Pros and Cons of a Minolta

[kcajkcalb]

Hey folks,

Just wanted to ask. I have not been a user of a Minolta before. It seems you guys think really highly of the brand. Could you perhaps share with me just what makes a minolta different from the usual brands like Canon and Nikon? I've been thinking of getting either the nikon D70 or the new 7D that everyone is so crazed about. Both are within my budget and I do know they are different class in a sense. People have been telling me to avoid Minolta becos its rather hard to get the lens and stuff. What do you guys think? Are the lenses more expensive then the Canons n Nikons? Is Minolta better in any specific areas that deemed you guys to be loyal followers?

thanks.

 

[mportrait]

Lens are about the same as nikon or canon. Minolta has always been innovative. The AS function is very useful.

 

[sulhan]

Hiee....

If you like photography and just need a cam...then any brand will do.

As for me..... my brother used to own a canon....
it was used to takes great pics...

For me...my first camera bought with my own money is a Minolta
Mine too was used to take great pics....

rgds,
sulhan

 

[TME]

Hey folks,

Just wanted to ask. I have not been a user of a Minolta before. It seems you guys think really highly of the brand. Could you perhaps share with me just what makes a minolta different from the usual brands like Canon and Nikon? I've been thinking of getting either the nikon D70 or the new 7D that everyone is so crazed about. Both are within my budget and I do know they are different class in a sense. People have been telling me to avoid Minolta becos its rather hard to get the lens and stuff. What do you guys think? Are the lenses more expensive then the Canons n Nikons? Is Minolta better in any specific areas that deemed you guys to be loyal followers?

thanks.

There are certain things within the brand that appeal to us... and the same applies to the other brands.... for most Minolta users I guess it is the very friendly user interface as well as the flash system.... I'm not sure about other brand users... but finally whatever system u use, u will be judged as a photographer by the quality of photos u produce....

 

[yeocolin]

I got my 1st SLR as a Minolta without truly understanding about 2nd hand market and range of lens/accessories. The cam worked well for me and then I just concentrated on the hobby. The camera served me well over the years and so I'm happy with it.

The camera is only a tool. There are wonderful photographers on almost every brand of camera I can think of, so its the guy behind the camera that counts, not the camera itself.

 

[-7-]

Hi kcajkcalb,

Welcome to the neutral + humble Minoltians sub forum (may be just a drop by)

As it is always quote: The Person Behind The Camera :thumbsup: Cheers!

 

[grado]

I like Minolta's user friendly interface... I like to play around with knobs rather than menus, since I started off using mechanical cameras... I have a couple of M42 screw mount lens which I can mount on my Minolta mount camera... Minolta's flash is simple, effective and powerful. Oh yeah... most of Minolta lens has beautiful bokeh.

 

[TME]

The thing about the knbos interface versus the menu inteface is that the former allows u to change settings on the fly instantly rather than scroll through a series of menus and sub-menus and sub-sub-menus.... however, there are some people who prefer sub-menus as they think it is neater....

 

[TRS]

Like Yeocolin, I also bought minolta without know anything. I compared M,N,C,P of the same range in price and ended up with Minolta 600si with 28-105 MZ lens. I never regreted and grew to be Minolta fan. It was truely the ergonomoic since everybody had all features (give or take maybe 1 + or -).

I used to sometime say, I made a mistake and even bought a Nikon when I happened to knock down my Minolta and needed another camera. But, at the end, I still prefered Minolta and sold Nikon (ergonomic again). Now I have full range of accessories minus few. It so happens my wife happens to be Minolta fan as well. So, as far as I know us Minolta users seem to be very crazy. It is almost like Mac vs. PC computer users.

I could not wait any longer so I now own a Fuji S2 Pro with couple of lenses, but I still have my Minolta gear untouched.

As far as pro goes, it is ergonomic and innovation that you can count on Minolta. They have all lenses you want (16mm- 600mm), but they don't have many to choose from like the counter parts.

I used to envy Nikon owners for thier lense choices, but now that I have camera that takes Nikon lenses, I find I still don't find no more choices than Minolta. Big con part is that it is hard to get rental gear unlike other two brands.

All in all, Minolta is slow but always worth the wait. For example, Dynax/Maxxum 9 and now 7D (hope).

Just personal experience.

thanks.
TRS.

 

[deslim27]

Like Yeocolin, I also bought minolta without know anything.

Happy Accident? :bsmilie:

Well said, many of us here also have similar experience I guess.

I've not switch to any other brand so far, but I have plenty of chance to test drive different brands, each has it own pros and cons.. but none of them have convinced me to jump ship so far..

