D7D better than 20D??

[JackRiley]

This image had only th eillumination of the computer monitor. (We used the google homepage because it's a little brighter than dpreview. )

I took this at ISO 1600 with the 17-85 using 1/5 second! Just imagine what I could do at ISO 3200! I mean, with the Minolta D7, it will be like shooting in the dark with infrared!

 

[JackRiley]

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

 

[E Scott Cragg]

Another Comparison-

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 Ex APO recieves absolute Raves for Optical quality, right along the same line (even wide-open) as the Canon L glass...

799.00 new...

on the Minolta, that makes it the equivolent of the 70-200Lis, 1680 new...

That's not a price difference to snease at.

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[E Scott Cragg]

I took this at ISO 1600 with the 17-85 using 1/5 second! Just
imagine what I could do at ISO 3200! I mean, with the Minolta D7,
it will be like shooting in the dark with infrared!

I know... I can't wait!

(the 17-85 does seem to have the optical quality going on...)

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[JackRiley]

Another Comparison-

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 Ex APO recieves absolute Raves for Optical
quality, right along the same line (even wide-open) as the Canon L
glass...

Well, I hear it's pretty good.

799.00 new...

on the Minolta, that makes it the equivolent of the 70-200Lis, 1680
new...

That's not a price difference to snease at.

No, it's not. It will be interesting to see the D7 tested with long focal lengths.

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[mjjglasgow]

First of all there is no "best camera" as a lot of folk have said ad nauseam...it is a question of what suits your style.

Unless it turns out be to a stinker in some as yet unknown way for me the 7D will be a better choice because of the user interface - same as the Dynax 7 knob and lever system which I greatly prefer to the Canon and Nikon systems having tried all three. Combined with the better (we hope) viewfinder and bigger LCD, plus a genuine spot meter and the fact that you can get to mirror lock-up in one easy step rather than messing around like on the Canon. These things should make it it a better camera in use- to me. Ergonomics and user interface are just as important as the numerically measurable aspects of a specification and I belive Minolta has the edge here. These things help you get the right shot just as much as things like a higher frame rate - a camera's operation should be so transparent you don't even notice what you are doing leaving you just to focus on the picture.

The fact is I've had my Dynax 7 for several years and only used the high speed shooting mode once that I can remember - maybe I put it in that mode by accident once or twice but that was it. So the extra frame rate of the 20D and the buffer is largely irrelevant. If I shot action or highly mobile toddlers or whatever I'd go for the 20D. But I don't. I don't really care about the flash sync either - if I use flash I will use my external flash with high speed sync if necessary.

However what I do use a lot is wide-angle lenses often combined with slow shutter speeds - I know I'm going to use AS a lot in situations where a tripod would be impractical or attract undue attention from security guards, the criminal element, "get orff my land" shotgun waving farmer types etc etc.

The 8MP vs 6MP I can take or leave for me its not a significant difference. If it was 12MP plus and we were approaching MF quality that would make a big difference for landscapes etc but 8MP well for me its not enough to make it a factor. 6MP is good enough for Alamy and most magazines and its good enough for me. When I want more I guess I will look to see what the 9D offers.

So with cameras its like life - there is no right answer its just a question of what we value as individuals. For me (assuming there are no weird problems) the 7D will unquestionably be a superior camera to the 20D. If your priorities are different the 20D will be superior to the 7D. It just depends what you are going to do with it.

Now why can't we be friends?

Oh yeah I forgot the mention the tradionally strong Minolta flash system and the really great wireless flash system that requires no additional accessories. But I understand there are differences in implementing a flash metering system for film and digital so we will have to wait and see.

If the 7D has the depth of field display of the 35mm 7 then this will also be a useful additional feature.

 

[Geir Ove]

Hello,

The Canon DSLR's has since the D30 been ridden with AF problems: D30 and D60 had slow and innaccurate AF in dim lighting. The 10D had Front / Back foucus problems all over its face (seach the forum for these terms and see for yourself !).

Enter the 20D: Now with Lock-up problems..... Is this what you expect for a DLSR in this price range??

Assuming the D7 will avoid such trivial hardware problems, it's AS and legendary Maxxum (Dynax) quality build and functionality will in my book beat the 20D. Picture quakity wise it is probably a tie.

Geir Ove

 

[Dominic Groß]

Better Viewfinder?

probably about the same

In-Camera AS?

based on the reactions at photokina this is a very subjective point

Better Metering?

maybe

Better X-sync speed?
Faster Continuous shooting?
Larger Frame Buffer?
More custom functions?
Better Image Quality?
Better High ISO performance?
Bigger top Shutter speed?

All no

--
http://www.pbase.com/dgross (work in progress)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

 

[Neil Golding1]

This is a very interesting post.

From my point of view and I suppose a lot of others we can't lose.

