Minolta vs Nikon??
Randy R. Johns
Which is really a better camera or is one really better than the other??
--
Randy Johns
rock...@hotmail.com
GO VOLS!!!
David
Which one do you see on the sidelines of sporting events? Which one do
photojournalists use when under fire? Which one do pros trust to work when
they need to produce saleable images?
Ain't many Minoltas out there on the front lines...
David M.
S. Thomas Lewis
I own the Minolta XD-11, Minolta X-700, and Nikon N90s. The Minolta cameras
have served me quite well. However, I see some slight improvement in the optics
in the Nikon over the Minolta. Also, Nikon will repair older camera bodies and
lenses.
The comparison may not be fair, as I am comparing manual focus Minolta with
autofocus Nikon. However, you must also remember that manual Nikon bodies can
accept autofocus lenses (no autofocus) and autofocus Nikon bodies can accept
manual lenses (no autofocus).
David
I guess I interpreted the question different than you. Even if the camera feels
great, and provides all the equipment and features you want or need, it useless
if it can't stand the rigors of professional use. Nikon and Canon can, I don't
believe Minolta can. It is not as rugged, the optics aren't as good (I know this
will draw some responses!), and it doesn't provide a comprehensive system like
Nikon or Canon. The question was "which is better." I know this is a broad
question, and can be argued on a model by model basis. But, does Minolta make
anything even remotely as capable as the F5? As rugged as the F5? Do they offer
the same selection of professonal quality lenses as Nikon? I'd answer "no" to
all questions. It is simply my opinion that Nikon is "better."
David M.
CJ wrote:
> Which system feels better to you? Which system gives you the equipment you
> need, at a price you can afford? It does not matter one iota what the
> professional photographers use. Just because you have the same equipment as
> a pro does not mean your pictures will look professional. It is much better
> to have a camera system that YOU feel comfortable with and can control, than
> to have what the pros use and not be able to use it effectively. For some
> people, Minolta cameras are easier to use and fit their skills and budget.
> For others, it is the Canon camp or Nikon. The end result is to have a
> camera that you can take the pictures you want to take, and have them come
> out the way you want them to. It doesn't matter if that camera is a Nikon,
> Canon, Minolta, or Pentax. What does matter is the person looking through
> it.
>
> Chris Banyai-Riepl
> ..
> "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well."
> A. Bronson Alcott (1799-1888), U.S. educator, social reformer. Table Talk,
> bk. 1, "Quotation" (1877).
> ..
> Alga Computer Systems
> http://willapabay.org/~herper/
> ..
> Aviation What-Not
> http://www.willapabay.org/~herper/aviation
CJ
>anything even remotely as capable as the F5? As rugged as the F5? Do they
This concept of Minolta cameras not being as "rugged" as a Nikon F5 or
something from the Canon camp really has me wondering what kind of tests
were done on the equipment to determine this. As long as the user stays
away from the entry level bodies of all of the main manufacturers, there
should not be any concern about the ruggedness of the bodies. Today's
cameras are not fragile, and they will all survive better than the human
body will in similar situations, so that argument is really moot. The
situations that you would have to go into to have a modern camera fail
because of a lack of ruggedness would also result in a failure of the human
behind it to press the button to capture the image anyway.
The optical quality of the lenses is also an area that really can't be
compared. By staying with the Minolta lenses on Minolta bodies, or Canon
lenses on Canon bodies, etc., the pictures that come out of the cameras will
be indistinguishable to the human eye from each other as far as image
quality goes. The differences that are published in all the magazines are
very subtle, and in most cases only detectable with special equipment
designed to find those differences. If you are truly concerned about image
quality, then you should sell all of your 35mm equipment and replace it with
medium or large format equipment. The lenses of those are much sharper, and
the resulting transparencies from that equipment will yield much better
clarity, sharpness, and contrast over even the best of 35mm equipment.
The 35mm equipment of today has pushed the technology about as far as it can
go. With 3rd generation AF/AE designs out there by all three main SLR
manufacturers, the differences between them are becoming smaller and
smaller, and the opinions of Canon/Nikon/Minolta users are becoming more and
more vocal. Again, in the end, what matters most is the person taking the
pictures, not the equipment.