 

[andre]

I bought minolta because its the cheapest that I can get with more lens...but then further more, I buy more lenses and flashes....then finally I'm falling in love with MINOLTA

 

[TME]

I have tried using a Canon D30 for 3 days.... and really I gave up on Canon.... This was just about a year back... I already had my Dynax 7 for some time... I was so annoyed by the interface since when I wanted to change anything, including exposure compensation, I needed to look through the menu... the lousy buttons were not intuitive at all as to what they were meant for... and it was real pain trying to get a good flash exposure as well.... that's why I refused to jump ship and waited patiently for the Dynax 7D.... :lovegrin:

 

[hellrock]

I bought minolta because its the cheapest that I can get with more lens...but then further more, I buy more lenses and flashes....then finally I'm falling in love with MINOLTA

yep ... the 1st minolta i bought happen to be 3xi... even that came with wireless function.... have tried nikon .. love the feel but way to ex for an amateur like me.. overall i stick to minolta..... i guess conveniece and advance techology make it a cheaper choice compared to the rest. :bsmilie:

 

[yeocolin]

Talking about dials and knobs, wireless flash and such. When I got my 404si and used its wireless flash, I just happily used it without realising that other brands didn't have it. When I got my dynax7, I just happily used the knobs until my Canon friend told me how much he missed the old Canon cameras where they had more knobs than menus, which is unlike the current models.

I guess this is what happens when I've ever used 1 brand as my workhorse and never realised its beauty until the other more experienced users come and enlighten me. For me, there was never any motivation to compare against other brands, since I'm happy with my current camera.

Nevertheless, I used to grouse about the limited range of lens in Minolta, compared to Nikon or Canon, but I realised I only needed these few lenses which I currently own. Even if I were using N or C, I wouldn't be getting all those amazing VR, USM equivalent lens anyway, at least not until eventually I decide to venture beyond my current spectre of photography subjects. Then again, I can get SSM lens now.

 

[chenchengcai]

Hi kcajkcalb,

Welcome to the neutral + humble Minoltians sub forum (may be just a drop by)

As it is always quote: The Person Behind The Camera :thumbsup: Cheers!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
You guys are truly great Minolta-ers.

 

[alpie]

Pros of D7D:

If D7D is really a good camera, Nikon D70 will become cheaper. :think: Go Minolta go!!

 

[Jason H0]

It's not the body that counts but the eyes.

 

[alpie]

It's not the body that counts but the eyes.

You made a very good point actually. Most people (normal people, not professional photographers) are not printing larger than 4R, 3 megapixel camera is more than enough for him (even after cropping). It is very difficult to tell the difference whether the picture is taken by a 2MP old camera or a 6MP DSLR with all kinds of latest and the best components/lenses on it.

Why the heck D7D makes some of us so excited? Is it just about spending over 2000 $ on a digital camera body so we can use our existing lenses which are worth less than the camera's body itself? Is it all about less noise at high ISO? After cleaning the noise by software, you can't notice noise on a 4R print anyway. Last 2 years I moved from 1.3 MP to 3MP then to 8MP (Dimage A2). Honestly I cannot tell the difference between 3MP and 8MP on a 19" 1280x1024 monitor unless I look at the enlarged picture. Is it really the eye really counting? I sometimes think most people look the pictures on a 21" inch monitor at 1600x1280 resolution and enlarge the picture 100% to feel good or bad about the money they spent on the camera.

Can someone enlighten me? :embrass: There must be something I am missing here. Or is at all about spending frenzy that makes us buy buy buy!

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

Can someone enlighten me? :embrass: There must be something I am missing here. Or is at all about spending frenzy that makes us buy buy buy!

It's not about screen, computer monitors are extremely low-res anyway, all of them. Yes, I have a 21" CRT, for the record. It's about printing sizes. You need at least 6Mp to get good A4 sized prints. 3Mp is not nearly enough even uncropped in my opinion. Some scenes (with little detail) can be enlarged huge however due to the possibility of grainless pictures with digicams.

I actually think most people shooting low-res digital, raving about the image quality, come from a point&shoot background with bad lab experiences. If you ever shoot slides with good equipment and make enlargements using Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) process... your view of what "quality" is will change.

 

[sulhan]

It's not about screen, computer monitors are extremely low-res anyway, all of them. Yes, I have a 21" CRT, for the record. It's about printing sizes. You need at least 6Mp to get good A4 sized prints. 3Mp is not nearly enough even uncropped in my opinion. Some scenes (with little detail) can be enlarged huge however due to the possibility of grainless pictures with digicams.

I actually think most people shooting low-res digital, raving about the image quality, come from a point&shoot background with bad lab experiences. If you ever shoot slides with good equipment and make enlargements using Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) process... your view of what "quality" is will change.

Hi Magnus....

I was wondering about the Minimum size ....prints....being in the printing and imaging industry....I do test prints with digital images from 3,4,5,6 Mpix images and from what i gather.....for the 6Mpix (cropped sides @ landscapes to match paper ratio) and 5 Mpix ...images turned out to be equivalent....

Probably because of the 80 (height resolution) pixels more which is not obvious. I normally print on A3 and A2. Even on an A2 sized prints, with proper softwares like for those used on plotters can even present a 5 Mpix image well.

As for noise management - well DLSR out puts from large sensors are of course better for lower lighting exposures and dark regions...

So i guess its all boils down to the original file if the image was taken properly with the right sharpness and DOF (based on subject)....

I guess 8Mpix is of course no problem....for A4 ....

rgds,
sulhanh