to be "advanced amateurs" (meaning "owning a lot of gear") or
    less, or in other words exactly the kind of photographers where Minolta's
    interest lies. Strange, this.

    It's no secret that Minolta is very strong from the bottom to slightly
    below-the-top; it's no secret that Minolta has a somewhat limited lens
    lineup (their cameras are very competitive). But which lenses are missing?
    It's the extreme teles (above 600/4, plus a 400/2.8); it's the ultra
    wideangles (below 17). Three points:
    1) Less than a tenth of a percent of all photographers will ever own such a
    2) Third party manufacturers in the worst case. I bought a Tokina 17/3.5
    because I couldn't justify the Minolta 17mm alternative. Big deal.
    3) So change camera systems when you see it coming. It's not like you
    suddenly wake up in the morning, and just /have/ to have that 400/2.8 that
    very same day.

    And let's turn it around. Where is the other manufacturer's extremely
    affordable 400/4.5? Where is an autofocusing 500/8 mirror reflex lens,
    arguably one of the most interesting long lenses on the market (light and
    compact and affordable with good quality, very suitable for climbing,
    action photography, travel and whatever)? The 135/2.8 STF lens also lacks
    competition, even if Nikon's DC lenses come close. There are always holes
    in a lineup. It's just a matter of perspectives, priorities and shooting
    habits. I couldn't live without the 500/8 and would keep a Dynax 7 with
    that lens even if changing brands. Different horses for different courses.

    I have a lot of Minolta's pro glass, the largest currently being a 300/2.8.
    I own all their pro bodies, have owned a couple of different consumer
    bodies, and I own their digital SLR for the Maxxum mount. I am satisfied
    with what I own, and most photographers won't ever own this amount of gear.
    I -- and most others -- would do more constructive things with the money
    than buy a 500 or 600/4 or a 400/2.8. To recommend a camera system to
    anyone from the standpoint of "what's available" and "but what if you will
    become a full time wildlife pro" instead of trying to analyze the
    photographers needs is very gear-centric, unrealistic and not at all
    constructive IMHO.
    Magnus W, Dec 14, 2003
  4. Wayne Dyer

    Mike Guest

    Minolta appeals to people like me. I don't need nor would I ever spend the money for a 400mm f2.8 lens.

    A commentary in this month's PopPhoto states that Minolta's 24-105mm AF D lens is unmatched in terms of size, weight,
    image quality and value. And its design is unique and patented.

    I only fault Minolta for being late to the dSLR game...but word is that they are planning to play ball.
    Mike, Dec 14, 2003
  5. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Wayne Dyer wrote:

    It is always harder to walk the rockier patch.

    The Maxxum 7 is as near perfect a full featured camera as one should
    expect. It has a couple very minor shortcomings and I wish Minolta had
    come out with the Maxxum 9.7 with the 9's fast flash sync, 100% very
    bright viewfinder, metal body, etc, etc + the up to date features of the
    Maxxum 7.

    Lenses. Well the two lenses you cite are not among the stellar Minolta
    lenses, esp. the 75-300. Dump the 28-80 and get the 24-105 D would be
    my advice if you were asking.

    All my Maxxum lenses are the top end Minolta's. Very expensive and very
    good. (oh, except my 50 f/1.7 ...which is fine).

    Canon and Nikon have traditionally been the top flag SLR brands and as
    the underdog it is much harder for Minolta to overcome it. And they
    probably won't. There is, let's just say it, a smug prejudice against
    Minolta and it is encouraged by some Canon/Nikon users and certainly by
    the marketing folks at Canon and Nikon. The smug "Well pros only
    use..." (not all Canon/Nikon users are such idiots and there are several
    pros who use the Minolta system ...the main drawback being that big
    glass is not available for rent). Since Minolta have not defended their
    system well enough, nor made the onslought that Canon successfully did
    against Nikon, they are doomed to be third. (Minolta was also the
    target of litigation on its AF system and this set the company back
    quite a bit financially).

