Minolta's Digi SLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Stuart Walker, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. Does anyone know a rough release date for MInolta's first Digi SLR? They
    mention autumn but that is 3 months long. I would also hope for a price
    slightly lower than the EOS 300D and D70 because Minolta have never quite
    been classed in the same quality bracket.
     
    Stuart Walker, Jun 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It will be unveiled at Photokina 2004. Expect the price to be around the
    same as the Nikon D100 or Canon 10D. It won't be cheap.
     
    Darrell Larose, Jun 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. a) Autumn not summer

    b) Don't be silly - they have never been classed in the same
    functionality bracket or popularity bracket, but as far as quality goes,
    they are regarded very highly. Leitz never got lenses made by Canon or
    Nikon! If anything, they are too obsessed with quality - of a certain
    kind - and not obsessed enough with speed, pizazz or ruggedness. They
    would rather make something which felt engineered than something which
    continued working when it rained... and they would rather make a superb
    lens with a specification no-one even remotely needed, than an
    acceptable one which sold to every pro in the world.

    What all this augurs for their DSLR, we can't say. It will have to be
    far better than anything else to succeed and they are looking at $2000
    body price (1700 euros). And October for the shop availability.


    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Stuart Walker

    Alan Browne Guest

    From numerous reportsd it is likely the Dynax Digital 7 will use
    the same Sony sensor as the D100/D70; eg 6 MP. I'd love it if
    the leapt beyond there (and let's hope they surprise us).

    Are you sure about that? It might result in a larger camera.
    However, since Minolta have no stabilized lenses, they will need
    to do the AS in-camera.
    I sincerely hope they do not. I hope that they maintain a path
    that supports the current Maxxum/Dynax lens system.
    4/3 is the Oly way of going to a more compact, less expensive,
    high performance lens system.
    Intriguing idea. But I sincerely doubt that many Nikon/Canon
    users will switch to Minolta. Minolta's lens system is too lean
    in high performance lenses.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Stuart Walker

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Well... A long and agressive zoom like 80-400 needs to be balanced in:
    * cost
    * quality
    * number of markets

    Sigma is losing at least as much with the excessive size and weight
    as it is winning with adding OS to the lens.

    As for 80-400 not being 'real' ED quality - the people saying this are
    simply out of their minds and/or don't know what use of ED glass actually
    corrects for and are slamming the lens for reasons that have nothing to
    do with ED vs. non-ED. ED glass will not help improve drawbacks caused
    by most design tradeoffs.
    Precicely what markets do you think are 400mm max 5x slow zooms targeted at?

    If you care about quality (while needing zoom / VR), then you would get
    Nikon 70-200mm VR and 200-400mm VR and *NOT* 80-400mm VR zoom. Apart from
    'one tele zoom does it all' amateurs, there are just about two small niches
    where you would be interested in the 80-400mm. Both involve unstable platforms.

    Comparing 5x tele zooms to fixed focal tele objectives (esp when those
    have large max aperture) is so entirely pointless.
     
    Sander Vesik, Jun 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Sander Vesik wrote:


    One of my readers and regular correspondents in Spain went through a
    lengthy process with Nikon UK trying to get exactly what he wanted.
    Basically he wanted a lightweight, long reach (over 300mm) very sharp
    lens for landscape work on a tripod and some journalistic stock work
    hand-held. The 80-400mm VR sounded like an ideal solution and he managed
    to get one to test, writing a report for us. It was OK but not up to
    what he wanted for the landscape work.

    There are plenty of photographers who don't like to cart round a large
    bag of lenses, or very heavy ones. There is an odd correlation between
    very fast, and good quality, in most brands - you can't buy a 400mm f6.3
    from them with biting sharpness, but you can get a superb 400mm f4 too
    big to use and too expensive to justify!

    It's a pity this has happened. In the past, it was often possible to get
    very simple, limited maximum aperture lenses of exceptional quality, in
    both zooms and fixed lengths. It is becoming increasingly hard to find them.

