OT: DSLR help

[Kin Lau]

What do you have to say about the VF quality of these three?

How about responsiveness in terms of lag, easy controls, etc?

Any media compatibility issues I must be aware of?

Finally, what is your opinion of Minolta's lens line up (AF I guess)? I am familiar with Nikon and Canon has all equivalents, but know nothing of Minolta SLR lenses. I don't really care if they don't have zillions of lenses, because frankly who's going to buy all those? The only question is do they have a good option in each of wide, normal, short tele, long tele and macro? How wide do their zooms get? You understand the problem with crop factor and wide angle I suppose? I'm not intent on zooms but I suspect my brother would be.

I only have the 350D here, but I also have an autofocus Minolta film camera.

For the VF... unfortunately, we're talking about aps-c size sensors here, so the VF's are rather small, but I have RF's where the VF's are smaller.

All 3 should be very responsive, but I know that my 350D has an almost instantaneous wakeup compared with an almost 1 sec powerup with my 300D. Focusing speed with Canon's & Nikon's will depend on the lenses, since the focusing motors are in the lenses. Minolta Maxxum series use a motor in the body to drive the lenses, so the better the body, the faster the AF. That said, my older XTsi ( a lower end body) doesn't suck.

Minolta probably has the smallest range of lenses right now, Nikon much better, but not near Canon's range.

However, all the 3rd party lenses are available in all 3 mounts and that's where most of the affordable zooms are anyhow.

 

[bmattock]

I believe any of the three would be a good choice. The Canon and Nikons have been in the DSLR market longer, and have a longer track record. There will be more after-market accessories and lenses and so forth made for them than for the Minolta.

Looking in the back pages of the camera magazines, one can clearly see that for the SLR/DSLR world of say, after-market lenses, there are more choices for EOS and Nikon mount than anything else. Minolta second, Pentax third. Prices are generally the same across mounts, but the more esoteric lenses (read: expensive) are not available in Maxxum mount or Pentax mount, typically.

However, the Minolta brings something to the table that is, in my opinion, fantastic - anti-shake in the camera body. This should trump anti-shake lenses in Canon or Nikon - because you pay for the AS system once, not with every lens. It should work even if you choose to get lens adapters and mount old M42 prime lenses. Now that is cool.

However, I doubt you'd go far wrong with any of them. All capable, all worth the money.

As to Minolta glass - it's been overlooked for years - the stuff is nice. And speaking frankly - you're going to run out of image sensor before you run out of lens quality. WIth film cameras, you can run out to the bitter edge of what a lens is capable of - not so with digital, at least not yet. One lens is about as good as another in terms of quality you can measure with a 6 to 8 megapixel sensor. Not a slam on digital, it just is what it is.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

For the VF... unfortunately, we're talking about aps-c size sensors here, so the VF's are rather small, but I have RF's where the VF's are smaller.

Let's face it, DSLR VF's are all pretty much crappy unless you have a full-frame sensor. I understand the new Pentax *ist DS2 has a high-mag VF, should be interesting.

Minolta probably has the smallest range of lenses right now, Nikon much better, but not near Canon's range.

Agreed.

However, all the 3rd party lenses are available in all 3 mounts and that's where most of the affordable zooms are anyhow.

Have to disagree with that - the ads in the backs of the magazines clearly show the tables for the third-party lenses - many of the cells are empty for Pentax and Minolta - but there is a mount for Nikon and Canon. Sigma lenses are also made for Sigma SA in addition to Canon and Nikon.

Not that it matters much to most of us - I can't afford a 300mm f2.8, not many can, but if I wanted one, I could not get it in Minolta mount - I could in Nikon or Canon. Just trying to be accurate. If I knew I was never going to be considering specialist lenses like these, I would not let it enter my deliberations.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[DougK]

Gotta agree with Bill in that you'll most likely run out of sensor before you run out of lens at the price range you're considering. I'm thinking any of the options you listed should make you quite the happy snapper.

