Why Sony / Minolta at all?

[sungnee]

I am a new Minolta user.
Why Minolta? Becasue I have not tried it in my over 30 years of photography life. My first camera was a Canon, then an Olympus, then Nikon, then Leica...
I just thought I should try it, so I traded-in the Canon EOS 1V for a Dynax 7. So far no regrets.

 

[frantisekhk]

I had been a owner Praktica BX 20 when I have been seeing the Minolta 600si for the first time.
I liked this one immediately due to its simply control. In 1996 I bought it with 28-80. Then I added 70-210 a a flash 3500xi. Later I have changed a shorter zoom for 24-85,a longer one for 100-300 APO and 3500xi for 5400HS. I have bought an older 500si Super as well. When I am very satisfied with my gear and I have never regreted my choice. I can say I am the proud owner of Minolta.

 

[honenshonin]

Mine was purely happenstance--my father gave me a an old Maxxum something (6000? 7000?) with two lenses, a Sigma 35-80 and a Tokina 70-210. This set-up was replaced by my current setup, but only one piece at a time, so I couldn't very well change brands.

Nor do I feel the need to. Everything I own workds just fine, and Nikon and Canon users tends to be snobbish anyway--not to get into the users of Leica, Contax, etc...

 

[iberger]

>How snobbish Leica owners are may depend on how and when they got into it. In the '50s and '60s, there were a lot of used screw-mount Leicas available cheap (not to mention compatible Canon gear). To those of us who bought them, they were just damn good cameras that we could afford--tools, not jewels. > >I still regret that I decided not to buy a IIIg for $79.95 because shucks, I already had a III; I spent the money on lenses, instead, so it wasn't a complete loss. Wound up with a mix of Leitz, Canon, Nikkor, and Taylor-Hobson-Cooke lenses.

 

[honenshonin]

Ivan,

Sorry, I didn't mean to tar all Leica users with the same brush, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I think your "tools, not jewels" comment explains it well. I put off buying my Minolta 7 for that same reason--I was worried that I would be buying it for purposes of vanity rather than practicality, since my 507si (650si) was taking perfectly fine pictures anyway. But, eventually I broke down, after considering MLU, rear-curtain flash, 1/8000 shutter speed, metering matrix on the navigation display, etc...

It's a great camera.

 

[picturetaker]

DONT BUY A MINOLTA ¨!

I strongly advise not to buy a Minolta camera. There are still no digital SLR Bodys wich you would like to use with the Expensive lenses.
There is still no Image Stabiliser or fast autofocus like by Canon or Nikon.
There is a good chance that Minolta Analog System wont bee comptible with a hypothtic new digital SLR system, soon this System wont be usable anymore, compared to Canon or Nikon.

 

[frantisekhk]

I disagree with Fritz contribution. First: there are people there that do not want a digital camera, second: no everybody need Image stabilizer. There are many photodisciplines that do not require all advanteges of modern cameras.
A good photo is more a question by heart than a technique. But it is only my opinion. Others can have a diferent one. František

 

[Siimt]

I would like to oppose Fritz's opinion as well. As probably most photopgraphers I've though a lot about digital whether and when I should switch and so on. And I haven't found a good reason to do it. Not wanting to wait but take pictures I'm happily buying film stuff (just got my new Maxxum 7

and not feeling handicapped by IS or faster autofocus. Of course I'm not a pro and shoot for my own fun. And to say that "system wont be usable any more" is pure nonsense as my film camera won't stop working because there are more digital cameras or something. It will stop working when I cannot buy film in the stores or have my film developed. Don't see that happening any time soon.

Oh, and I got into Minolta purely by accident as many before. Wanted a decent camera and my boss was trading his x-370s with three lenses. It got stolen but I was already into Minolta so got myself 505si super etc.

Cheers.

 

[sungnee]

I also disagree with Fritz. Not only do I think Minolta is good at making conventional cameras, their philosophy with digital cameras is also excellent.

The Dimage 7 has got no interchangeable lenses because the problem of dust on the sensors has not yet been solved. The zoom lens has got the widest range I know of, and a very wide aperture for soom. And the 5m resolution, for me, is good for prints up to 16 x 20. So you can clearly see that Minolta has done the most sensible thing, technologically, not marketing-wise, speaking.

 

[Uksnapper]

> [ Photography means writing with light , the camera is just a box holding a lens and film/ccd/cmos . You can make a camera out of any light tight material. The make YOU enjoy using is your decision, auto focus and image stabilisation are just more features to help you to take better photos but they are of no help if you can not compose an image to start with. I use a Dimage 7Hi but also use a manual monorail camera for some work,I prefer the monorail but am resigned to the fact that the Dimage is a very productive tool . Fritz has a viewpoint which is valid but I for one do not want all the bells and whistles,I just want to take photographs and I like doing it the old fashioned way with hand held Minolta light meter and a plate camera on a tripod.]