When the 7D is released and word of it's ability spreads, allowing us to compare it to the 20D we will jump to Canon or Minolta.

The 20D has set a high standard, if it is beaten we will take the Minolta and we will be laughing - if the 20D is king we will go that way and still be laughing.

Now for the bits that have me wanting my cake and eat it. I have seen some fantastic 20D shots of birds where every feather is clearly seen, and then there was that close up shot of that mans face where you could see every pore on his forehead. Canon has got it's hooks deep in my gut and I am having a lot of trouble spitting them out.

But hey! This new clear view finder, big screen sounds terrific and the Canon lenses are way too expensive. The Minolta is worth a few hundred bucks just to get into the lower priced lens system.

I am sitting here with my old Sony 717 ready to go, but I am saying hold, hold, hold - I just need a little more info.

 

[Dennis]

It depends on your shooting style. But some of the features aren't
"just less". Some of them are significantly less. It doesn't
really matter if the camera gets the pics you desire. I'm just
wondering.

Well, Daemeon, since you seem so aware of the fact that different features are important depending on your shooting style, what I'm wondering is why you came here posting this question. Methinks you know the blindingly obvious answer - there's no such thing as a "better" camera; just choices and compromises and many people will buy 20Ds and some will buy 7Ds.

Why is it better for me ? Because it has a Maxxum lens mount and I have thousands of dollars in lenses that I really love using. And because it shares the same body & control layout with the Maxxum 7 - the camera that brought the fun back into photography for me. Anti-shake ? Well, my take on it is this: As a Maxxum owner, I'd be buying this camera with or without antishake. If I were a newbie getting seriously into photography, I wouldn't be swayed one way or the other by it. I do plan to make use of it with a 50/1.4 for low light shooting, without even needing to rely on high ISO.

Better ? For me, yes. For anyone else ? Figure it out for yourself

• Dennis

 

[JusGene]

including omissions.

When Phil completes his listing, check this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos20d%2Ckonicaminolta_7d&show=all

Currently it has inaccuracies and omissions.

Some features missing or wrong. Controls instead of menu choices. 'ZONE MATCHING'; WOW! Sophisticated WB.

Early to form a thorough comparison.

Better Viewfinder?

probably about the same

In-Camera AS?

based on the reactions at photokina this is a very subjective point

Better Metering?

maybe

Better X-sync speed?
Faster Continuous shooting?
Larger Frame Buffer?
More custom functions?
Better Image Quality?
Better High ISO performance?
Bigger top Shutter speed?

All no

--
http://www.pbase.com/dgross (work in progress)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

--
JusGene
'The easiest thing you can be ... is wrong!' -Me (7/29/1993)
'Statistically, people make mistakes 70% of the time' -Independent Research Firm
'The more you know, the more you don't know' -Me (8/14/1987)
'Life is nothing, but for a bunch of words' -Me (11/4/1990)

 

[JackRiley]

Hello,

The Canon DSLR's has since the D30 been ridden with AF problems:
D30 and D60 had slow and innaccurate AF in dim lighting. The 10D
had Front / Back foucus problems all over its face (seach the forum
for these terms and see for yourself !).

Well, although I never had a problem with focus on my 10D, focus issues could easily be fixed by sending your lens into Canon for calibration.

Enter the 20D: Now with Lock-up problems..... Is this what you
expect for a DLSR in this price range??

Well, no, of course not. But neither did Minolta A2 owners expect expect misfocus issues from their $1200 camera when it first came out. At least Canon responded immediately with a firmware fix. It took Minolta longer.

Assuming the D7 will avoid such trivial hardware problems, it's AS
and legendary Maxxum (Dynax) quality build and functionality will
in my book beat the 20D. Picture quakity wise it is probably a tie.

It's not unusual for a new camera to have some teething problems.

And remember, it's hard to really get a feel for the extent of a problem by searching in the Canon forum. First, people tend to post when there is a problem, not when there isn't.

Even if there are only 5% of 20D owners with the lockup problem, that 5% will probably be greater than ALL Minolta D7 owners.

 

[raminolta]

I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Please note that this is not a dig at the D7D. I'm quite impressed
and think it will be one of the finer camera's on the
marketplace....but I'm not seeing why everyone else believes it
should be #1 in its segment ahead of the 20D.

Better Viewfinder? Yes (I'll give KM the nod here based on
expectations)

I have owned and tried EOS film cameras, si i know this is a big plus for Minolta.

In-Camera AS? Yes

This is a big advantage for saving costs on lenses.

Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)

To be yet to know the answer. By the way, do you think image quality is only about noise? I think there are other factors such as color accuracy, color saturation (the right amount not over- or under-saturated.

Better High ISO performance? Nope

To be yet to know the answer.

Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope

I have not yet passed 1/4000sec even once in my shooting. Top shutter speeds matter for film cameras when one has a high iso film in a bright sunny day. On digital you simply use lower iso´s.