 

[Little Prince]

AS in the body is one of the major reasons I have included the Maxxum. Also the 7D was supposed to have good analog style controls on it, which I would rate high on the features chart. Don't know about the 5D though. Information is not very widely available right now.

With lenses, I was mainly concerned about the wider end of things. I'm pretty sure the bro' is never going to buy a 300/2.8 or anything of that nature, simply due to its sheer monstrosity. Even I (with an obsession for primes) wouldn't. Maybe a 300/4 but no more. At the super tele end, I guess a zoom would do it.

I had for some reason eliminated the *ist DS, but don't know much about the *ist DS2. I guess even less information is out regarding that model. Maybe I'll wait a little and see what the new Pentax has to offer. As I understand it, the bro' values size quite a bit.

Anyway here's two weird things I noticed in my search. I went to B&H for a routine check on the prices and specs of said DSLRs. None of the models I checked have a VF magnification spec listed! As far as I can recollect, all film SLRs used to mention that. Anyway I did scour the web for this info and found that KM (0.83x) > Reb XT (0.8x) > D70 (0.75x).

The other thing is that neither B&H nor Adorama have a *ist DS listed. Is it already off the shelves everywhere? Even before the *ist DS2 has hit them?

 

[Little Prince]

Things would be a lot simpler if I were buying for myself. I would simply go with the D70 because I have Nikon lenses (though only manual) and in any case have spent considerable time and effort accumulating knowledge and familiarity about their line up from other's experiences and my own.

Of course, if I had no such legacy reasons to consider, I would go with the Minolta because, heck, I'm just impressed. In fact, I might even consider getting it despite my existing Nikon stuff. That way I expand into one more system . Totally evil. Nice solid manual Nikon lenses for the film SLR and a KM system for the DSLR.

Anyway, I'm in no danger of treading the dark path yet. Just living vicariously . I'm quite content being a young dinosaur.

 

[unohuu]

Anand...I am a long time Minolta user. I have the Maxxum 7 and 5 as well as a host of AF lenses dating back to the 7000i. I have used the 7000i, 7xi, 600si, 800si for AF cameras before I settled on the 7 and 5. I also looked at the D70 before I bought the 7D. I just could not wait any longer for the 5D. Here is my take after briefly working with the D70, 7D and the 5D. I love the 7D. It fits well in the hand...if you have already used a recent Minolta AF camera the controls are almost intuitive. I say this because I had no trouble unpacking the 7D two weeks ago and putting in an extra charged battery from an A2 and shooting away. I already knew what the control setup was. I liked the D70 but the VF was not as bright as the Minolta. It handled well and I could not distinguish between the images on the CF card I took with me to the camera store. I also went back when the 5D finally arrived. I liked the camera, but it was noticeably smaller than what I am accustomed to. There is no grip for the camera at this time. It has fewer buttons and dials than the 7D. I would not be comfortable using this camera as I have large hands with long fingers. I almost always shoot with a grip or motor drive/autowinder. The 5D focused relatively fast with the lens on the demo. It is a toss up. I think you have to test drive the camera to determine if it is the right one for you. Luke - who wishes you luck. There is a $200 rebate on the 7D from 9/1 to 12/31/05...that puts it about equal with the 5D.

 

[jaapv]

I'm with those that recommend NOT buying a DSLR but a high-end digicam. There are a number with plenty of reach, up to about 300 mm equivalent I believe, with excellent quality lenses and sensors. The point is that somebody that is not really interested in the DSLR as such will, inevitably, at some point get a dust problem. Now sensor-cleaning is no big deal for those that really want -and know how to handle- a DSLR, but for somebody who just wants to shoot the thing it will become a big issue. The Olympus system is the exception, it has a "shaking"sensor.

