I've played with it for 10-15min at photokina trying out different ISO settings and comparing AS vs IS (D60 & 28-135) at 1/8 and 1/15.
There isn't much between both sistems. Both are effective at
what they do to an almost equal level.
It is by far the best body of the class, it just feels good to hold. The LCD is a big one, AF is very quick even with a mid level lens, easy to reach and logicaly located settings...
I can't say much about image quality yet. We were able to shoot with our own card inserted but I borrowed mine from a friend and he has it at the moment. Haven't had the chance to inspect them closely either.
Full Version: Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Anti-shaking
must say I haven't really noticed how quick the startup is.
quality and "minor" players - Minolta (according to their press conference statement) has sold some 16 million AF lenses in the past. Compare that to Nikon's ~36 million (all Nikkor lenses, perhaps most of them MF) and you can assume they are neither a small player or something to avoid when it comes to quality.
I guess you can only wait and see what happens
quality and "minor" players - Minolta (according to their press conference statement) has sold some 16 million AF lenses in the past. Compare that to Nikon's ~36 million (all Nikkor lenses, perhaps most of them MF) and you can assume they are neither a small player or something to avoid when it comes to quality.
I guess you can only wait and see what happens
QUOTE (dng88 @ Oct. 03 2004,23:26)
If that features ok, it seems to be a good camera system to get in lieu of buying the more expensive lens from Nikon and Canon. Would there be a case to switch? How expensive are the Minolta lens? I guess they would be inline with the non-VR/IS etc. of Nikon and Canon lens, but now with the VR/IS features "freely" given (except one zoom lens and one fisheye lens per their advertisement; sorry, their PR statement). Are they comparable in offerings from these two more commonly used 35mm systems? Any kind of landscape, journalist etc. demaraction as would people choosing Canon and Nikon? Or it is just such a small player that one should stick with the more well known?
Minolta lenses aren't really less expensive than N or C, unless you're buying used. There's a plethora (had to get that word in somewhere! :
: ) of excellent quality used Minolta lenses at very reasonable prices. The 70-210/4, which is as good as the Canon, can be had for around $100US. And of course, all stabilized with the 7D. I like Minolta lenses better than Nikon; about the same as Canon. There's a full range available, everything from 17-35 and 16mm fisheye to 600/4. Even an AF 500 mirror lens. 200/4 Macro, 35/1.4, good assortment of standard zooms, you name it. 1X-3X Macro Zoom - I must own that lens someday . . .Doesn't seem to be a real specific type of Minolta shooter, you get all sorts.
edit: people on the Minolta mailing list who have had an opportunity to take some sample images with the 7D indicate that the camera yields images that are very "film-like" in their quality; and in particular, that the noise at high ISO settings (while very low) is less objectionable than it could be, due to looking like film grain. Dynamic range seems to be superior to 20D, but that will have to be verified in testing.
Looking at the dpreview on this camera, it seems another good one is coming. Any one has any view on this?
May I ask how is the start up time? Is it in the class of D70 or, as Michael has put it, 20D or is it the 300D one that takes a few seconds sometimes?
If that features ok, it seems to be a good camera system to get in lieu of buying the more expensive lens from Nikon and Canon. Would there be a case to switch? How expensive are the Minolta lens? I guess they would be inline with the non-VR/IS etc. of Nikon and Canon lens, but now with the VR/IS features "freely" given (except one zoom lens and one fisheye lens per their advertisement; sorry, their PR statement). Are they comparable in offerings from these two more commonly used 35mm systems? Any kind of landscape, journalist etc. demaraction as would people choosing Canon and Nikon? Or it is just such a small player that one should stick with the more well known?
A lot of question in my mind but no doubt with the built-in anti-shaking, even Micheal has a Minolta 8Mp instead of other brand name (and like the camera as seemed to at least tested by photographer before getting out of the shop).
If that features ok, it seems to be a good camera system to get in lieu of buying the more expensive lens from Nikon and Canon. Would there be a case to switch? How expensive are the Minolta lens? I guess they would be inline with the non-VR/IS etc. of Nikon and Canon lens, but now with the VR/IS features "freely" given (except one zoom lens and one fisheye lens per their advertisement; sorry, their PR statement). Are they comparable in offerings from these two more commonly used 35mm systems? Any kind of landscape, journalist etc. demaraction as would people choosing Canon and Nikon? Or it is just such a small player that one should stick with the more well known?
A lot of question in my mind but no doubt with the built-in anti-shaking, even Micheal has a Minolta 8Mp instead of other brand name (and like the camera as seemed to at least tested by photographer before getting out of the shop).
i was closed to buy a d20, but since I had the D7 in my hands in Cologne I'm shure that I will buy a D7. This is a wonderful logical camera and the lcd is a dream.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.