dslr: canon vs. minolta

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob & Wendy, Jun 2, 2006.

  1. Rob & Wendy

    Rob & Wendy Guest

    I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I need
    a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good enough
    quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently have
    a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    over again?
    Rob & Wendy, Jun 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob & Wendy

    Roy G Guest

    Re: canon vs. minolta

    "Rob & Wendy" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:HLfg.2775$...
    >I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    >need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good
    >enough quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I
    >currently have a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed
    >that the Canon digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr
    >for the same price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my
    >lenses (or will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I
    >should start over again?
    >


    Hi.

    Just remember that the difference between a 6Mp Camera and and 8MP one is
    almost insignificant in relation to Print Sizes. There will be a noticeable
    difference between a 6Mp and a 12Mp, but still not as much as you might
    think.

    This is due to the fact that the pixel count is arrived at by multiplying
    the number of pixels on the long and short sides of the sensor. The sides
    stay in the 3:2 proportion.
    Very roughly :-

    6Mp = 3K x 2K 12Mp = 4.3K x 2.8K

    Print size (Long side) at 300 Ppi :-

    6Mp = 10ins 12Mp = 14.3ins

    I am not saying that you must print at 300Ppi, but it is the figure most
    people aim for.

    I have no doubt that if my arithmetic is incorrect, we will all hear about
    it.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Jun 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: canon vs. minolta

    Rob & Wendy wrote:
    > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    > need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of
    > a good enough quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30
    > posters). I currently have a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for
    > it. I have noticed that the Canon digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels,
    > more than any other dslr for the same price. Is it worth it to buy
    > the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or will they even work), or
    > is the Canon so much better that I should start over again?


    Note: Consumer Reports just came out with their ratings and both of
    those cameras did very well and were their 1-2 picks. Consumer Reports
    rates there cameras as they believe the average reader of their magazine
    will use them which means their ratings may not be applicable to the
    professional or advanced amateur. I suggest you also take a look at:

    http://www.dpreview.com/

    Finally I would check to make sure you can use your existing lenses, and
    if so I would suggest the Minolta. Not only will there be a significant
    advantage of having those lenses, but you also will likely find the
    positions and type of controls more comfortable for you.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Rob & Wendy

    Tony Guest

    Re: canon vs. minolta

    A lot will depend on if your lenses will fit the new Sony DSLR which is
    going to be compatible with Minolta's current lenses. Buying a Minolta
    branded camera right now could be a mistake - depends on how much they are
    discounting them since the brand is dead.
    How well Sony will do with the Minolta mount is open to question. Canon
    has a giant lead and the Sony might fail the same way Minolta and
    Konica/Minolta did. But Sony has a good reputation and the biggest expense
    is the lens, so you really couldn't lose much if your equipment is
    compatible.
    If it isn't, I would go with Canon.
    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Rob & Wendy" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:HLfg.2775$...
    > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I

    need
    > a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good

    enough
    > quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently

    have
    > a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    > digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    > price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    > will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    > over again?
    >
    >
    Tony, Jun 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Rob & Wendy

    bmoag Guest

    Re: canon vs. minolta

    Presumably you have Minolta autofocus lenses, otherwise you are starting
    from scratch no matter what brand you buy into with regard to your lens
    collection.
    If you can wait for the new Sony Alpha using the Minolta mount it seems
    likely this will be the Sony version of the awesome Nikon D200. If I had a
    collection of Minolta autofocus lenses I would already have my order in for
    this camera, sight unseen and without hesitation.
    But:
    Sony's top cameras to date have been capable of excellent results but in my
    experience have had significant design limitations. Sony's top branded EVF
    cameras have lacked the functionality that cameras from traditional
    manufacturers automatically build in for photographers, things that could be
    built in regardless of whether the camera is an EVF or a dSLR. Examples of
    Sony usability issues include the way the Sony 828 and RC1 write
    uncompressed RAW files to memory cards and limited flash adjustments,
    limited buffers for multi-frame shooting, limited bracketing etc. Presumably
    this reflects the lack of experience Sony design engineers have in creating
    prosumer level cameras and presumably this will change with what they are
    getting from Minolta, IMHO one of the greatest camera producers in
    history--I wish Canon had gone belly-up instead.
    If you are not tied to a lens collection Pentax is worth strong
    consideration: many of their lenses outperform rivals from Nikon and Canon
    and usually cost less. Pentax, like everyone else, is also coming out with a
    new line of dSLRS with higher megapixel counts as soon as Sony, Samsung (or
    whover their supplier is) can crank out enough sensors.
    bmoag, Jun 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Rob & Wendy