    Canon and Nikon DO have deeper and overall better lens lineups. This
    does not mean that they are all "the best" and that all Minolta lenses
    are Inferior. Several Minolta lenses are sharper than the equivalent
    Canon or Nikon. The Maxxum 100 f/2.8 Macro is a bit better than the
    equivalent or close Canon or Nikon. The 20 f/2.8 is better. The 35 f/2
    is better, the 200 f/2.8 ties with Canon and both beat Nikon... there
    are others including the 50 f/1.4...

    Having said all that, the measured difference between those lenses is
    very small. It is not as if you could see it in 98% of all photos taken.

    Minolta's flash system is great, except for the proprietary mount and

    Want some really good news? There have been weak rumors of a Minolta
    digital body out there for over a year. Finally the other day "offical"
    leaks via the photo press began to appear. It is coming. When you have
    as much glass as I do, nothing slower than f/2.8, you can imagine how
    quickly that glass would devalue in a digital emerging world w/o a body
    to carry it. Now that glass is 'safe' and should give me at least 20
    years or more, more return.

    Reliability. In over 10 years of Minolta use I have had one 5400HS
    flash fail about 2 months after warranty. Minolta repaired it free of
    charge within 10 days. No other failures and while I don't neglect my
    equipment I don't baby it either. Minolta did have a large rash of
    returns with one of their models in the 90's (one of the i series I
    believe), and they handled it badly. This resulted in myths about
    Minolta reliabilty that were true for that model, but then generalized
    across the line.

    The Maxxum 9 and then the Maxxum 7 were thought out carefully from a
    user point of view. Minolta had gone down the path of soft-functions
    buried in menus, but with the Max 9 they got everything back outside
    again on knobs and switches. The Max 7 borrowed a lot from the 9 and
    improved on it.

    You mention the Maxxum 5. Well it is a pretty full featured camera for
    the price, but nothing I would use... if I can't control aperture and
    speed directly (2 dials) I want nothing to do with it. But this might
    not be an issue for many users.

    What 2X TC do you use with the 28-80 and 75-300?
    Alan Browne, Dec 14, 2003
  6. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:

    400mm f/4.5 Apo G is as fast as it gets. No 500 (other than the f/8

    The DSLR has been officially leaked. Will be shown at PMA and ready for
    delivery next fall. Looks to be Maxxum 7 influenced.

    Alan Browne, Dec 14, 2003
  7. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    er, Minolta have a 600 f/4, not that I can afford it.
    Alan Browne, Dec 14, 2003
  8. Wayne Dyer

    NJH Guest

    [ . . . ]
    Thanks for an interesting post. I agree with most of your conclusions,
    except the "noisy shutters" part. You may well be right, and I just don't
    have the experience with other brands to make that comparison. I've been
    using Minolta Maxxums since the very first model in 1985, and their shutters
    have gotten noticeably *quieter* with succeeding generations, except for
    some of the very low-priced and more plasticky models. Of course it's also
    true that as I've gotten older my hearing has gotten worse, so maybe they
    aren't as quiet as I think they are. :)

    I first started using SLRs about 1960, and owned a variety of brands, all
    using the then-popular so-called Praktica-Pentax screw mount. That made it
    easy to switch from brand to brand without having to replace my growing
    collection of lenses. My first SLR was an extremely basic (read: primitive)
    Petri, followed by a number of Yashicas, a couple of Prakticas, a couple of
    Mamiya/Sekors, and a few Fujicas. By that time it had become obvious that
    the technology had advanced to the point that the screw mount was
    essentially dead and I'd have to go to a bayonet mount system.

    So in the mid or late 1970s I bought my first Minolta SLR, the elegant XE-7.
    This started my love affair with Minolta, and I have never seriously
    considered another brand since. I've *thought* from time to time about some
    other makes, read their literature carefully, even thought some models had
    some neat features Minolta didn't (at the time) have, considered carefully
    and weighed all the pros and cons, but in every case finally decided, "Nah,
    I'll stick with Minolta."