Chris
CJ
Which system feels better to you? Which system gives you the equipment you
need, at a price you can afford? It does not matter one iota what the
professional photographers use. Just because you have the same equipment as
a pro does not mean your pictures will look professional. It is much better
to have a camera system that YOU feel comfortable with and can control, than
to have what the pros use and not be able to use it effectively. For some
people, Minolta cameras are easier to use and fit their skills and budget.
For others, it is the Canon camp or Nikon. The end result is to have a
camera that you can take the pictures you want to take, and have them come
out the way you want them to. It doesn't matter if that camera is a Nikon,
Canon, Minolta, or Pentax. What does matter is the person looking through
it.
Chris Banyai-Riepl
..
"One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well."
A. Bronson Alcott (1799-1888), U.S. educator, social reformer. Table Talk,
bk. 1, "Quotation" (1877).
..
Alga Computer Systems
http://willapabay.org/~herper/
..
Aviation What-Not
http://www.willapabay.org/~herper/aviation
David wrote in message <34721DC7...@mediaone.net>...
>Which one do you see on the sidelines of sporting events? Which one do
>photojournalists use when under fire? Which one do pros trust to work when
>they need to produce saleable images?
>
>Ain't many Minoltas out there on the front lines...
>
>David M.
>
Eric Hocking
Randy R. Johns wrote:
> Which is really a better camera or is one really better than the other??
Why do you ask? If you're looking to purchase and want a comparison between
models and lenses for a particular application, then your post would be
better addressed to state that - otherwise I'd treat this sort of post as a
troll just to create a brand/flame war that will waste bandwidth.
If this is a genuine request for information I apologise in advance, but
you'll probably be asked, what sort of shooting you want to do, conditions,
and level of expertise your at before you get any genuinely useful replies.
> --
> Randy Johns
> rock...@hotmail.com
> GO VOLS!!!
BTW I use Minoltas currently FWIW.
--
Eric Hocking "A closed mouth gathers no feet."
Support SOA. Association to Stamp Out Acronymns.
Remove "nospam." from header for Email address
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
CJ
>Trust me, if Minoltas were "as good" as Nikons, pros would be using them.
Contrary to this statement, there are quite a few pros out there that DO use
Minolta equipment. It sounds like you're basing the pro market on news
photographers. While these are professional photographers, they often do
not own their own equipment, but rather use the equipment their boss
provides. And if the focus shifts to that, you can see why there are so
many Nikons out there. It is the ability to use the old lenses on the
newest bodies. With a large publisher like the New York Times, they can
keep their old Nikon lenses for use with their newer F4 and F5 bodies.
Switching to Canon or Minolta would result in having to replace the entire
lens selection, which is more expensive than just replacing a body, even if
that body does cost $3000. That is why you see Nikons in Bosnia. However,
if you were to look at the freelance professional photographer, you will see
a much more varied playing field. In that bunch, you will find that Nikon,
Canon, and Minolta are all well represented, with no one manufacturer having
a huge lead over the other.
As to the Ansel Adams statement, the way you phrased it is not an accurate
assessment of the discussion. If you gave Ansel Adams a Minolta 800si, and
someone else a Nikon F5, that would be a more accurate test. Comparing
apples to apples would have that Minolta putting out incredible pictures
compared to that Nikon F5.
Chris
David
My basis for opinion is that I've never seen a pro using a Minolta. They need
excellent quality optics, bodies that don't break down and can take a beating.
Trust me, if Minoltas were "as good" as Nikons, pros would be using them. I
don't use, nor do I need magazine tests to know which is better. Besides, you
can't trust magazine tests, since the lion's share of their income comes from
the manufacturers of the products they test. And yes, despite the magazine
tests, I CAN see a difference between Nikkor and Sigma optics.
Regarding your statement that it's not the camera, it's the photographer, you
know as well as I that this statement is simplistic and limited. Give me a Hassy
and Ansel Adams an Instamatic 110, let us shoot the same scene, and we'll see.
And even the best photographer is useless if their camera doesn't work. How many
Minoltas do you think you see in Bosnia?
David M.