 

[unohuu]

Not that it matters much to most of us - I can't afford a 300mm f2.8, not many can, but if I wanted one, I could not get it in Minolta mount - I could in Nikon or Canon. Just trying to be accurate. If I knew I was never going to be considering specialist lenses like these, I would not let it enter my deliberations.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

There are 300mm f/2.8 made for Maxxum by Tokina, Sigma and Tamron. Both Pentax and Minolta have a niche (read loyal) market and the used lenses are often tough to come by. I know that I am looking for 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. They are really expensive now that KM has launched a successful DSLR. Luke

 

[bmattock]

There are 300mm f/2.8 made for Maxxum by Tokina, Sigma and Tamron. Both Pentax and Minolta have a niche (read loyal) market and the used lenses are often tough to come by. I know that I am looking for 200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. They are really expensive now that KM has launched a successful DSLR. Luke

Luke, I just used that as an example, not having a Popular Photography magazine or Shutterbug magazine open in front of me. I didn't mean 300mm f2.8 specifically. What I meant was that if you look at the lists of offerings from Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron for the 'big four' (Canon, Nikon, Pentax & Minolta), there are often gaps on the list for Minolta & Pentax. If a lens is offered at all, it is offered for Canon & Nikon at the minimum. Usually it is also offered for Pentax and Minolta, but sometimes not.

I mean, it just is what it is. Anyone can look at the lists themselves. It is no value judgement on the camera brands themselves, just simple facts.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Kin Lau]

Have to disagree with that - the ads in the backs of the magazines clearly show the tables for the third-party lenses - many of the cells are empty for Pentax and Minolta - but there is a mount for Nikon and Canon. Sigma lenses are also made for Sigma SA in addition to Canon and Nikon.

I'm not really aware of which lenses are not available for Pentax & Minolta vs Canon/Nikon. Of course, keeping in mind that 1 year ago, Minolta didn't even have a DSLR, so it would not be surprising that it takes time for the 3rd parties to even make a lense available in a particular mount. Then there's the question of whether a supplier chooses to carry it or not.

Mind you, I haven't bothered with any photomags, especially the ads. I'll have to take a peak next time.

 

[bmattock]

I'm not really aware of which lenses are not available for Pentax & Minolta vs Canon/Nikon. Of course, keeping in mind that 1 year ago, Minolta didn't even have a DSLR, so it would not be surprising that it takes time for the 3rd parties to even make a lense available in a particular mount. Then there's the question of whether a supplier chooses to carry it or not.

Mind you, I haven't bothered with any photomags, especially the ads. I'll have to take a peak next time.

Actually, I was speaking of standard SLR lenses, not DSLR-specific lenses only. With the exception of the Olympus-sponsored 4/3 standard, I believe that AF lenses that fit on film cameras also fit on digital cameras of the same make.

I know we cross horns sometimes. And I'm not trying to be a bother. But I don't understand the purpose of just making stuff up to be a contrarian. Is this some kind of kick for you?

Go to www.tamron.com or www.thkphoto.com or www.sigmaphoto.com. You'll see that there are some lenses that are made for fewer mounts than other lenses. These lenses tend to be 'high end' or 'professional' lenses, they cost a mint, and they're typically available in Canon and Nikon mount. Sometimes Minolta as well, sometimes Pentax as well. Most lenses are available in all the standard mounts.

If I "didn't bother" with "reading any photomags," then I would not presume to know what they say. Presuming that they just choose not to list certain lenses seems ridiculous - when it is easy to confirm with the manufacturer themselves.

But for some reason, you seem to want to believe that all lenses are available for all camera mounts. Fine, if it is important for you to believe that - but it is demonstrably not true.

So what's your game, if I may ask? Are you just trying to be contrarian to get up my sleeve, or do you honestly believe everything I say is a lie? I'm trying to answer a question about DSLR selection - honestly - and you seem to have some kind of agenda regarding lens availability.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Kin Lau]

So what's your game, if I may ask? Are you just trying to be contrarian to get up my sleeve, or do you honestly believe everything I say is a lie? I'm trying to answer a question about DSLR selection - honestly - and you seem to have some kind of agenda regarding lens availability.