Better Metering? Questionable.

Based on my experience, minolta has better metering system. However, i don´t know about the recent Canon cameras (including the digital ones, so can´t comment on that.

Better flash Metering?

Based on my experience Minolta flash metering works better than E-TTL. I don´t know about the new E-TTL II system. Some say it has improved some say it is still inferior.

Better X-sync speed? Nope.

Agreed.

Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.

Agreed. D7 is apparently not for critical sport shootings.

Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.

The difference does not seem significant!

More custom functions? Nope.

Maxxum 7 has 35 customs functions. It is a highly configurable camera in ways one couldn´t imagine with EOS elan´s or even EOS3! I assume D7 must have a close number of custom functions, very likely better than 20D.

Someone please tell me what I'm missing. Again, this isn't a dig
at the D7D. I'm just trying to understand the perspective of some
other photogs here....

Control lay-out? D7 really shines.
LCD panel? D7 has a larger LCD panel than 20D.

Body built: D7 seems to be made very solid. 20D seems to be good too but maybe not quite on par.

So in some ways 20D is better and in other ways, D7 is better.

Depending on shooting style, one can decide which way to go. For me the answer is obvious: D7 suits me much better.

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[Daemeon]

As someone who has owned both these lenses multiple times, I can tell you that they are worlds apart, wide open.....despite ANY claim to the contrary.

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 Ex APO recieves absolute Raves for Optical
quality, right along the same line (even wide-open) as the Canon L
glass...

799.00 new...

on the Minolta, that makes it the equivolent of the 70-200Lis, 1680
new...

That's not a price difference to snease at.

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[E Scott Cragg]

Have any images for comparison? I'd actually love to see them

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 Ex APO recieves absolute Raves for Optical
quality, right along the same line (even wide-open) as the Canon L
glass...

799.00 new...

on the Minolta, that makes it the equivolent of the 70-200Lis, 1680
new...

That's not a price difference to snease at.

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[John107550]

Regarding the respective image quality, we won't know until we get some side-by-side comparions of identical scenes But you can get a general idea if you visit the manufacturers' websites and look at the samples they've posted. The other day I downloaded the D7 sample of the model with the colorful garment on KM's website, as well as the 20D sample of the model in the wedding dress on Canon's website. With my image editor i cropped to the central 25% of each and made a 5 x 8 print (this would be equivilent to a 10 x 16 print of the entire image). Both looked very sharp--I couldn't tell any difference. I then did another crop, this time using only a little over 6% of each image, and again made 5 x 8 prints (using by the way an Epson 2200 at 1440 dpi). This would be equivilent to a 20 x 32 print of the entire image. Here both prints looked a little soft, the D7 a little more so. But this is in bright light from an 8-inch view. At arm's length they both looked sharp and about the same.

Obviously, these are two different images so a really accurate comparison is not possible. Also, it's hard to know how much the resolution is affected by the lens as opposed to the sensor. And of course I'm lloking with my eyes, which may not be as good as yours. But the bottom line is that I was surprised at how little difference there is between the two. I would have thought that the 8 MP sensor would have been significantly better at these severe crops.

This is a very interesting post.

From my point of view and I suppose a lot of others we can't lose.
When the 7D is released and word of it's ability spreads, allowing
us to compare it to the 20D we will jump to Canon or Minolta.

The 20D has set a high standard, if it is beaten we will take the
Minolta and we will be laughing - if the 20D is king we will go
that way and still be laughing.

Now for the bits that have me wanting my cake and eat it. I have
seen some fantastic 20D shots of birds where every feather is
clearly seen, and then there was that close up shot of that mans
face where you could see every pore on his forehead. Canon has got
it's hooks deep in my gut and I am having a lot of trouble spitting
them out.

But hey! This new clear view finder, big screen sounds terrific and
the Canon lenses are way too expensive. The Minolta is worth a few
hundred bucks just to get into the lower priced lens system.

I am sitting here with my old Sony 717 ready to go, but I am saying
hold, hold, hold - I just need a little more info.

--
John

 

[Pasi179229]

I can't use even Sigma's HSM !!!

I like the Minolta's very fast AF, but I don't like that noise the lenses makes when I focus with them !

I like to have silent focusing like Nikon & Canon does ( USM,SWM ) or Sigma's HSM... and dont say that there is 70-200 SSM besauce that and 300 SSM ( and the price is ridiculous!! ) are the only SSM lenses Minolta has...

...not very impressive !!!

I really like my Dynax 7 and I like to use it, but I like to have silent autofocus and thats why I may go to Canon's camp !

...and the CMOS sensor is also excellent !

