D7D better than 20D??

[E Scott Cragg]

With a Machine-gun for a shutter...

I don't see the point personally

but that's just me - noise while focusing has never bugged me in the slightest.

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 ----

--
Happy 10D User.

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

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[Daemeon]

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.

Have you tried a 20D?

In-Camera AS? Yes

This is a big advantage for saving costs on lenses.

Depends on the lens. Minolta's 70-200 reference line is EXTREMELY expensive. Even moreso than the IS Canon L equivalent.

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?

Who said that? Not me.

I think there are other factors such
as color accuracy, color saturation (the right amount not over- or
under-saturated.

All of which can be adjusted either in-camera or post process.

Better High ISO performance? Nope

To be yet to know the answer.

All one has to do is look at the images.

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.

No you don't. I've routinely run out of room at f2.8 on a bright sunny day at 1/4000 of a second. Sensor ISO's don't necessarily correspond to their film counterparts.

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.

Then its questionable.

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.

Again...then its questionable.

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.

Subjective

LCD panel? D7 has a larger LCD panel than 20D.

Agreed.

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

I can't imagine how anyone who hasn't held both in their hands would know....

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.

Thanks for an honest and civil answer.

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[Daemeon]

I actually have my 20D on order, but won't pick it up until at least early November, so I'll have time to change my mind.

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.

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[Daemeon]

I'll dig through my files and see what can be dug up....

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

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[Frank B]

I think they are both fine cameras. For me the major downside of the D7D is that the coverage of the lenses required to have in camera AS means they will not be able to take full advantage of the smaller sensor size (when compared to full frame) to design faster lighter zoom lenses with greater focal length multiples.

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)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

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....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Frank B

Pictures (A2, 10D, E10, Nikon 5700)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

 

[Thomas Karlmann]

Have you looked at your own list? Over half of the items there already show the D7D ahead. Why, then are you asking the question?

Canon has made a minor upgrade to the 10D: did they improve metering, viewfinder, os shutter noise? No. But on the 20D Canonites FINALLY may** have a flash that brings them up to speed with everyone else. I think the 20D is a fine camera, why can't you see the same in the D7D?

1. AS in the body (no one else has this)
2. Larger viewfinder (everyone else seems to mask off thier old 35mm finders)
3. Metering is improved. Did the 20D's metering improve.

4. White Balance: Ever try custom white balance on a 10/20D? menu fumbling, couple buttons & knobs to turn... yuk. D7D has button!
5. Flash: Minolta was the first, I think, with sync-at-any-speed flash.
6. User interface: KM: the Best, period. (I don't hear 1Ds users saying that)

7. What 20D has is slightly larger sensor, & apparently good at high ISO. Oops, don't forget that noisy 20D shutter -- in a church? Maybe not.
8. I'll give the nod to the 20D for wifi capability -- I wish the D7D had it!

I have not decided myself yet, but I think the final answer will be on how each individual prioritises specific features.

Thom

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)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

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....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Thom--

 

[E Scott Cragg]

I'm considering purchase of this lens so... all information is most definately appreciated

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

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Happy 10D User.

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

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

 

[Daniella68313]

In-Camera AS? Yes

Even if the other functions you listed are comparable or just less
than the Canon 20D, then the AS alone will tip many things in its
favor. The ability to shoot in low light conditions hand-held
simply by turning on AS and turning up the ISO gives one a lot of
freedom. No tripod, isn't that awesome???

welll...try your AS with a 1 second exposure and tell me if that photo is awesome

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

 

[Vladimir Bobov]

Wow, thanks for a concise, nonpartisan, educated post! Just when I was about to give up on this forum, I see that there's hope for it yet

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

 

[S Hess]

Why compare the KM 351.4 to a zoom? Compare it to the Canon 35
1.4L. Now, if you are correct that the Canon has better ISO
performance by about a stop, kinda narrows the Minolta's advantage
a bit.

Plus, do you have any idea how dim these light levels are? Yes,
like you fancied, almost candle light level. So for "candle light"
photographers who can't or won't carry a tripod, then the D7 fits
the bill.

I still think the benfits of AS in a DSLR (with good ISO perf. ) is
being overstated. IMO the other features of the D7, build,
viewfinder, ergonomics, these are much more compelling.

about which camera is better, stop swordfighting and take some pictures. >

The fastest Canon Stabalized lens is f2.8- two stops higher, and twice the focal length, so it will, on average, require about twice the shutter speed for equivolent sharpness (using the 1/focal rule)...