    Jim Sant Guest

    Re: canon vs. minolta

    start over and get the Canon. if you don't, you will always be the odd man
    out.

    Jim

    "Rob & Wendy" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:HLfg.2775$...
    >I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    >need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good
    >enough quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I
    >currently have a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed
    >that the Canon digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr
    >for the same price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my
    >lenses (or will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I
    >should start over again?
    >
    Jim Sant, Jun 3, 2006
    #6
  7. Rob & Wendy

    Kevin Agard Guest

    Re: canon vs. minolta

    > Rob & Wendy wrote:
    >
    >>I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    >>need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of
    >>a good enough quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30
    >>posters). I currently have a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for
    >>it. I have noticed that the Canon digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels,
    >>more than any other dslr for the same price. Is it worth it to buy
    >>the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or will they even work), or
    >>is the Canon so much better that I should start over again?


    Rob or Wendy,

    I presume you are talking about the Minolta Maxxum AF lens? If not, it's
    a moot point as the non AF lens will not work on the KM DSLRs.

    If you are, then you need to look at how much you have invested in your
    current lens, how you feel about their quality and decide what you want.

    I personally choose the KM 7D because I have gathered a rather large
    collection of Maxxum lens over the years that i wanted to use and i did
    not want to have to replace them. I can not say I am sorry about that
    choice as I've been quite happy with the 7D.

    On the down side, now that KM has gone out of the camera business, OEM
    accessories are getting hard to find and more expensive.
    Kevin Agard, Jun 3, 2006
    #7
  8. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    Rob & Wendy wrote:

    > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    > need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good
    > enough
    > quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently
    > have
    > a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    > digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    > price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    > will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    > over again?
    >
    >

    If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!

    --
    George Fritschmann III
    GF3, Jun 7, 2006
    #8
  9. Rob & Wendy

    Kenny Guest

    "GF3" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>
    >>

    > If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!
    >


    That's your opinion and I can not agree with that statement. Canon
    outsell Nikon by a huge margin, have better and lower cost lenses and
    with cameras like the 5D and 1 series, leave Nikon playing catch-up.

    You invest in a system, not a camera, and Canon have the best system at
    this point in time.

    K
    Kenny, Jun 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Rob & Wendy

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    GF3 <> wrote:

    > Rob & Wendy wrote:
    >
    > > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    > > need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good
    > > enough
    > > quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently
    > > have
    > > a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    > > digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    > > price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    > > will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    > > over again?
    > >
    > >

    > If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!


    No one makes "the best" There are lots of "best" depending on your needs.

    but Konica Minolta is gone from the photo industry. If you want to use
    Minolta mount lenses on a current DSLR then you would look at the new
    Sony Alpha system.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, Jun 8, 2006
    #10
  11. Rob & Wendy

    Guest

    Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    Bob Salomon wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > GF3 <> wrote:
    >
    > > Rob & Wendy wrote:
    > >
    > > > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    > > > need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good
    > > > enough
    > > > quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently
    > > > have
    > > > a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    > > > digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    > > > price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    > > > will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    > > > over again?
    > > >

    > > If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!

    >
    > No one makes "the best" There are lots of "best" depending on your needs.
    >
    > but Konica Minolta is gone from the photo industry. If you want to use
    > Minolta mount lenses on a current DSLR then you would look at the new
    > Sony Alpha system.