Allan Kolbes
It appears that the issue of "better" has been drawn and quartered by most
of the replies that you have received. I think that the statement of reality
is which will suit "me" the individual not which will suit the masses. If
photography is an art form, then the brush and canvass are as important as
the paint used. Photography, to me is an expression of light and image, as
such the media that is used for that expression is secondary to the image
itself. Therefore, buy what you like and can afford, but take the time to
learn and express with your new tool, instead of using it to compare specs,
and have the best "F5" or the worst equipment. This dissertation may not
serve your final decision well, but I hope that it serves to enlighten your
interest and peak your curiosity.
Randy R. Johns wrote in message <01bcf446$635da1e0$23dc0fd0@hp>...
>Which is really a better camera or is one really better than the other??
David Orban
Randy R. Johns wrote:
>
> Which is really a better camera or is one really better than the other??
> --
> Randy Johns
> rock...@hotmail.com
> GO VOLS!!!
Randy,
What you are asking is a rather subjective question that will be
answered in a rather biased way. David M. is apparently a Nikon user
and will therefore support Nikon. I am a Minolta user and will support
Minolta. The fact is that Nikon, Minolta, Canon, and Pentax all make
cameras that can be used by pros. I spend a lot of time shooting
pictures of SEC games. At these events I've seen all of the brands
mentioned above being used by pros. I've even know of one photographer
who shoots football with a Hasselblaad. Also, lens reports don't seem
to suggest that one brand makes lenses better than another. Some of
Minolta's lenses are better than comprable Nikons and some Nikon's are
better than Minolta's. I will also add that Nikon does not make a
camera as good as a Minolta in the same price range (Minolta does not
make a camera that is expensive as the F5). In short, Minolta gives you
the best features and performance for your buck.
My advice is this. Pick a Minolta that you like and a Nikon that you
like, go to the camera store, and try using each one. If you have a
friend that has either camera, so much the better. Also, think of the
features that you might actually use. If you really need a camera that
shoots 8-10 fps then Nikon or Canon is the way to go. If you want a
solid camera with good features and excellent performance, and still be
able to afford the lenses you want than I would recommend Minolta. If I
were you, I would not be worried about what other people think is
right. This is going to be your camera after all. There is no point on
buying a camera that would make either myself or David M. happy, is
there? I hope this helps.
David Orban
orb...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
scs...@ix.netcom.com
Whoa junior,
I just gotta step in here.
I'm a pro, I use a minolta, as do many of my associates.
Not all, Not most, but some.
Mostly I use a toya 4x5 view.
Take your nikon, drop it from 5 feet onto the sidewalk.
It breaks, same as my minolta.
I spend less on a brand new body than you do on repair.
It is the photographer that makes a great photo.. If it was the
camera, we would have 100,000,000 pros in the US
When I go to a party, people are always giving me their cameras,
110 instamatics, disc, polaroid, etc. and they are always astounded
at the pictures they get back. They say stuff like " I never knew my
camera could take a picture like that." Or -- "now I know why you get
$1500 dollars per shot"
David, go out and buy a $180 pair of Nike's --- then you can play
ball just like Jordan RIGHT.
It's just sad, cause you believe you own bull.
Allan Beck
David (dm...@mediaone.net) wrote:
: My basis for opinion is that I've never seen a pro using a Minolta. They need
: excellent quality optics, bodies that don't break down and can take a beating.
: Trust me, if Minoltas were "as good" as Nikons, pros would be using them. I
: don't use, nor do I need magazine tests to know which is better. Besides, you
: can't trust magazine tests, since the lion's share of their income comes from
: the manufacturers of the products they test. And yes, despite the magazine
: tests, I CAN see a difference between Nikkor and Sigma optics.
I just couldn't let this one pass...
About pros using Minolta, I will admit that there aren't a whole lot
who advertise it. However, there is at least one pro who is extremely
pro-Minolta on the Web--can't recall the URL at the moment, but it shouldn't
be too hard to search for. I suspect that the apparent (possibly real)
lack of pros using Minolta may be due to a number of factors:
--lack of subsidization for pros
--less emphasis on professional use in advertisements
--possibly a lack of 'extreme' lenses which most people will never use
(sure, Nikon makes a 6mm lens that actually sees behind itself, but
how many people will ever use it, since you can't buy it, only rent it)
As to the alleged lack of ruggedness, I'll take my 9xi over
any comparably priced Nikon anyday! Metal chassis, rubber seals on
the back, sealed shutter release, sealed dials, rubber armor on the base,
no pieces sticking out that could get caught in something.