    I bought more Minoltas from every succeeding generation, up through the
    innovative XD-11 and XG series to the X-700, the end of the manual-focus
    road. And of course I regularly bought more MD-mount lenses to go with them.

    When Minolta brought out the Maxxum in 1985 it also brought out a great
    groan of despair from me, because by that time I had quite a large
    collection of Minolta lenses--in fact, I had by then almost every lens they
    made, from the 16mm fisheye to the 500mm mirror. I think about the only lens
    I didn't have was the very expensive 400mm job that came with a matched 2x
    converter. And of course going to the Maxxum would obsolete the entire

    Nevertheless, go to the Maxxum I did, about a year after its introduction. I
    have owned every generation of Maxxum since, including (very briefly) one
    example of the unfortunate xi generation. Though I now shoot mostly digital
    (on Minoltas of course!) I still have almost all the Maxxums I've bought.
    Just recently I got a Maxxum 5 and I'm very impressed with it, though I
    haven't used it much. Eventually I will get a 7. I accept the fact that I've
    come to be much more a collector than a user.

    (I also have three pairs of Minolta binoculars. I would probably use a
    Minolta toothbrush if they made them.)

    NJH, Dec 14, 2003
  9. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    That's why I wrote /above/ 600/4.
    Magnus W, Dec 14, 2003
  10. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    The 7 has a shutter that could not be called "quiet" by even the most
    forgiving listener (OK, so it's not extremely loud but... loud enough). The
    9000 has a most annoying motor drive (MD-90), especially on rewind, as an
    option. Except for these two, my opinion is that they are about on par with
    the rest of the world, save some of Canon's belt-driven "stealthy" cameras.
    Magnus W, Dec 14, 2003
  11. Oh, my 700si failed (aperture transmission lever stuck in the body) four
    weeks after warranty's end - repaired for free within days, less than
    two weeks in any case. After 10 years, the card door broke, and guess
    what, they don't have such moving crap in the current single-digit
    Maxxum models.
    The 9 is aging. It may be the tougher one with the faster shutter, but
    it is behind the 7 feature wise - only they should do some SERIOUS
    mirror lock up (why not 10 s?) for either :)
    Matthias Andree, Dec 14, 2003
  12. Wayne Dyer

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Magnus W -trap.com
    Yeah, I know, and I still think Minolta lags behind Canon and Nikon in that
    market segment too.
    OK, let's look at what's available in the 400 mm range ... Minolta has this 400
    f/4.5 for about $1,800 and I see on Photodo that it has a high rating. What
    else? I see a 100-400 f/4.5-6.7 in the B&H catalog for about $580. That seems
    to be your choices with Minolta (I apologize if I'm missing something, I don't
    know the line well, just looking at the B&H ads).

    What does Canon offer that's similar? The 400 f/2.8 L IS is a super lens,
    according to many pros the best choice for sports and also fairly popular for
    wildlife in some places, like Africa. OK, it's a pro lens and we're not
    talking pros ... what else ... a 400 f/5.6 for a bit over $1,000 that has
    excellent optics, so good that for a while even Nikon bird photographers were
    buying it and a Canon body for a flight lens. 2/3's of a stop slower than the
    Minnie, but cheaper and lighter. There's also the 400 f/4 DO IS, which is
    probably more a "pro" lens, but an interesting design with the diffractive
    optics for light weight and low bulk. I think it's a bit overpriced but it's

    Then you have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, which is around $1,300 and very
    popular with the advanced amateurs who aren't ready to jump up to the
    super-teles (at least I see a lot of these lenses in Denali and Bosque and the
    Everglades, etc). So you have more choices, four vs two, and three of the four
    have Image Stabilization. And I hear Nikon is coming out with a 200-400 f/4
    (for pro prices too) with VR.