    If I was forced to start over again, I'd probably go with Canon or
    start again with Pentax.
    My reasoning is thus: The EOS mount has the shortest back-focus
    distance for any of the 35mm based DSLR cameras (and almost all other
    lenses can be adapted to it), Pentax DSLR cameras can use any of the K
    mount lenses (going back to when the mount was introduced), and not
    Nikon firstly because of the F mount has a larger back-focus than any
    other DSLR (and other lenses can't be adapted without optics or have to
    be macro only) and secondly that not all of their DSLR cameras can use
    all of the F-mount lenses, some of them lock up when you try and use
    the aperture ring on the lens.
    , Jun 8, 2006
    #11
  12. Rob & Wendy

    RW+/- Guest

    Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    On 7 Jun 2006 19:12:24 -0700, wrote:

    > Bob Salomon wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> GF3 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rob & Wendy wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    >>> > need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a good
    >>> > enough
    >>> > quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently
    >>> > have
    >>> > a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the Canon
    >>> > digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for the same
    >>> > price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses (or
    >>> > will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should start
    >>> > over again?
    >>> >
    >>> If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!

    >>
    >> No one makes "the best" There are lots of "best" depending on your needs.
    >>
    >> but Konica Minolta is gone from the photo industry. If you want to use
    >> Minolta mount lenses on a current DSLR then you would look at the new
    >> Sony Alpha system.

    >
    > If I was forced to start over again, I'd probably go with Canon or
    > start again with Pentax.
    > My reasoning is thus: The EOS mount has the shortest back-focus
    > distance for any of the 35mm based DSLR cameras (and almost all other
    > lenses can be adapted to it), Pentax DSLR cameras can use any of the K
    > mount lenses (going back to when the mount was introduced), and not
    > Nikon firstly because of the F mount has a larger back-focus than any
    > other DSLR (and other lenses can't be adapted without optics or have to
    > be macro only) and secondly that not all of their DSLR cameras can use
    > all of the F-mount lenses, some of them lock up when you try and use
    > the aperture ring on the lens.


    OK, so you state that you are going with a "system", then why not Olympus
    who have digital specific lenses? With large F stops as well.

    From what I've read seems that Nikon can use old lenses going way back and
    do it better than Canon users can. Again, both seem to have started
    producing "digital" specific lenses.

    Then again, when using older style/film lenses at what point does their
    aperture become useful, or how large can you open the lens before you start
    having problems when using these lenses with digital bodies?
    RW+/-, Jun 8, 2006
    #12
  13. Rob & Wendy

    GF3 Guest

    Bob Salomon wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > GF3 <> wrote:
    >
    >> Rob & Wendy wrote:
    >>
    >> > I have been shooting film for years, but know nothing about digital. I
    >> > need a camera that has a quick response time and will take pics of a
    >> > good enough
    >> > quality to blow up to large size prints (20 x 30 posters). I currently
    >> > have
    >> > a Minolta 35mm SLR and many lenses for it. I have noticed that the
    >> > Canon digital rebel XT is 8 megapixels, more than any other dslr for
    >> > the same
    >> > price. Is it worth it to buy the Minolta to be able to use my lenses
    >> > (or will they even work), or is the Canon so much better that I should
    >> > start over again?
    >> >
    >> >

    >> If you are to start over, Nikon makes the best DSLR's!

    >
    > No one makes "the best" There are lots of "best" depending on your needs.
    >
    >

    If the best metering and exposure latitude in the business doesn't make for
    the best camera, what does?

    Add to that the most consistent lineup of quality lenses, and its a
    no-brainer!

    --
    George Fritschmann III
    GF3, Jun 8, 2006
    #13
  14. Rob & Wendy

    Guest

    Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    RW+/- wrote:
    <snip previous dicussion for brevity>
    > OK, so you state that you are going with a "system", then why not Olympus
    > who have digital specific lenses? With large F stops as well.