Also, when you consider that for $800 US I get a shutter that goes
down to 1/12000 sec (faster than the F5), a flash sync that goes down to 1/300
sec (faster than the F5), 4.5 fps motor drive (faster than the N90s), a
PC-terminal, and all sorts of other bells and whistles. Can you truly say
that for most people (who, you must admit, probably don't need anything
that Minolta doesn't make) will find better value from a Nikon?
Well, I guess I got sucked into this one...<grin>
Disclaimer: Please note that the fact that I think that Minolta
makes excellent equipment should not stop you from
giving me an F5 with full set of lenses!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Friesen "The opinions stated are my own and
Nortel are not related to company policy."
Ottawa, ON
"That is the top of the calibration target, that is _not_ in fact a monolith."
--NASA TV commentator, 7/5/97, discussing an image of a black
rectangle silhouetted against the Martian landscape
G Sears
Randy, Truth is, It depends on which one you own.
geo :-(|)
On 18 Nov 1997 17:20:46 GMT, "Randy R. Johns" <rjo...@scott.net>
Ombligo
The paper I work for has at least one photographer using Minolta and
only about six using Nikon. The other 20+ staffers have switched to
Canon.
One thing I have noticed is when repairs are needed, Minolta bends
over backwards to help their shooter. Nikon and Canon are maddening to
deal with (esp. Nikon) and most of us now use an independent repair
shop.
It is not the equipment, it is the eye and ability of the shooter.
Ron Thompson
Staff Photographer
St. Petersburg (FL) Times
David <dm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>My basis for opinion is that I've never seen a pro using a Minolta. They need
>excellent quality optics, bodies that don't break down and can take a beating.
>Trust me, if Minoltas were "as good" as Nikons, pros would be using them. I
>don't use, nor do I need magazine tests to know which is better. Besides, you
>can't trust magazine tests, since the lion's share of their income comes from
>the manufacturers of the products they test. And yes, despite the magazine
>tests, I CAN see a difference between Nikkor and Sigma optics.
>Regarding your statement that it's not the camera, it's the photographer, you
David
Just out of curiousity (really!), have any photographers switched from Canon or Nikon
to Minolta?
And yes, to a certain extent, it is the photographer, not the camera. BUT! Without
reliable equipment, even the best photographer is useless. Can't expose without a
working unit. If there are any photojournalists out there, what would you take to a
war zone? Nikon or Minolta?
David M.
David
OK, here's a non-subjective evaluation of a camera's worth in the field. Last
winter, the scientists who habitat the Mt. Washington Observatory were in the
process of upgrading their 35mm camera equipment. They evaluated Canon, Nikon,
Contax, Minolta, and Pentax equipment, as they believed that all brands offered
them what they needed, as a minimum. Only electronic autofocus cameras were
evaluated. Surprise! All the cameras froze except the Canon EOS and Nikon F
models. The worst was the Pentax, next came the Minoltas, then Contax. The Contax
RTSIII didn't freeze, but the battery power dwindled far faster than the Canon or
Nikon. I don't know which brand they eventually bought. These cameras were tested
under extreme conditions, mainly cold and wind. They had to be operated, and
stored in low temperatures. The autofocus mechanisms HAD to work, since the
photographers couldn't always look through the viewfinder. Many times, the
photographers had to "point and shoot."
That said, let me also say this: I use what I like, you use what you like. Is
Minolta suitable for pro use? Sure. Just not on top of Mt. Washington in the
winter. Minolta vs Nikon is indeed very subjective, and brand comparisons will
always turn into a holy war. But, I ask again--which would you take to a war
zone, a top of the line Nikon, or a top of the line Minolta? I'd take an F5,
every time, over any Minolta. I'd probably take an EOS, but, for once, the
subject isn't Canon vs Nikon...
David M.
