need advice: d50+sigma17-70 or minolta 5d

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by leonardo, Jul 9, 2006.

  1. leonardo

    leonardo Guest

    I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
    - d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
    - minolta 5d with 18-70 kit lens (for 680 euro)
    I've read some reviews and realized that d50 is more responsive, has a
    better af (faster, accurate, illuminator, af motor in lenses), has a
    better flash (sync 1/500!), a better grip, better battery life and
    produces better jpegs (contrast, color). I also have a 28-200 f/3.8-5.6
    af-d tamron zoom I use with my old nikon f70 that could fit d50 too. On
    the other side d50 has a smaller viewfinder and lacks some of minolta
    5d features (wb tuning, b&w, antishake(!!!), mirror lock, dof button,
    ecc.).
    So, 5d is cheaper but I probably would like to buy another zoom (used
    70-210?) and minolta 18-70 is a cheap and not so fast lens. Nikon
    system has a wider lens park and better value on used market.

    I'm particulary concerned about minolta image quality and af
    performance.

    Which would you choose?

    Thanks!
     
    leonardo, Jul 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Minolta has closed shop, so no more spare parts and replacement cameras.
    When you want a higher spec camera in the future it will not be there.
    No more lenses either.
     
    Jeroen Wenting, Jul 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. leonardo

    leonardo Guest

    Jeroen Wenting ha scritto:
    sony bought minolta and is coming out with alpha. so there will be a
    higher spec camera and lenses.
     
    leonardo, Jul 9, 2006
    #3

  4. The D50 takes SD/MM cards only and is very lightly built. Having used
    the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4, and used the Nikon Silent Wave 17-70mm kit
    lens, there's no way I would prefer the Sigma over the Nikon if the same
    money could be put towards changing your choice to a D70S. The D70S
    takes CF cards, is altogether a more robust and better handling camera
    (much more on a level with the KM 5D in terms of weight, build quality).

    The Nikon in-camera JPEGs are possibly a touch sharper than Minolta, but
    I tend to put this down to different levels of default sharpening. The
    Minolta colour is better, not worse; vibrant and very film-like. It's
    the one thing the 5D has over pretty well all Nikons, especially for
    skin tones. It's going to be missed in the new Sony Alpha, which has
    much more Nikon-like colour. The Minolta raw file also has marginally
    more highlight headroom when making exposure corrections for overexposed
    shots - about 1/3rd of a stop more adjustment before colour clipping hits.

    In your case, with existing Nikon gear, I'd aim for the D70S and try to
    get the Silent Wave kit lens, forget the D50 and the Sigma, and ignore
    the 5D unless you want to change system entirely and have in mind future
    Sony high resolution or full frame bodies with Zeiss glass etc.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 9, 2006
    #4
  5. leonardo

    leonardo Guest

    David Kilpatrick ha scritto:
    I don't care about sd or cf cards. you mean nikkor 18-70 is better,
    right?
    Sigma is a little cheaper, faster at 17mm and gives me 1 extra mm and
    (limited) macro capabilities.
    I've read about people preferring sigma 17-70 over nikkor 18-70, for
    example:
    http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/technical
    I heard d50 color (I'm talking about jpegs) is better:
    http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/minolta-5d-vs-nikon-d50.html
    Every review I read about d50 told it has wonderful colors and skin
    tones. Some 5d reviews instead say colors are a little washed out.
    I only have one (cheap?) zoom, not an entire set of lenses. It is
    something I should consider but I wouldn't base my decison on that.
    I understand d70s is better built and has better ergonomics, but some
    people still say d50 produces better jpegs than d70s (less artifacts
    and noise, better color). D70s is also much more expansive (1100 euro
    with kit lens).
    thanks for the advices!
     
    leonardo, Jul 9, 2006
    #5
  6. leonardo

    Alan Browne Guest

    If you find a 70-210 in good condition, get it.
    Why? It is every bit as good as Nikon. One merely needs to choose ones
    lenses carefully. If you have an afinity for Sigma, then it is more
    difficult to choose very good lenses for any camera.

    I'm not sure where you got the AF performance data for the Minolta as I
    find with each camera release that it's faster and faster. The Maxxum 9
    is dead quick, and the 7D is a little faster again. In Minolta's the AF
    performance is more dependant on the body than the lens since the body
    has the AF motor.

    You might also simply wait a few more weeks and get the A100. The 5d
    (and A100) body is quite small, so if you have large hands you might
    find it akward to use. I'm hoping the next Sony body is akin to the 7D
    or the Maxxum 9.

    The anti-shake in the A100 is supposedly improved over the 7D/5D. It's
    pretty good as is, but improvements are always welcome. Further, Sony
    will have a sensor dust cover that is anti-static coupled to a "dust
    shaker" to remove the dust.

    A little patience can go along way.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 9, 2006
    #6
  7. leonardo

    Bill Guest

    What about the Nikon D50 with the Nikkor 18-70 lense?

    Do you need those features?

    If so, then look at the D70s or Sony Alpha or Canon.

    Minolta image quality and AF isn't something to be concerned with as
    everything I've seen indicate that Minolta was good.

    But, I wouldn't buy a Minolta body today only because there will not be
    any support for it. Sony has bought the rights to the Minolta line, but
    Minolta is dead.

    If you're really on the Minolta bandwagon, I'd perhaps wait to see the
    Sony Alpha and then make a decision.

    If I was starting off fresh with nothing, I'd buy the Nikon D50 with the
    Nikkor 18-70 "kit" lense.

    I think it's the best option for an entry level digital SLR. The D50 has
    good image quality, ergonomics, and features. The 18-70 has very good
    optics and a wide zoom range for a walk around lense. All this at a
    reasonable price.
     
    Bill, Jul 9, 2006
    #7
  8. leonardo

    Thomas Guest

    The 18-70 is made by Tamron, and it might be slightly superior to the
    17-70, although the difference is not big. You certainly should not
    expect any wonders at the wide angle side. If you like the slight
    telephoto range, you should certainly consider a 50/1.7.
    I think the 5d is an excellent deal. Especially the anti-shake is
    something that you just do not get in this price class from any other
    camera. DOF is also something I appreciate (I had it occasionally
    before, but usually it was out of my price range).
    I would not worry about that. The image quality is perfectly fine, and
    the AF is working very nicely. Since the motor is built into the body,
    it can get slow with long telephoto lenses that focus via the front
    element. The 70-210/4 is such a case, and apart from the AF speed it is
    highly recommended. But for the lenses you named there should be no
    difference in AF speed.

    Thomas
     
    Thomas, Jul 9, 2006
    #8
    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.