    The reason I personaly wouldn't bother with the Oly DSLR cameras is
    because they locked themselves into a smallish sensor that seems to be
    noise limited at 8mp (going by the tests posted at dpreview.com and a
    few other websites).
    Both Canon and Pentax produce smaller DSLR cameras with more features
    (apart from the gimicky "live preview" of the E-330) that cost less.

    > From what I've read seems that Nikon can use old lenses going way back and
    > do it better than Canon users can. Again, both seem to have started
    > producing "digital" specific lenses.


    Unfortunately not completely.
    Nikon changed the mechanical aperture coupling to AI many moons ago and
    non-AI lenses don't work properly on newer F-mount SLR cameras.
    Assuming that Canon lets you do AE with an uncoupled lens, then because
    the EOS back-focus is shorter than any other SLR (apart from the Oly
    4/3 or Oly Pen F) and can have lenses from other systems adapted with
    simple ring adapters.
    Even if not, in manual mode a hand-held lightmeter could be used to
    determine exposure.

    > Then again, when using older style/film lenses at what point does their
    > aperture become useful, or how large can you open the lens before you start
    > having problems when using these lenses with digital bodies?


    Their aperture becomes useful as soon as the camera is turned on. :)
    With the APS-c sensor DSLR cameras, the best (centre) part of the image
    is being used.
    I quite enjoy using my 50mm f1:1.4 PK A lens for portraits.
    Some reviews of Canon full-frame DSLR cameras and lenses have
    complaints about softness in the corners
    , Jun 8, 2006
    #14
  15. Rob & Wendy

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    On 7 Jun 2006 19:12:24 -0700, wrote:

    >> but Konica Minolta is gone from the photo industry. If you want to use
    >> Minolta mount lenses on a current DSLR then you would look at the
    >> new Sony Alpha system.

    >
    > If I was forced to start over again, I'd probably go with Canon or
    > start again with Pentax.
    > My reasoning is thus: The EOS mount has the shortest back-focus
    > distance for any of the 35mm based DSLR cameras (and almost all other
    > lenses can be adapted to it), Pentax DSLR cameras can use any of the K
    > mount lenses (going back to when the mount was introduced), and not
    > Nikon firstly because of the F mount has a larger back-focus than any
    > other DSLR (and other lenses can't be adapted without optics or have to
    > be macro only) and secondly that not all of their DSLR cameras can use
    > all of the F-mount lenses, some of them lock up when you try and use
    > the aperture ring on the lens.


    You _say_ "If I was forced to start over again" but your logic
    says otherwise, since it assumes that one would already have, or be
    able to use a bunch of old lenses. Not exactly a good description
    of "starting over". Even if the old lenses could be used, they
    probably wouldn't provide all of the features of Canon's and
    Pentax's current lenses with their DSLRs. I currently have several
    Nikkor AIs lenses, and when I get a DSLR body, it will probably be
    one of Nikon's. But if I was forced to start over again, without
    having any lenses, I might well choose another brand of camera. The
    OP doesn't have ANY old Canon or Pentax lenses, so there wouldn't be
    a good reason to single out these two brands based solely on their
    ability to use old lenses. If I had a Pentax DSLR and an old K
    mount lens, I might be tempted to use it, but I'd have little reason
    to buy a K mount lens.

    The OP does state that many old Minolta lenses are owned, so that
    might make Sony's new Alpha system worth considering first. Other
    than a subset of professionals, few photographers will ever be
    constrained by going with a brand that doesn't have the extensive
    line of lenses and accessories that Canon and Nikon has, many of
    them belonging in the category "If you need to know the price, you
    probably can't afford it."
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2006
    #15
  16. Rob & Wendy

    RW+/- Guest

    Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    On 7 Jun 2006 23:57:34 -0700, wrote:

    >> Then again, when using older style/film lenses at what point does their
    >> aperture become useful, or how large can you open the lens before you start
    >> having problems when using these lenses with digital bodies?

    >
    > Their aperture becomes useful as soon as the camera is turned on. :)


    So you are saying that barrel distortion, etc. are not a problem and any
    setting?

    > With the APS-c sensor DSLR cameras, the best (centre) part of the image
    > is being used.
    > I quite enjoy using my 50mm f1:1.4 PK A lens for portraits.