Funny part is, I'm not even out to contradict you. "All" might be pushing things, but you and I both tend to throw out a few examples with the intention that it be understood in a general way. (see your 300/2.8 example, standard lenses vs "digital" lense etc and my use of the word "all"... what chances on earth are there that either of us will go thru the entire list of "all" 3rd party manufacturers eg Samyang, Phoenix, Vivitar, Cosina and who knows what flavour of the week etc, on this planet to verify that "all" lenses are available for those 4 mounts)

I hate having to defend every little word I post, and I think you do too.

 

[bmattock]

Funny part is, I'm not even out to contradict you. "All" might be pushing things, but you and I both tend to throw out a few examples with the intention that it be understood in a general way. (see your 300/2.8 example, standard lenses vs "digital" lense etc and my use of the word "all"... what chances on earth are there that either of us will go thru the entire list of "all" 3rd party manufacturers eg Samyang, Phoenix, Vivitar, Cosina and who knows what flavour of the week etc, on this planet to verify that "all" lenses are available for those 4 mounts)

I hate having to defend every little word I post, and I think you do too.

OK, then - mea culpa! I guess it's just the terms and phrases we use - I sometimes see your words as being contradictory - I'll have to read more carefully. Thanks for clearing that up!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Kin Lau]

OK, then - mea culpa! I guess it's just the terms and phrases we use - I sometimes see your words as being contradictory - I'll have to read more carefully. Thanks for clearing that up!

Must be the full moon .. "all" :angel: my clients are cranky today also.

 

[zuikologist]

Bill - as you say, I think the lack of certain lenses in certain mounts is just a fact of life. In reality, there are probably no more than a few hundred or maybe a thousand exotic lenses sold by the camera manufacturers or third parties each year - sa you say, it is sometimes more about prestige than making money.

It is relatively easy to find a range of lenses from say 12mm - 500mm in each mount type, and there is a whole planet full of old glass out there. Also, the 1.5x crop factor means your old and excellent prime Pentax 200mm f4 becomes a 300mm f4 on a DSLR and costs maybe $50 maximum. Pretty cool. I think all of the manufacturers have woken up to the wideangle/crop factor problem on DSLRs and are filling the gaps in their ranges.

 

[NoTx]

Hey, figured I could pipe in here. What he shoots and where he shoots are a BIG deal in DSLR choices.

Examples of What:

1. Family fun?
2. Sports?
3. Weddings?
4. Art?
5. Landscape?

Examples of Where:

1. Anywhere?
2. In a studio?
3. Indoors?
4. In clear weather out doors?
5. In harsh environments?

You are right at an interesting price point. For a thousand dollars (US), you can buy a lot of camera. Currently, I use a pair of Olympus E-1. They are one of the quietest DSLRs on the market (maybe quietest, but not 100% sure, about M6 volume). They are also very durable, and weather sealed, and in your price range (barely, but hey, they have dropped around $1500 less than when I bought my first body). If you want low light, you want Canon. If you want wide angles, you don’t want Canon. If you want fast X-Synch, you want a Nikon D70… etc.

System Strengths:

Olympus:

1. All lenses are sharp and without vingetting or aberrations (made for digital from the ground up is paying dividends here).
2. All controls quick and easy to access.
3. Includes the lowest price weather sealed DSLR (E-1, my E-1 has been in a sink)
4. Best digital wide angle zooms (7-14/4 and 11-22/2.8-3.5)
5. Film like noise.

Canon:

1. Possible best line of Telphotos on the market.
2. Best AF in low light.
3. Best High ISO.
4. Easy to find Rentals.
5. Some incredible, and affordable portrait lenses (85/1.8, 100/2), actually very rare.

Nikon:

1. Fastest synch on the market in the D70.
2. Build quality on Par with Olympus (and ahead of Canon in this price category).
3. Good range of wides and telephotos, more a middle of the road, better teles than Oly (mainly short and medium), and better wides than Canon.
4. Easy to find Rentals.
5. Use most lenses from the used sections of camera shops… many versions of the Nikon mount are compatible.

Minolta:

1. Great lenses (G series, though costly on average).
2. AF incredibly accurate.
3. Anti-Shake to make your life easier (though 5D and 7D are really using a shutter more on par with a consumer grade camera (Maxxum 5).
4. Great body designs, quick and easy to use.
5. Fairly good High ISO.

