Minolta vs. Nkon and Canon

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

  1. Wayne Dyer

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: (Tom)
    Since they're jumping in the dSLR game a bit late they need something to stand
    above the competition, and for sure in-camera IS would be a great new feature
    (so would 8 Mpixels with a 1.3x multiplier in a $1,500 body :). I hope they
    pull it off because then Canon would have to do something similar to catch up.
    Competition is a good thing.
    This is an advantage for Minolta then, the mid-range and lower Canons need
    f/5.6 or the AF shuts off (EOS-3 and I think the 1V are good to f/8 with the
    center sensor).

    Bill Hilton, Dec 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. "Better"? The 7 and 9 both blow away the 9xi and 7xi. They also beat the si
    cameras, although the si's, in particular the 800si, are pretty darn good
    cameras. But the usual rule applies here - if your camera is doing the job
    for you, there's no reason to upgrade beyond wanting the latest thing. Any
    Maxxum, from the 7000 on up, is capable of taking fine pictures. An upgrade
    will buy you more features which you may or may not need. In particular, an
    upgrade to a 7 or a 9 will buy you better high speed AF and better flash

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Like Mike says, the 9 and the 7 are the best bodies Minolta have ever
    made. Period. The LCD overlay was a mistake! (and try to look for it
    against a dark background or low light ...impossible to see).

    You would not be disappointed with either camera, and the 9 is now just
    over US$1000 at some stores... the 7 ... $500.

    Also as Mike says, if your "si" is doing the job, there is no great rush
    to upgrade .... and with the prosect of a DSLR from the "Minds" coming,
    it might be a good idea to wait.

    Alan Browne, Dec 17, 2003
  4. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hi again Lewis,

    Yes, ...and you've probably read the posts by Leaonard and Mike, the
    7/7xi,9/9xi all have proper pentaprisms, but the xi's have the LCD
    overlay ... and this is what 'dims' the view....

    Alan Browne, Dec 17, 2003
  5. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    They have an anti-shake feature on the A1 digital camera. Speculation
    propagated by evil Minolta users (me included) indicates it will be on
    the new DSLR. PMA should tell...
    Alan Browne, Dec 17, 2003
  6. How is anti-shake implemented on the A1? I have electronic anti-shake on my
    (admittedly cheap and obsolete, but still good enough 8mm) camcorder, and
    while it sometimes works, it lengthens the apparant focal length, and also
    can go completely bonkers, making matters worse than without it.

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 17, 2003
  7. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    It basically moves the sensor in x,y to account for shake movement.
    There is a "demo" clip at dpreview.

    This scheme is not as good as IS/VR, but better than the IS in Minolta

    Alan Browne, Dec 17, 2003
  8. Interesting. There is apparantly some sort of inertial sensing going on, if
    I'm reading that right. Cool!

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 17, 2003
  9. Wayne Dyer

    NJH Guest

    Yes, I have that too on my new Canon digital-8 camcorder. That's electronic
    image stabilization, not anti-shake like Minolta's method on the A1. Or like
    Canon's superior optical IS as on its higher priced stuff, either. They are
    three entirely different methods. I presume Minolta uses the term
    "anti-shake" instead of "image stabilization" to make it clear that it's a
    different method.

    Electronic image stabilization is just that: it tries to keep the image
    steady electronically even though it moves around on the sensor; in other
    words it doesn't use the full sensor as long as IS is enabled, always
    allowing some extra room for the unsteady image to roam to. That's no doubt
    why it seems to lengthen the focal length; the effective sensor size becomes

    Minolta's anti-shake physically moves the sensor to keep the image in the
    same place on it, rather than one or more lens elements as in optical image
    stabilization. You can see a video of it working here:


    This should make it a natural for a digital SLR, since *all* lenses will
    automatically become pseudo-IS lenses when anti-shake is enabled. Neat, eh?!

    As to your mention of electronic IS going "completely bonkers"--Canon
    recommends (at least with my camcorder, and I presume the same applies to
    anything else with the same IS method) that it should be enabled only when
    the camera is hand-held, NOT when the camera's on a tripod. They mention
    that enabling it on a tripod may make things worse. So I suppose under some
    circumstances it may make things worse when hand-held too.