    Have you tested 1.4 for distortion, softness at corners, etc.?

    > Some reviews of Canon full-frame DSLR cameras and lenses have
    > complaints about softness in the corners


    I'm sure it is different with various lenses, has there been a test done on
    the full line of lenses? Olympus seems to have done this and lists the
    useful F-stops of their old lines of lenses.
    RW+/-, Jun 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    wrote:
    >> From what I've read seems that Nikon can use old lenses going way back and
    >> do it better than Canon users can. Again, both seem to have started
    >> producing "digital" specific lenses.

    >
    >Unfortunately not completely.


    This discussion needs a little perspective...

    >Nikon changed the mechanical aperture coupling to AI many moons ago and
    >non-AI lenses don't work properly on newer F-mount SLR cameras.


    Moons? That was several *decades* ago! And since then there
    have been many dozens of lenses produced using AI coupling,
    which all of Nikon's professional cameras can use without
    adapters. Not to mention that most if not all pre-AI Nikon F
    mount lenses can be converted to have AI coupling.

    Basically with a Nikon camera body there is a *huge* supply of
    lenses that can be used, going back to the 1970's. And indeed
    that *is* one of the more fun things about owning a Nikon
    camera!

    >Assuming that Canon lets you do AE with an uncoupled lens, then because
    >the EOS back-focus is shorter than any other SLR (apart from the Oly
    >4/3 or Oly Pen F) and can have lenses from other systems adapted with
    >simple ring adapters.
    >Even if not, in manual mode a hand-held lightmeter could be used to
    >determine exposure.


    Which means that at best old Canon mount lenses are not as
    usable (e.g., they require adapters) as are old Nikon mount
    lenses at worst (they don't work with the camera's exposure
    metering system)! Indeed, many of the non-Nikon branded lenses
    (Kiron, Vivitar, Tamron etc.) from the 70's and 80's are so
    inexpensive today that it is impossible to resist acquiring them
    just for the fun of making comparisons!

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 8, 2006
    #17
  18. Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    ASAAR bedacht in news::


    > The OP does state that many old Minolta lenses are owned, so that
    > might make Sony's new Alpha system worth considering first. Other
    > than a subset of professionals, few photographers will ever be
    > constrained by going with a brand that doesn't have the extensive
    > line of lenses and accessories that Canon and Nikon has, many of
    > them belonging in the category "If you need to know the price, you
    > probably can't afford it."
    >


    Consider Minolta, or the new Sony Alpha. Your Minolta lenses are
    (probably) excellent, like most Minolta lenses. You don't want to buy new
    ones if you have perfectly good old ones. And then there's Minolta's (and
    Sony Alpha's) really useful built-in Anti-shake. I emphasize 'built-in',
    because it means you can use it with your old lenses, and you don't have
    to buy those very expensive Canon anti-shake lenses.

    JL
    Justus Lipsius, Jun 8, 2006
    #18
  19. Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    ASAAR <> wrote:
    >On 7 Jun 2006 19:12:24 -0700, wrote:
    >>
    >> If I was forced to start over again, I'd probably go with Canon or
    >> start again with Pentax.
    >> My reasoning is thus: The EOS mount has the shortest back-focus
    >> distance for any of the 35mm based DSLR cameras (and almost all other
    >> lenses can be adapted to it), Pentax DSLR cameras can use any of the K
    >> mount lenses (going back to when the mount was introduced), and not
    >> Nikon firstly because of the F mount has a larger back-focus than any
    >> other DSLR (and other lenses can't be adapted without optics or have to
    >> be macro only) and secondly that not all of their DSLR cameras can use
    >> all of the F-mount lenses, some of them lock up when you try and use
    >> the aperture ring on the lens.