Pentax:

1. Incredibly huge line of very neat odd lenses.
2. Small and compact.
3. Alternative power capabilities (AA batteries can be purchased anywhere).
4. Great low light primes.
5. Chose one that takes a medium you currently US (SD or CF).

Okay, with very few exceptions this was primarily the good things. So, hope it helps. Note: my own opinions, and so your mileage may vary. I have used all brands, though not all in digital form.

Good luck!

Rob.

 

[Little Prince]

Rob, that was a very interesting compilation. Extremely useful to have such points summarized. I'm aware this is all subjective but usually one can tell how this would apply to their own point of view.

Now that you bring up the E-1, I have to ask a few questions. I overlooked the Oly's mainly for their smaller sensor and lower resolution. What do you feel about resolution of this camera and enlargement possibilities? How about noise performance? I'm never very excited about a smaller sensor. Not to go into FF vs APS or anything like that, but aren't Oly combining an even smaller sensor than the regular APS with even smaller resolution than all the other cameras in that price range? I would really like to know your take on this. I'm not incredibly informed about the Oly DSLRs and may be getting it wrong.

 

[NoTx]

Rob, that was a very interesting compilation. Extremely useful to have such points summarized. I'm aware this is all subjective but usually one can tell how this would apply to their own point of view.

Now that you bring up the E-1, I have to ask a few questions. I overlooked the Oly's mainly for their smaller sensor and lower resolution. What do you feel about resolution of this camera and enlargement possibilities? How about noise performance? I'm never very excited about a smaller sensor. Not to go into FF vs APS or anything like that, but aren't Oly combining an even smaller sensor than the regular APS with even smaller resolution than all the other cameras in that price range? I would really like to know your take on this. I'm not incredibly informed about the Oly DSLRs and may be getting it wrong.

Ok, resolution is not as clear cut as it seems it should be. Five megapixel is good for just about anything I can want. The largest prints I have done were 16x20, which came out fine, and I have done an insane number of 12x18 inch enlargments. FOr enlargments, with any digital, remember, you will be upsizing it, or you are not getting the best quality per inch. Fairly routine, I upsize to 400ppi to whatever size I print at (400ppi @ 12x18 would be 34.56 Megapixel). So in truth, not an issue.

As for noise. One advantage of a Kodak CCD is that the noise is very film like, so that is in the E-1's side. Noise levels are a slight up from the equivelents film (400 ISO comparable to 200 ISO C41, etc). I normally do not use above 800 ISO, but then again, I noise ninja in my workflow, so somtimes I will hit 1600 or 3200 (but you best get the exoposure dead on, just like slide film).

Yes, small chip (though not as small as photosites in the E-1 versus cameras like the D2X), fairly good resolution. They went for the idea of a ground up build. So the light hits the sensor dead on with every lens... something that causes a lot of problems in other systems (especially for wide angle shots). It also meant they could make a weather sealed camera that weiged in at under 2 pounds (660 g). So trade offs... like any other DSLR.

In all truth, the size of the chip is incredibly close to the APS-C of Canon cameras. It is litterally 4 times the size of the prosumer 2/3 sensor. I honestly do not expect this to be an issue, and in general, I never was one to shoot a lot of high, high ISO film, so it does not bother me.

So I went for the system for size, durability, image quality and gave up some high ISO and comon lenses. In all, the entirety that I could see worrying about, is high ISO. If you need it, you need it. If you don't, then the system works fine. Heck, it goes down to ISO 100, which the Nikons don't... and I am one of those lobbying for the next E to have ISO 25 (makes gobbs of issolation so much easier, dumping ND filters).

Ok, quick scatterbrained response... mind is all over this morning. Now it is off to work I go (again today).

 

[NoTx]

Oh, and just as an odd coment. My standard carry is either a G1 w/ 45/2 or 35/2; or an E-1 w/ COntax 45/2.8 Tessar... and they fit in the same padded LowePro belt pouch.