Randy2lor
>And yes, to a certain extent, it is the photographer, not the camera. BUT!
>Without
>reliable equipment, even the best photographer is useless. Can't expose
>without a
>take to a
>war zone? Nikon or Minolta?
>
>David M.
>
>Ombligo wrote:
>
>> The paper I work for has at least one photographer using Minolta and
>> only about six using Nikon. The other 20+ staffers have switched to
>> Canon.
>>
>> One thing I have noticed is when repairs are needed, Minolta bends
>> over backwards to help their shooter. Nikon and Canon are maddening to
>> deal with (esp. Nikon) and most of us now use an independent repair
>> shop.
>>
>> It is not the equipment, it is the eye and ability of the shooter.
>>
>> Ron Thompson
>> Staff Photographer
>> St. Petersburg (FL) Times
>
construction to an EOS-1n. Now lets see, if one camera breaks down, where's
your backup?
David Rosen
David <dm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
: Which one do you see on the sidelines of sporting events? Which one do
: photojournalists use when under fire? Which one do pros trust to work when
: they need to produce saleable images?
: Ain't many Minoltas out there on the front lines...
: David M.
But, David M., aren't you ever going to
answer the actual question ? [quoted below].
David Rosen go...@various.sites.net
: Randy R. Johns wrote:
: > Which is really a better camera or is one really better than the other??
: > Randy Johns
David Rosen
David <dm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
: if it can't stand the rigors of professional
use. Nikon and Canon can, I don't
: believe Minolta can. It is not as rugged,
the optics aren't as good
: Nikon or Canon.
: anything even remotely as capable as the F5?
Very simply a bunch of hype except for one
real point that you have made: The Canon
and Nikon systems are far more comprehensive
than Minolta's. This in of no consequence
in most situations, but as you had previously
posted, for users of very long lenses such as
grandstand sports shooters, Nikon and Canon
do predominate.
BTW, as you also noted, this thread will show
a lot of brand loyalty postings. As a user
all three systems, I can claim exemption from
such inane loyalty.
David Rosen go...@acmenet.net
go...@capital.net
David Rosen
David <dm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
: My basis for opinion is that I've never
seen a pro using a Minolta. They need
: excellent quality optics, bodies that
don't break down and can take a beating.
: Trust me, if Minoltas were "as good" as
Nikons, pros would be using them.
OK, so then the real problem is that
certain observers either aren't really
*observing* or that they, as humans,
just see what they expect to see, or
[most likely] both problems are at
work here.
Maybe because I use all three I can
see all three in use. Maybe because I
*do* make my living using these I more
often exposed to others who do the
same, such that I have opportunity to
do my own observations rather than to
just take the word of advertising.
Having no brand prejudice, and having
repeated observation opportunities, I
see all three in rewgular use. They
are represented proportionally to
their advertising presence, so yes I
see more Canons and Nikons.
David Rosen go...@acmenet.net
go...@capital.net
David Rosen
David <dm...@mediaone.net> wrote:
: Just out of curiousity (really!), have any photographers switched from Canon or Nikon
: to Minolta?
: And yes, to a certain extent, it is the photographer, not the camera. BUT! Without
: reliable equipment, even the best photographer is useless. Can't expose without a
: working unit. If there are any photojournalists out there, what would you take to a
: war zone? Nikon or Minolta?
: David M.
First of all David M, if you insist on posting so
frequently, why not learn how to format for usenet
so your stuff stays on the screen ?
Much as I would rather avoid hostile environments,
should I be packing to vivit one the absolute last
thing on my mind would be the brandname of my gear,
and I can grab any brand that I choose.
David Rosen go...@acmenet.net go...@capital.net
Ombligo
So who is going to a war zone? Following this logic means trading in
your Jeep Cherokee for a HumVee. They both get the job done but
professional soldiers relie on Hummers in a warzone..
Now if your just travelling around town why do you need that extra
toughness? I have Nikon because I bought it in 1979 when there was a
noticiable difference (If I was going to a warzone, I'd pack my old F2
-- that is reliable). My job would be the same if I was using Minolta
since I don't have or need a 400 2.8 on a reguler basis.