    I stuck with rangefinder 35mm for a lot of work for a long time because
    the superb quality of lenses such as a Leitz 135mm f4, or 90mm f4, was
    obtainable without a massive weight, bulk and obtrusiveness premium. In
    the SLR field, there is pretty well so such thing as a 90mm f4 or 135mm
    f4 - there was hardly anything comparable even in manual focus systems.
    AF systems have gone even further. I use Minolta, I love the 85mm focal
    length, but I do not want a bloody great big f1.4 85mm on my camera even
    if it IS one of the best lenses around. I want an f2 like I used to
    have, little bigger than a standard 50mm. Or even an f2.8!

    5X tele zooms can be exceptionally good, and large apertures are not
    essential. I don't see such lenses as non-professional.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Stuart Walker

    TP Guest


    A better alternative might be the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and a
    teleconverter. Or even two teleconverters (1.4X and 2.0X).

    The optical performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and a Nikon or Kenko
    Pro 300 teleconverter will easily surpass that of the 80-400mm VR.
     
    TP, Jun 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Stuart Walker

    TP Guest

    Pentax SMC-M 135mm f/3.5. Small, light, very sharp.
    Carl Zeiss 85mm f/2.8 for Contax.
     
    TP, Jun 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Stuart Walker

    Fred at home Guest

    message
    Orville you troll. What you know about digital photography can be summed up
    in one word - "nothing".
     
    Fred at home, Jun 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Used to have the early 135mm f3.5 and funnily enough, changed for a 2.5
    despite what I say about liking small lenses now (that was a long time
    ago). I've used the 85mm f2.8 for Contax, on the titanium ST body, and
    that combination is about as pure a design/optical thing as you can get.
    But they didn't seem to do very well with the idea of reverting to
    manual, mechanical everything; the body lacked 'feel' for some reason too.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Stuart Walker

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Yes, me too. I normaly carry a 28-70 f/2.8 attached to camera. Plus maybe
    a light mid-lenth tele zoom, but not all the time. If I switched to thes
    24-120 VR, it would cut quite a bit into the tele lens.

    But for planned shots, I would still switch to a prime.
    Ok, but see, some of them is not because of some arbitrary desire by the
    manufacturers but comes from small pesky details like physics and natural
    laws. Its not a given that the f/6.3 will weight less if you demand the
    same performance nor that it will cost less.
    Nothing ever comes for free.
    You should be using Nikon then :p The 85mm f/1.8 weights in at 2/3rds of the
    85mm f/1.4, and at f/2 gives ok results [ssuming you don't need the extra
    stop for low light].
     
    Sander Vesik, Jun 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Stuart Walker

    brian Guest

    snip

    True. The 80-400 does use ED glass in the large elements up front
    where it does the most good. My best information says its not a true
    apochromat with three color crossings, but it certainly has alot less
    secondary spectrum than a "normal" glass 400mm telephoto with similar
    size and aperture. You'll find this to be true of nearly all "ED"
    photographic lenses: virtually none of them are actually
    apochromatic.

    In my view, the real weakness of the 80-400mm is its very poor
    close-focus image quality near the long end. For distant subjects its
    fine, albeit with a trace of lateral color which is easy to correct
    with Panorma Tools or equivalent.

    Brian
    www.caldwellphotographic.com
     
    brian, Jun 24, 2004
    #12
  13. Stuart Walker

    Patco Guest

    Patco, Jun 26, 2004
    #13
  14. Considering the fact that I teach photography professionally at a
    major University, your unresearched accusation couldn't be further
    from the truth. Should you ever need any advice about Sigma equipment,
    please do not hesitate to e-mail me.
     
    Giorgio Preddio, Jun 27, 2004
    #14
  15. Stuart Walker

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Scary. All those young minds being misinformed re Sigmas. But it is
    hard to believe someone on staff at a "major Univerity" would use all
    the identities you show us here and (in particular) an obscenity-based
    domain name.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 27, 2004
    #15
    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.