    >
    > You _say_ "If I was forced to start over again" but your logic
    >says otherwise, since it assumes that one would already have, or be
    >able to use a bunch of old lenses. Not exactly a good description
    >of "starting over". Even if the old lenses could be used, they
    >probably wouldn't provide all of the features of Canon's and
    >Pentax's current lenses with their DSLRs. I currently have several
    >Nikkor AIs lenses, and when I get a DSLR body, it will probably be
    >one of Nikon's. But if I was forced to start over again, without
    >having any lenses, I might well choose another brand of camera. The
    >OP doesn't have ANY old Canon or Pentax lenses, so there wouldn't be
    >a good reason to single out these two brands based solely on their
    >ability to use old lenses. If I had a Pentax DSLR and an old K
    >mount lens, I might be tempted to use it, but I'd have little reason
    >to buy a K mount lens.


    This misses an important point though. Already owning a bunch
    of lenses may well be an impetus, but the only impediment would
    be no ability to acquire them.

    In fact, even if a person does not own a single Pentax K mount
    of Nikon AI mount lense, the decision to move to a DSLR
    certainly can take into account the *huge* supply of suitable
    lenses, available for peanuts, in those two mounts.

    > The OP does state that many old Minolta lenses are owned, so that
    >might make Sony's new Alpha system worth considering first. Other


    Assuming the camera is a good match, that is a reasonable
    consideration. But the comparison of lenses needs to be done on
    a "replacement cost" basis, not on "original cost". Those $500+
    lenses from 2 or 3 decades ago now sell for a dime on the
    dollar! And of course vintage lenses are more commonly
    available in Pentax K, and much more so in Nikon AI, mounts than
    others.

    >than a subset of professionals, few photographers will ever be
    >constrained by going with a brand that doesn't have the extensive
    >line of lenses and accessories that Canon and Nikon has, many of
    >them belonging in the category "If you need to know the price, you
    >probably can't afford it."


    But indeed that *is* what makes Pentax K and Nikon AI mount
    lenses so interesting today. That extensive line of lenses from
    2 or 3 decades ago are still just as extensive, but knowing the
    price doesn't cause heart failure...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 8, 2006
    #19
  20. Rob & Wendy

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: dslr: canon vs. minolta

    On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:23:24 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >> than a subset of professionals, few photographers will ever be
    >> constrained by going with a brand that doesn't have the extensive
    >> line of lenses and accessories that Canon and Nikon has, many of
    >> them belonging in the category "If you need to know the price, you
    >> probably can't afford it."

    >
    > But indeed that *is* what makes Pentax K and Nikon AI mount
    > lenses so interesting today. That extensive line of lenses from
    > 2 or 3 decades ago are still just as extensive, but knowing the
    > price doesn't cause heart failure...


    It depends on what type of photography is of interest. If there's
    lots of time to get everything right (portraits, landscapes), old
    lenses can be useful. For fast moving objects (race cars, athletes,
    birds, young children), fast, accurate AF, and tracking ability
    isn't likely to be possible with old lenses. One thing I appreciate
    about the old lenses is that many of them are very well built and
    have the feel of precision objects. Some of the cheap kit lenses
    (Nikon and especially Canon) may perform moderately well, but have
    the feel of the cheapest junk, and I'm almost embarrassed holding
    them. But where I once favored getting many good lenses, I now
    prefer having a small number of good multipurpose lenses, since I
    was rarely willing to carry more than 2 or 3 lenses years ago. So
    even though I can appreciate some of the older lenses, I'm not
    likely to be an old lens collector, even if they're "available for
    peanuts". But I reserve the right to flip-flop if I come across an
    oldie but goodie. :)
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jeff liss

    Where's Pentax and Minolta in the DSLR game?

    jeff liss, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    368
    Mark Roberts
    Sep 19, 2003
  2. CARBUFF

    Minolta Maxxum Zeus DSLR Announced

    CARBUFF, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    406
    Alan Browne
    Oct 31, 2003
  3. Alan Browne

    --Faint hope for Minolta DSLR? -new info

    Alan Browne, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    273
    HRosita
    Nov 11, 2003
  4. gazza

    Ditch Minolta SLR kit for Canon DSLR?

    gazza, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    690
  5. Celcius
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
    Celcius
    Feb 26, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page