As for all the pros using the F5, well I know exactly 2. Most laugh at
the price and say they'd go to canon and save the bucks. I think
you'll find most professional Nikon users have either N90s or 8008s,
not F4 or F5's. According to Nikon, the N90 and 8008 are amatuer
cameras, not professional models.
And when something does break, fast repair is nice. That is something
my friend using Minolta gets while NPS (Nikon Professional Services)
is lucky to get my stuff back in 3 weeks (3 day repair -- hahaha), and
then the cost is a crime. TRUE STORY-- Needed a new show on my SB25,
sent to nikon (NPS), turnaround time was 26 days and it cost $105!!!!
Greens repair in Daytona Beach will do it in 4 days @ $40
Be honest about your needs and buy what fills them. Don't buy a Humvee
to drive to the supermarket.
Ron Thompson
Staff Photographer
St. Petersburg (FL) Times
rand...@aol.com (Randy2lor) wrote:
>>And yes, to a certain extent, it is the photographer, not the camera. BUT!
>>Without
>>reliable equipment, even the best photographer is useless. Can't expose
>>without a
>>working unit. If there are any photojournalists out there, what would you
>>take to a
>>war zone? Nikon or Minolta?
>>
>>David M.
>>
David L. Glos
Look, I'm a Nikon user for the last 15 years, but to be honest, the absolute
last camera that I would consider carrying into a true war zone would be the
new F5. It is simply too complex and battery dependent a camera. A leica
M-series, fully reconditioned F2, or even an FM2 would be far smarter choices.
Simple, Fully manual choices from the other major manufacturers, heck even a
K1000, would also be appropriate. You call also afford an extra body or two
for backup. I'm just not as familiar with their lines as I am with Nikon.
Perhaps the single most compelling reason to choose Nikon is the enormous
depth of its offerings, both past and present, with good cross compatibility.
The second great reason is there is just a ton of gear available, especially
used, for often reasonable prices. Look at any gear listing and compare the
Nikon entries to that from other names. On the whole, Nikon gear is very well
made, but not necessarily the last word in quality or useability
If you are buying from scratch, and tend to buy new gear, then you owe it to
yourself to check out ALL of the major brands, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax,
etc, and find out what feels best to you. Every vendor has at least one great
camera, and a couple of not so great cameras in their lineup. Avoid cripples,
like the Nikon N50 (not fully compatible with AI and AIS lenses for
metering), oddballs (like any camera with the Sigma name on it), and the
lowest end models in each lineup. From what I have seen recently, Pentax has
some very inovative, and well thought out designs that fall within the realm
of affordable.
David Glos
ACodron748
Hey David, guess what?... I switched from Nikon to Minolta last year! I have
had 6 Nikon bodies over the years and have had great results. However the Nikon
bodies while dependable have all lacked one feature or another that I need. The
only Nikon which came to near perfection for me was the N90 with the
Multi-Function data back MF-26. The data back gives many more functions not
available on the camera by itself. The only problem was that the data back was
way too complicated for me to operate without consulting the manual. I could
have purchased an F4 or F5 which has all the functions I need on the camera and
no multi-function back is required for things such as multi exposures or
bracketing. But these awsome pieces of engineering are way beyond my financial
needs :(
Enter the Minolta 600si... This camera was as simple as hell to operate and had
all the features I like for the photography I do. I also purchased the Minolta
24-85mm zoom which is AWESOME. At the time, Nikon's lens lineup only offered a
24-50 or 28-70. I had both and got great images out of them but was envious of
the Canon 28-105's and Minolta 24-85's. Ironically Nikon has released a well
received 24-120. It sounds like a great lens but the 72mm filter thread makes
my extensive 62mm filter outfit unusable.
I do feel that Nikon does make the most rugged high end cameras around. However
even though I do use my camera professionally at times, I am not shooting in
Bosnia. The Minolta services me very well for my purposes. I am also a firm
believer that any of the big five camera makers provide excellent choices
coupled with their own brand lenses. I would stay away from the entry level
models and lenses of every brand as they are ALL cheesey.