    NJH, Dec 18, 2003
  10. Wayne Dyer

    NJH Guest

    Unfortunately true. I still like the 700si including the LCD overlay, which
    provides extra useful information. But it *does* make the viewfinder a lot
    dimmer, and some of that useful information it provides can't even be seen
    when it's against a dark background. Bummer.

    NJH, Dec 18, 2003
  11. "Better" was meant as "9xi/7xi vs. 5xi" or "800si/700si vs. 500si". The
    cheaper xi models and the cheaper si models don't have the LCD overlay

    I'm not a native speaker so if I shouldn't have used "better" but some
    better word (pun intended), feel free to suggest one by mail. Hints to
    improve my English will always be appreciated.
    Before spending 800 EUR on the Dynax 7, I'm going to have a look at the
    upcoming DSLR first -- the Cologne Fair (Photokina 2004) is an hour away
    from where I live. Maybe there is a better use for the money a year from
    now. (-:
    Matthias Andree, Dec 18, 2003
  12. There must be a reason why the exposure indicator (that -2...+2 scale)
    moved from the LCD overlay (700si) to the illuminated LCD below the
    screen (800si) when they went from 700si to 800si.
    Don't tempt me to import one. The US Dollar is cheap when I buy it with
    Euros and the 7 is around 800 Euro in Germany.
    Matthias Andree, Dec 18, 2003
  13. Wayne Dyer

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Minolta vs. Nkon and Canon
    Hi Alan:

    Yup :) Read the other comments. A disapointment for me since I already had a
    dark viewfindered camera at the time w/o the overlay - my EOS 630 w/
    24-70/3.3-5.6. If you looked real hard through it you could see Alfred, Robin,
    The Boy Wonder and Batman since the vf was as dark as the Bat Cave ;-).

    Lewis Lang, Dec 18, 2003
  14. Oh heck yeah. And let us know what you think!

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 18, 2003
  15. Jeez, you guys make me feel bad - as I happily shoot xmas pictures with a
    7000 that still works perfectly, and is probably a far better camera than
    99% of photographers...

    Dennis O'Connor, Dec 18, 2003
  16. The 7000 is enough camera for 99% of the shooters out there. Certainly a
    better performer than any point and shoot, takes a great lens system, and
    the flash system was very good as well. Particularly when you used the
    power grip and used the automatic 2:1 flash ratio mode. Yes, folks, Minolta
    had that waaaay back then :). Not wireless then, but it worked well. I
    however still prefer the 9000 :)

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 18, 2003
  17. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    You are totally missing my point here. You are counting lenses. I am saying
    that you should see tasks instead of equipment. If you need specifically a
    400/5.6 your only Minolta option is to pair a 200/2.8 with its matched tele
    converter (with an excellent result) or go to third parties, but that's not
    the point; the point is, what do you want to shoot, and how does the
    abscence of a 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 affect that? So maybe you are a birder. So
    Minolta is not ideal for birders. Big deal, there are an uncountable number
    of other things to shoot, and how many photographers turn out birders with
    huge glass? Not many enough to not recommend a specific brand. I could as
    well say "Canon is not the optimal brand for portraiture, they lack the STF
    lens, don't buy Canon" -- and that would of course be just as false.
    Yeah, and the Minolta 400/4.5 weighs less, costs a third and hasn't got the
    halos around bright lights associated with diffractive optics, but hey --
    it's a Canon! ;-)
    No, when counting lenses Minolta will never be at the top.
    They have made two, the RD-175 (1.75 Mp) and the RD-3000 (2.7 Mp).
    That's great for you, but you still manage to miss my point by half a mile
    or so. How does your great investment apply to other people? Especially
    newbies? Note the line "most photographers won't ever own this amount of
    gear". I will elaborate: 999 out of 1000 photographers will never own that
    500/4, and couldn't care less if it exists in the lineup or not. Well, if
    they aren't more into counting lenses than taking photos, that is.
    1 out of 1000. Buy third party, or a dedicated Canon body for the lens when
    you can afford it. Or switch systems when you need that $7000 lens.
    1 out of 10000. Buy a Zörk adapter and a suitable lens, bang, instant
    tilt/shift on a Minolta. Or a Arsat 35/2.8 for (affordable) shift only.
    This is much more of a differentiator, I agree with that. Still it's not at
    all the end-all-be-all feature; Nikon managed to keep quite a few
    photographers despite the lack of IS -- the 80-400 VR was late and not all
    that exciting performance-wise. IS is mostly useful in long lenses anyway,
    and as we have already concluded that Minolta are behind the competition in
    this area but not all that many people care, I think we can write off this
    under the same account. Now that Minolta has in-body IS in their latest
    prosumer digital camera one can be pretty certain that this feature will
    find its way into a future DSLR.
    All Minolta cameras since even the i series (not xi which was a later
    series) and except some bottom-of-the-line models (3 series) can AF to f8
    and below. Canon has been lagging severely behind for quite some years
    (since 1989). Guess why only Minolta makes an AF F8 mirror reflex? ;-)