Are you forgetting aboutt the 28-135 IS, let alone the 17-85 IS. f4?

 

[David Goolsby]

Who the h*ll are you to come here and say something so sensible, intelligent and so level-headed?
I agree! Thank your for your no-nonsense observation and suggestion.

about which camera is better, stop swordfighting and take some
pictures. >

--
David

Shoot first! Forget about asking questions later.

 

[thw]

The Guru has spoken! Seriously, I really admire your work. You are right that there is a limit on the effectiveness of AS (which is probably good up to 1/4 s exposure), but it's nice for lazy people like me who do not want to carry a tripod around. To be honest however, I don't think I have the money now to spend on a DSLR anyway. So, I am looking at other options. Yes, I know compact cameras can never match up to DSLR. But you see, I learn a lot by trying to reduce the darn noise and correct the crappy white balance of compact digital cameras.

 

[Daemeon]

My laptop is locked up in my office, so......

At any rate, I have a Canon 80-200L now, which is superior to both of them optically.

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

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Happy 10D User.

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

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[Frank C.]

7. What 20D has is slightly larger sensor, & apparently good at
high ISO. Oops, don't forget that noisy 20D shutter -- in a church?
Maybe not.

allejuah to that

 

[Daniella68313]

The Guru has spoken! Seriously, I really admire your work. You
are right that there is a limit on the effectiveness of AS (which
is probably good up to 1/4 s exposure), but it's nice for lazy
people like me who do not want to carry a tripod around. To be
honest however, I don't think I have the money now to spend on a
DSLR anyway. So, I am looking at other options. Yes, I know compact
cameras can never match up to DSLR. But you see, I learn a lot by
trying to reduce the darn noise and correct the crappy white
balance of compact digital cameras.

my problem with point and shoots would not be the noise or the white balance but the slow focusing and the lack of proper reach and control on the DOF.

That was my struggling with point and shoot when I was using them.

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

 

[Daemeon]

Have you looked at your own list? Over half of the items there
already show the D7D ahead. Why, then are you asking the question?

Nonsense. Far less than half show the D7D ahead. That is exactly why I asked.

Canon has made a minor upgrade to the 10D: did they improve
metering, viewfinder, os shutter noise? No.

Actually, you have not studied the 20D at all, else you'd know that the metering (Ettl II) is MUCH improved over the 10D. This disqualifies the rest of your post.....HOWEVER:

But on the 20D
Canonites FINALLY may** have a flash that brings them up to speed
with everyone else.

Please. They had that in the 550EX. The 580EX is only an improvement, that utilizes Ettl II.

I think the 20D is a fine camera....

It sure doesn't show in your lip service patronage.

why can't you see the same in the D7D?

Who said I didn't?? I NEVER even HINTED at that.

1. AS in the body (no one else has this)

Already gave the nod here. Does not need repeating. IS in lenses is a financial issue. It remains to be seen which system is actually more effective in practice.

2. Larger viewfinder (everyone else seems to mask off thier old
35mm finders)

Fair enough.

3. Metering is improved. Did the 20D's metering improve.

Again, if you have to ask this, then you are not qualified to answer the question. Thanks for playing though...

4. White Balance: Ever try custom white balance on a 10/20D? menu
fumbling, couple buttons & knobs to turn... yuk.

The fact that you would group them together as far as menu setup goes, again, shows that you don't know much about the 20D. The joystick makes it MUCh easier to get around.

D7D has button!

Nice.

5. Flash: Minolta was the first, I think, with sync-at-any-speed

flash.

And now they trail both Nikon and Canon as far as the sync speed out of the body.

6. User interface: KM: the Best, period. (I don't hear 1Ds users

saying that)

Why would they? They are far too intelligent to make such a subjective statement and try to pass it off as absolute fact.

7. What 20D has is slightly larger sensor, & apparently good at
high ISO. Oops, don't forget that noisy 20D shutter -- in a church?
Maybe not.

Maybe so. Visit the forum and ask for some wedding pics with the 20D and see what you get. This issue is overblown.

I have not decided myself yet, but I think the final answer will be
on how each individual prioritises specific features.

Thom

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)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

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....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

--
Thom--

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

 

[JackRiley]

. Flash: Minolta was the first, I think, with sync-at-any-speed flash

Actually, it was Olympus with the OM4 and FP flash in the 80's.