Regards,
A. Codron :)
Brian Ye
i own a minolta 700si. no doubt, it's a great fast versatile camera. but
if i could make the choice once over, i would choose nikon. the only
reason is they provide far more range of lenses. a morden nikon camera
can fit more than one series nikon mount. with 700si, i have to stick
with the AF lenses. and i've found it's far more easier to find a used
lens for a nikon body than for a maxxum one.
brian
--
Don't take life 2 seriously, U won't get out alive....
\\|//
( @ @ )
/-----------------oOo----(_)-----oOo-----------------\
| |
| < bri...@cyberdude.com > |
| Do not remove this tag under penalty of law !!! |
\____________________________________________________/
|| ||
ooO Ooo
David P
Hi David,
In article <34734B8B...@mediaone.net>, dm...@mediaone.net wrote:
> My basis for opinion is that I've never seen a pro using a Minolta. They need
> excellent quality optics, bodies that don't break down and can take a beating.
> Trust me, if Minoltas were "as good" as Nikons, pros would be using them.
I am aware of at least 2 well known Canadian professional photographers who use
a Minolta. One works for the National Geographic photographing polar
bears (undoubtly many of them you see in the mags were taken with a
Minolta) with his 2 9xi bodies and Minolta lenses in the poles, while the
other specializes in macro photography. Both are very well respected and
both of them make a good living from their profession.
Both works have been on display in photo galleries and in magazines and I
haven't hear of any complaints from anyone that their pictures suck.
Obviously, if the person charges $2000 per picture and someone is willing
to buy it, that means the pictures are good.
> I
> don't use, nor do I need magazine tests to know which is better. Besides, you
> can't trust magazine tests, since the lion's share of their income comes from
> the manufacturers of the products they test. And yes, despite the magazine
> tests, I CAN see a difference between Nikkor and Sigma optics.
I notice that when people talk about equipment, they don't shoot to improve.
They hope to buy the latest and best equipment, hoping that their photographic
skills will improve.
This is the wrong mentality and yet, young photographers are trapped into this
brand name association game. What matters is, a camera is a tool and the
photographer uses it to create art or record the moment. When you're
concentrating MORE on equipment and not on art, what's the point of taking
pictures when all you care about is what body you have first and NOT what
pictures you are planning to create.
>
> Regarding your statement that it's not the camera, it's the photographer, you
> know as well as I that this statement is simplistic and limited.
Oh really.. If you're so hot, why not let us see your work on the web?
If you really think that a good camera can make or break a picture and not
the photographer, prove it here. Let us see your work..
> Give me a > > >Hassy
> and Ansel Adams an Instamatic 110, let us shoot the same scene, and we'll see.
> And even the best photographer is useless if their camera doesn't work.
Ansel Adams always uses his 8 x 10 view camera to make large sharp prints of
landscape vistas, while he also uses a 4 x 5 Arca Swiss for images of
architecture and scenes where camera adjustments are essential. But he
sometimes uses a Hassy for some assignments and a 35mm Zeiss Contarex for
people's portraits.
And he said in his own words that he treats these as TOOLS of the trade.
That is it. The photographer creates the picture..
> How >many
> Minoltas do you think you see in Bosnia?
And how do you exactly know that Minoltas were not used in Bosnia??
And how do you exactly know that pictures that were published in the newspaper
were in fact taken with a Minolta??
All you see are names of photographers who took the pictures and not the
equipment they use.
I think what you're doing here is that you're assuming all news
photographers use either Canon or Nikon. This may be try in a general
sense, but there are those who use a Mamiya, a Pentax 645, a Hassy, and
god knows what. These photographers shoot excellent pictures and we
should admire their work and not what they use.
--
Please remove "nospam" when replying personally via email. Thanks.
*******************************************************************
umir...@uniserve.com
*******************************************************************
David P
> OK, here's a non-subjective evaluation of a camera's worth in the field. Last
> winter, the scientists who habitat the Mt. Washington Observatory were in the
> process of upgrading their 35mm camera equipment. They evaluated Canon, Nikon,
> Contax, Minolta, and Pentax equipment, as they believed that all brands
>offered
> them what they needed, as a minimum. Only electronic autofocus cameras were
> evaluated. Surprise! All the cameras froze except the Canon EOS and Nikon F
> models. The worst was the Pentax, next came the Minoltas, then Contax.