Best Regards
Pasi

---- Minolta Dynax 7 Limited Edition ----

 

[Peter Gregg]

Most people want to prove that the camera THEY bought is better than the rest. It is almost like an inferiority complex or they affirmation so they swarm in groups. When a new Nikon comes out, the Canon people poo poo and say that their camera is SO much better, and the other way around too.

I have the 20D and love it. The 7D isn't a better camera and what does it matter. It seems to match the 20D and in some area's even excels, and visa versa.

If the 7D didn't have AS I would not even pay attention to it. That doesn't mean it is better or inferior, it means I am happy where I am at. It also means I am paying more attention to my photography rather than being a camera gearhead.

Getting the picture is everything. That is why the 7D caught my attention. If i want to make very large prints the 7D certainly would not be my camera of choice. But getting shots in low light without flash and not shaking the darn camera is another story. I often shoot below 1/30 and 1/20 is about my threshold for camera shake. Even then sometimes I can't do it.

I can imagine taking shots in natural light with the 7D and the power of the AS becomes very attractive. When Phil's samples came out showing remarkably clean higher ISO images the 7D became even more attractive.

As a pro I would use it one way, at home I would use it another. Taking natural pictures with just a "kiss" of flash is something I like to do. Canon does not provide any fast lenses in a "normal" size zoom, but the 7D makes every lens a stabilized lens. Imagining a 24-70 2.8 lens (or 28-70 2.8) with stabilization is a terrific thing. Apparently Canon doesn't think so because they don't offer an IS lens in that range. But that is my main lens both for wedding work and around the house.

A 7D body with the 28-70 G glass on it would be a really terrific addition to my gear. As long as the production units continue to offer low noise at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 it will be terrific. If KM ever makes a 9D it will be a formidable camera on the market if they do it right.

So, for someone that has no lenses that they are attached to, the 7D would make a more useful camera than the 20D because of the AS. You will get better "family" pictures because of the AS. But if you are into outdoor shots of landscape and scenery then you could toss a coin. The truth is BOTH cameras are beyond the capabilities of most of the people who buy them, so it doesn't matter. The 20D tilts you towards more megapixels for larger enlargements, the 7D tilts you to better family pictures because of AS. It's your call.

Peter

I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Frankly, I don't remember such a statement. It's way too early for
anyone to make such a claim. Besides ... what would it matter
anyway? I'm not out to prove a point that's moot as long as both
cams deliver superb image quality.

--
Rommaker
http://www.pbase.com/rommaker

'Tagline pending'

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Peter Gregg

 

[Sol]

Hi Daemeon,

Daemeon wrote:
I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Please note that this is not a dig at the D7D. I'm quite impressed
and think it will be one of the finer camera's on the
marketplace....

Let's assume that the feature lists of these two cameras, are marginal in their differences. Because, for the most part, they are.
The 20D, does better in some areas. The 7D does better in other areas.

The 7D does have "AS", which is huge, but lets set that aside. After all, you have to decide, if it matters to you, and to what degree it does.

I would now simply ask you, that when the 7D is released. To go to your local camera store, that has both of these cameras in stock. And simply hold each one, with an equal quality lens.
Spend a little time with each of them, there in the store.
Get a feel for each camera.
How it feels in your hand.
The viewfinder.
The LCD.
The overall layout.

And then think about which one you would really rather be shooting with, from the point on.
I think you will choose the 7D.

I didn't have the lucky job of being a 7D beta tester, so I haven't held the 7D yet. But I can tell you from my years of history with the Maxxum 7, the ergonomics of Minolta camera design, is awesome. And the 7D is based on these philosophies. The digital elements that were added to the Maxxum/Dynax 7, to make it digital, are very well thought out, and very logical. From the large, over-sized LCD, to the WB button, right there by your trigger finger. The things that are new, and important to digital photography have been considered, and emphasized.
I promise you, this camera will be a pleasure to shoot.
And I feel pretty sure of myself, when I say this, you WILL want a 7D.

--
Sol

Sometimes a photograph captures reality.
Sometimes a photograph captures the imagination.
Ultimately, a photograph simply captures a moment in time.
And then, . . . it lives forever.

 

[raminolta]

If you decide to sell your Minolta Dynax 7 Limited Edition, let me know. I might be interested (the little noise of minolta AF lenses don´t bother me at all!).

I can't use even Sigma's HSM !!!

I like the Minolta's very fast AF, but I don't like that noise the
lenses makes when I focus with them !

I like to have silent focusing like Nikon & Canon does ( USM,SWM )
or Sigma's HSM... and dont say that there is 70-200 SSM besauce
that and 300 SSM ( and the price is ridiculous!! ) are the only SSM
lenses Minolta has...

...not very impressive !!!

I really like my Dynax 7 and I like to use it, but I like to have
silent autofocus and thats why I may go to Canon's camp !

...and the CMOS sensor is also excellent !

Best Regards
Pasi

---- Minolta Dynax 7 Limited Edition ----