 

[alex904]

To be honest, the subject itself is ridiculous. Anyway, you forgot to mention:

• Better and bigger LCD - Yes
• Better ergonomics - Probably, Yes as well, since Dynax/Maxxum 7 was always on top in this department.

Isn't it enough? And as for picture quality, I did not see any impressive sample right off the 20D to be convinced that it's better at dynamic range, color rendition or whatever (even noise level, whic is pretty much exceptable up to ISO800 for both cameras). 7D color pallette is really impressive for me, the rest - leave it to photoshop and your skills.

 

[E Scott Cragg]

This is kinda the reaction you deserve for posting this topic...

you are, by definition, asking questions about something that is clearly subjective...

There is no question - there are some places the 7D is superior, there are some where the 20D has and edge - either way - it comes down to A- the type of photography you're doing and B- physically handling each camera and figuring out which one you like better.

Your biased one way, we're biased others... thank god for choice - that's why we have such a great selection of cameras to choose from...

I think by now you've gotten a very good idea of why those of us looking at the Minolta are thinking about...

 

[rennie12]

I love my A2 and the stabilization IMHO is superior to that of my 10D.

However I have been led (forced?) into doing some extensive testing comparing both AS in the A2 and stabilization in the 10D with tripod results.

What happened is using the A2 took a shot of a Cobra and surrounding people, hand held, during a large car show. This was hand held at 1/60 second and ISO 64. It was incredibly sharp and a blowup to size 24x34 size was usable for wall display. I made five exposures before getting the histogram perfect.

I realized that what had happened is my breath control, etc combined with the AS to produce a genuinely sharp image so that the resolution limits were the print limits rather than camera shake. This led me to realize this was NOT the case in most of my A2 and 10D shots.

This led to the tests. The tests involve a correctly exposed image (this ain't easy) at each zoom distance, fstop, and ISO I am likely to use, of a known, repeated subject, with absolutely NO camera shake - ie, a tripod, remote release. I accept the shutter action of the 10D since I know as a practical matter I will seldom go thru the steps of raising the mirror.

This series of tests, which took several hours, now established an image at each zoom range, fstop, and ISO I am likely to use, giving me a "standard" of what the camera is capable of under optimum conditions.

Conclusions: (NOTE these are for my particular A2, 10D, and 10D lenses and may not apply to your cameras).

1) AS or IS is basically a substitute for a tripod when you do not have the time, ability, or desire to use a tripod. Once prints get large the tripod is much superior.

2) Accurate exposure is MUCH more important than I had understood and the preview histogram of the A2 is a marvellous thing. Careful examination of the postshot histogram of the 10D is absolutely essential to maximum quality. I had no idea this was so important for high quality prints.

NOW - I know some readers will question several things so I touch on them here:

1) Why did I take such care with the original Cobra shot? Five exposures to get correct exposure? It was a REAL Cobra - I am an old guy and once knew Caroll Shelby before he designed the Cobra (he would not remember me, of course).

2) Do I have equipment to make a 24x34 inch print - no, I printed a section of this using an Epson 2200.

3) Why the size 24x34 - because I use a standard wall print size (have frames/mattes and change images at will) of 12x17 (this is the most pleasing size to me which gives room to mount a 13x19 (the maximum print of the 2200). Just personal preference as to shape. And 24x34 is twice this size...that's why I chose it.

I too hope to buy the D7 once it is out and thoroughly field tested and reviewed - but it's gonna take a good camera with good results to get me to sell the Canon gear I have and switch to Minolta - also some investigation of Minolta lens quality, etc.

For those of you with Minolta lenses or without an investment in another mfr like Canon or Nikon the choice will be less of a problem.

I do suggest everyone consider tests like this, tho. Having a "standard" image to show you what your particular camera is capable of at a specific lens (in case of dslr), zoom, Fstop, and ISO setting makes it really easy to judge the results of a given shot since the digital system records all the appropriate data anyway.

These tests take a lot of time - several hours at least - but the results are incredibly valuable if you are either (a) a serious photographer or (b) desirous to get maximum results out of several thousand dollar's worth of of equipment.

I intend no criticism of people who DONT CARE about these points - I spent over 50 years photographing before I stumbled on this info and I just offer these observations in case they might save somebody else 50 years of guesswork !!

Sorry for the long post.