    So I don't really see an advantage for Minolta at this focal length, even for
    the non-pros.
    I didn't know Minolta had a digital SLR for their lenses. What is the model
    number on this one?
    My 500 f/4 was the best investment I ever made, in terms of getting saleable,
    dramatic images. But that's not a big separator since Minolta offers a very
    good 600 f/4 themselves.
    Here is where Minolta is lagging behind Nikon and Canon, in my view. The lens
    lineup isn't as complete, especially with the long teles, which doesn't bother
    you but will bother others. There are no tilt-shift lenses, which doesn't
    bother you or me, but will bother others.

    Minolta doesn't have anything to compare to Image Stabilization (or Nikon's VR)
    and that's probably the biggest differentiator to me. If you haven't use it
    you can't appreciate it, but having used in on several lenses I would never buy
    another long lens that didn't have it, it's that useful.

    Do any of their bodies offer autofocus at f/8 min aperture or are they all
    f/5.6? Canon offers f/8 autofocus on several models ... with my EOS-3 bodies I
    can use the 500 f/4 L IS with a 2x and have autofocus at 1,000 mm with IS.
    Tough to compete with that.

    Minolta also doesn't have a competitive dSLR system. You've seen the same
    announcements I have, a 90% model in February with an official announcement
    then, and working models in Sept or Oct. This means they are four full years
    behind Canon, if they hit their target date. Canon has four production models
    right now, from $900 to $7,000, from 4 Mpix to 11 Mpix, from 1.0 to 1.6
    multiplier effects. Nikon, with their partners, is in about the same boat
    except they don't have a low cost model yet.

    Between lack of digital support and lack of VR or IS lenses I wouldn't
    recommend that someone buying a new system today choose Minolta instead of
    Canon or Nikon. Nothing wrong with Minolta, they just haven't done a good job
    of keeping up the past 10 years or so.

    Bill Hilton, Dec 15, 2003
  13. Wayne Dyer

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Hi Alan:

    Good post, ALan. But I just want to emphasize that it was the Minolta Maxxum
    600si that got Minolta back to a sensible non-menu, dials and knobs interface,
    the Maxxums 9 and 7 just carried this "styling" of ergonomics/interce onward -
    a pity the 5 didn't too. Had the 5 had a similar layout to the Maxxum 600si but
    included all its own features plus the 600si's flash bracketing and flash
    compensation and front and back control dials (and possibly a scaled down LCD
    Maxxum 7-like navigation display on its back for the custom functions - a sort
    of slightly scaled down Maxxum 7 w/ simple(r) yet still viable
    interface/ergonomics, and kept its present price, it would probably be a hit w/
    the film crowd. However, I believe, Minolta? and Nikon? (I read online at Pop
    Photo?) may have at least one more film SLR coming out, so perhaps a Maxxum 6
    or 8 is not unreasonable to expect (too early to start another camera body name
    suffix designation yet ie. i, xi, si, etc.).

    Lewis Lang, Dec 15, 2003
  14. Wayne Dyer

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Minolta vs. Nkon and Canon
    Have you seen any leaked pictures of it yet, Alan?

    Lewis Lang, Dec 15, 2003
  15. Wayne Dyer

    Double D Guest

    I am curious to know what the 'secret mystery feature' is going to be.
    Minolta is known for packing in as many features into their cameras as
    possible. If the Maxxum dSLR is priced about the same as the 10D/D100,
    then we could probably expect it to to be more rich in extras than the
    available competition. Knowing this, should we expect Canon to plan
    another model to come out before or at the same time as Minolta's
    dSLR? Like they went from the D60 to the 10D.

    Konica-Minolta really should be working simultaneously on two or three
    separate models, crippled according to price-point. The 300D/dRebel/D70,
    10D/D100, and 1DS markets should all be covered if they ever do want to
    dominate or at least stay formidable in the dSLR game.

    I am really curious to see how Minolta's *bang for the buck* reputation
    will come into play here. These are such interesting times!

    Double D, Dec 15, 2003
  16. Nice posts ... all of you.