The >Contax
That's odd, because I just attended Galen Rowell's seminar and he did admit
that his Nikon cameras froze up in the arctic too. And he owns a N90s,
F4s and the F5. LCD displays would go first and battery power next. If
it weren't for the heat packs to warm up the batteries, his cameras will
not function well in the cold.
> That said, let me also say this: I use what I like, you use what you like. Is
> Minolta suitable for pro use? Sure. Just not on top of Mt. Washington in the
> winter.
If you warm up the battery needed to operate the camera, sure it will work but
the LCD won't. Even LCDs on any camera will cease to function in extreme
cold temperatures no matter which brand name you use. If you don't warm
up your camera and its battery(ies), then you can't use it effectively in
cold weather.
> always turn into a holy war. But, I ask again--which would you take to a war
> zone, a top of the line Nikon, or a top of the line Minolta?
I will take neither. They are too bulkly and too easily spotted,
expecially the F5. I'll take something small like the Pentax LX or the
Nikon F3 without a motor drive and shoot. Semi-quiet and semi-stealthy.
And if I'm out of
batteries, I can still shoot at some shutter speeds rather than none at all.
> I'd take an F5,
> every time, over any Minolta. I'd probably take an EOS, but, for once, the
> subject isn't Canon vs Nikon...
>
In war, you don't have a local Safeway just around the corner that stock
batteries right? And the F5 needs lots of it. Are you going to lug
around several packs of juice for your F5 and be an easy target for
snipper fire?
Not me!
Xiaojiang Gao
Michael L. Pipkin, M.D. (mlpi...@flash.net) wrote:
: getting results they thought were impossible. I use Nikon because I
: like mixing old MF lenses with newer stuff and I like the sense of
: photojournalistic history that I associate with the brand, but those are
: MY practical and emotional priorities. And I can indulge them partly
I said before and still believe that Minolta has the habit of deserting
their old systems on the way developing new ones. First, their MF lenses
didn't make it into the AF era. Was that because Minolta didn't have many
old lenses that they can be proud of? Fortunately I don't have any MF lens.
Then came the unpopular xi, incompatible even with their own AF systems.
I'm glad this xi thing died prematurely. Now is the APS. Canon and Nikon
all designed their APS SLRs around the existing 35mm lenses. Only Minolta
decided to develop a totally new system without any connection with their
previous systems. I would otherwise give this phenomenal new format a try
if Minolta had a SLR like the EOS IX but if I have to build up from scratch
an army of entirely alien lenses that are useless on any other cameras, no
thanks! The other day I saw in a Minolta brochure a big chart about the
compatibility between different equipments of the Minolta AF (AF only) system.
I was amazed to see so many incompatibilities there. Some equipments can
only be used on particular models while other lenses may lose the AF fuction
on some bodies.. etc..
Remember the slogan? Only from the mind of Minolta!
Gao
Guess what? Minolta is my only photo system!
Noel J. Bergman
Minolta has three lens mounts. Their manual mount (MC/MD series), their
Maxxum AF mount, and the APS (Vectis) mount. All Maxxum mount cameras can
use all Maxxum AF lenses, including the xi lenses. You just don't get
auto-zoom on non-xi bodies. And the xi series was discontinued because the
market didn't respond well to it.
Minolta doesn't appear to believe that many people will bounce between APS
and 35mm, and that those who do want APS will value size over compatibility
with existing, oversized (for APS) 35mm lenses.
The Vectis mount permits much smaller lenses and bodies, much lower costs,
and a water-resistent mount. The Pronia and EOS IX are large, almost full
sized, bodies compared to the S1, and they cost roughly THREE TIMES what the
S1 costs. FWIW, there is an adapter (MC-V1) to take the 35mm lenses and
mate them with the Vectis, at some loss of convenience and function.
I would hardly refer to APS as a "phenomenal new format", but to each his
own. APS is primarily intended for point & shoot print film consumers who
have limited needs beyond convenience. Any advantages of APS are in the
emulsion advancements, which are rapidly being migrated to 35mm. APS film's
best days of comparison with 35mm are already behind it.
--- Noel