    Of course not. Do you think they do not know how to build a digital camera?
    That's strange, as they have produced two (three depending on how you
    count) before, a myriad of consumer digicams, an even bigger number of film
    SLR's. I do think the world's second largest camera manufacturer knows how
    to build a DSLR if they want to. I would also bet that development of DLSR
    models and associated technologies have been well underway for several
    years; R&D labs are after all meant for these things, no? The lack of a
    Minolta DLSR is because of their previously bad financial status and the
    lack of a market for a Minolta model; you don't make cameras (or lenses)
    just so people can feel good about them being there, someone has to buy it

    I don't quite understand this "they are four years behind" mentality -- I
    have seen it before. Four years behind in what respect?
    So? All models except the EOS 1Ds are pitifully inferior to a film camera
    anyway. Digital SLR's are (mostly) for impatient people with bad vision
    (pros with strict timetables or rich amateurs). The cheap models are simply
    bad cameras (no spot metering even in the 10D -- now that's great!). The
    expensive models are, well, expensive. Realize that Minolta doesn't have
    the market for a $7000 model.
    Well, I dunno, their first "DSLR" was released in 1986, an exchangeable
    still video back for the 7000 and 9000 models. Film and digital in the same
    model. Now Leica is researching such a back for a fall 2004 (at the
    earliest) release. Rather, I think Canon haven't done a good job of keeping
    up the past 20 years or so... ;-)
    Magnus W, Dec 18, 2003
  18. Nitpicks here, Magnus;

    The RD-3000 takes their APS lenses. Yuk.
    My 9000 had no problem AFing with the 500mm mirror lens. That's f8!

    OK - not Magnus, but Minolta hasn't been keeping up *in some areas*. In
    others, they're supreme. The AF system in the 7 is the best there is.
    Could it be differing priorities, and those priorities just don't appeal to
    you, therefore Minolta is behind?

    Oddly enough, people have been making pictures for a long time without IS or
    DSLRs. I wonder how they managed? :)

    I shoot figure skating. Fast AF is paramount. The 7 does the job. If I
    were a birder, I'd go to Canon for their longer lenses and forego the superb
    AF of the 7. As Magnus says, lens lineup count is only one aspect of a
    manufacturer. But if you feel you need to buy a system to have access to
    that $10,000 lens, go for it. If I ever need it (unlikely) I'll rent the
    body and lens.

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 18, 2003
  19. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    But Maxxum lenses with an optional adapter ;-)
    Seeing that APS-sized sensors (as the RD-3000 has) are here to stay, and
    some people are considering the Olympus E1 as a serious alternative, maybe
    Minolta should have changed the mount to a Maxxum one and stayed with the
    concept -- if nothing else to keep people happy with its existence :)
    Magnus W, Dec 18, 2003
  20. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    Hear, hear. Now, don't get me started... ;-)
    Magnus W, Dec 18, 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.