    I've been in "bed" with Minolta since the 3xi days ...

    Either I grew with Minolta, or it grew on me ... who knows?

    My present photo occupation is wedding photographer (yeah, yeah ... I hear
    those quips that I am "bottom feeder" from those who have never tried
    running this or any other business). Most of my equipment has been 2nd-hand
    when purchased (in fact, the ONLY body I purchased brand new was that 3xi
    some 25 years ago ... it's now tucked away in some drawer ... who knows,
    maybe it'll be a classic one day!). The most sophisticated body I now have
    is the 9xi. And I only purchased that model because I needed that PC

    You see, the needs of the pro photographer extend far beyond camera gear ...
    lights and other photographic/business paraphernalia far exceed the cost of
    camera and lenses. In fact, from all I have read, most business people start
    businesses with used equipment, because all equipment purchases must quickly
    'earn their keep'. Call me conservative ... call me cheap ... but my
    customers are typically elated with the quality of work I deliver. There is
    nothing derogatory that could be said about making a profit. And frankly, no
    customer ever asked what kind of camera I'm working with. (But they sure are
    enamored by the name "Speedotron" ... gee, maybe if I put the name
    "Godzilla" on my soft box, I'll draw more customers!!!)

    I have been long satisfied with Minolta. This system never caused me to say
    "gee, I really wish I had system "xyz" or, "I just can't work with this
    system", because whatever situation I found myself in, there was usually a

    In all, for what I do, I give Minolta the highest marks in reliability and
    value for the dollar.

    And yes, 5 or 7 years from now, I'll get my first (Minolta) DSLR ...
    2nd-hand ... after all you guys with deep pockets work out the bugs.

    Happily clicking away

    Phil D.
    Phil DeRosier, Dec 15, 2003
  17. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    The 2 sec. MLU is fine. Mirror vibe (on a good stiff tripod) dies down
    within a quarter second. A flimsy tripod can vibrate for a long time.

    10 sec on the 9 (and I assume the 7) does not MLU (mirror remains down
    for metering until the shutter goes). I would have prefered a true MLU
    which is a lever that holds the mirror up. (Can also save batteries
    during long exposures if properly done).

    Aging? As a photographic tool I still rate it better than the Maxxum 7
    .... And in equal use I would bet on the Maxxum 9 lasting longer than the
    7 and resulting in less eye strain for the photog.

    As I said in the thread, a Maxxum 9 with some Maxxum 7 features would
    have been greater than either.


    e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Dec 15, 2003
  18. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    I realize that, I wasn't contesting...
    Alan Browne, Dec 15, 2003
  19. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    alas no, and you can be sure I would have posted or linked to them if I
    had. I would guess that they will hold photos of it until PMA or maybe
    into the trade mags in the month before PMA.

    Alan Browne, Dec 15, 2003
  20. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Howdy Lewis,

    I have the 7xi which was at least good enough to have the aperture and
    shutter speed dials 'outside'. But things like exp-comp, AF selection,
    exp mode, etc, etc, were 'internal' (1 generation ahead of the 600si).
    I didn't know that with the 600si that the controls began going back to
    knobs and levers...

    I agree that the gulf between the 5 and 7 is pretty big. A Maxxum "6"
    could have had a lot of the 7 features and maybe skip the back screen;
    have a slower flash sync and a couple other minors but at least have two
    control dials! ...then it would have sat at a price point good for
    'serious amateurs' on a budget.

    I've often said a Max 9 / Max 7 hybrid would be great, but I suspect
    that Minolta will not come out with a $1000+ body for film. (Although
    the price of the 9 and the 7 has fallen a lot in recent months and might
    mean something along those lines...) for me the Max 9 is perfect and I
    want not (although the faster AF, faster wireless shutter speed and
    wireless HSS would be nice but neither is essential).

    ....according to the pop photo blurb, yes Minolta will have a new film
    SLR at PMA too...

    Alan Browne, Dec 15, 2003
    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.