Tried a Maxxum 7D and 20D - my first impressions

What causes a camera to hunt, usually is related to the "LIGHT GATHERING" properties (and by extention, aperature) of the lens. So though focus speed is controlled in part by the motor of the body in KM bodies, the hunting phenomenon is related to the aperature of the lens. That said, the speed of these two lenses is about equal (neither of them are very fast) in that reguard, so take that for what you will........

Nuno Severiano said:

I was under the same impresion!

--
Regards,

Nuno Severiano

Click to expand...

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Hi Desmond,

straight to the point. I need someone with some experience with Minolta lenses to look thru the lens section of website the website I work on. The lens section is almost finished but before enabling reviews I would hear some comments from experienced users. Does some important data missing, should I make changes to review process, etc.

The website is strictly noncommercial and build like one reference point to MTF users.

So if you feel that this would be useful to MTF community please visit and drop me a few comments (www.dyxum.com)

happy shooting

Hello there!

OzRay said:

The extemely friendly and balanced atmosphere that exists in the
MTF (except for the ocassional troll) seems to be missing here of
late. There appears to be more and more angry and spiteful people
taking every opportunity to act like the worst of the Canon thugs,
completely unable to carry out a reasoned discussion under any
circumstances.

Click to expand...

I think this thread is a good example what can happen when a Canon fan comes up with "unbiased" comparative review in Minolta camp. Actually I was surprised how we all warmly accepted that review. If you will try to do similar review with bias toward KM in Canon forum you'll received nice "reception" from some folks there who value trademark first and photography second.

digicam_fetish said:

Responsiveness:
Canon 20D wins by a longshot, for three reasons. First, the Canon
is READY to shoot instantaneously from off to on position, or
waking up from sleep mode. Not so with the D7D. The D7D from off
to on takes about 1.5-2 seconds between switch on and actual
picture taken (due to time to wake up and autofocus). The lag is
actually about the same even when the D7D is already on and waking
from sleep mode, unfortunately. Second, the AF on the D7D just
wasn't as fast and responsive as the 20D. A number of times, the
AF had to "search" back and forth to focus on the D7D (this may be
due to the inexpensive lens used). Focus on the 20D was fast, and
quiet thanks to USM motor. Third, continuous mode on the 20D was
5fps instead of 3fps on the D7D.

Click to expand...

Digicam_fetish, thanks for posting. I should point out to some of the thread respondents that a particular f/3.5 lens isn't necessarily faster than a particular f/4 lens. According to this article, http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fast.html , a lens' rated f-stop is measured geometrically, and does not necessarily indicate its light transmission ability. In other words, a cheap f/3.5 lens may lose so much light through its elements that it has the light transmission abilities of an f/4 lens. That's why when making comparisons in autofocusing speed, using lenses of similar light transmission quality is required. A $500 difference in lens prices would suggest to me that the Minolta lens might not be up to snuff. It also boggles the mind that they would even put that lens on the 7D when they're trying to impress people with their new DSLR. Obviously, this isn't Digicam_fetish's fault, since he could only try what they had to offer. Besides, he did a great job of explaining the conditions of the comparison, which is crucial when deciding how much weight to put on his conclusions.

One thing that bothered me quite a bit was the relatively slow wake-up time of the 7D, even when in standby mode. If Minolta has been able to get the A1 to start up in about 1 sec, why haven't they been able to improve their technology enough to get the 7D to start up instantly like Canon has done with the 20D, or Nikon with the D70? For someone who likes street shooting, the lack of a top deck status LCD is aggravating enough, without having to constantly remember to wake-up my camera so it'll be ready for that spur of the moment shot when serendipity presents a great photo op.

I'm not a Minolta basher and have been quite optimistic about the 7D...but my opinion has been changing ever since the official pics were released. This really, really looks like a beta version that they're selling. To me, this is not a true "7" DSLR because I believe they've dropped the ball regarding ergonomics. For me to be happy with this camera, I would need these changes:

• Instant start-up and wake-up.
• Top deck LCD panel.
• Lower the price by about $300. Get rid of the magnesium sheathing if you need to. Both my 7xi and 7 cameras were plenty robust enough for my uses and they have polycarbonate shells. The 7xi hit the floor once, and the pavement once, and it still works fine.
• Dedicated (red) focus assist light.

I can guarantee that the next ver will be instant start-up and that would really bug me if I had already bought a 7D with a start-up lag. I would also bet that the next ver will have a top-deck LCD. Why? Because I like to see the aperture/shutter without peering through the viewfinder, and I don't want a bright, 2.5", backlit TFT screen to be on all the time in order for me to see that information. That would be like shooting with my Palm T3 against my face...very distracting, especially if I'm tring to be low key.

Right now, the 20D looks like a better choice for me, but I'm can't really afford a DSLR at this moment, so I'll wait and see. Maybe in the spring. On the plus side, having a Minolta DSLR available should shore up prices for used Minolta glass, so switching might not be too financially painful. But like I said, for now it is wait and see.

Larry

I didn't get the impression that he was biased. He does have a limited posting history, but ya got gotta start somewhere, right?

He gave some points to the Minolta. And he gave some to the 20D. And there was another post below that referenced a French article that was consistent with this "review."

In a few weeks we'll all know, won't we.

alex904 said:

alex904 said:

The extemely friendly and balanced atmosphere that exists in the
MTF (except for the ocassional troll) seems to be missing here of
late. There appears to be more and more angry and spiteful people
taking every opportunity to act like the worst of the Canon thugs,
completely unable to carry out a reasoned discussion under any
circumstances.

Click to expand...

I think this thread is a good example what can happen when a Canon
fan comes up with "unbiased" comparative review in Minolta camp.
Actually I was surprised how we all warmly accepted that review. If
you will try to do similar review with bias toward KM in Canon
forum you'll received nice "reception" from some folks there who
value trademark first and photography second.

Click to expand...

Ummmm... excuse me, but I was trying to help everyone on this forum by posting what I found about the D7D, which very few people have had the opportunity to examine at this point. I was not trying to "bias" things in either direction - as I said in my post, my plan was initially to buy the D7D (I in fact have already ordered Minolta lenses).

So please don't get your knickers in a twist about what is "biased" or "unbiased". I have no loyalty to any company or brand. I could have kept the information I found to myself, but I posted what I found in order to help others. If altruism is met with criticism and cynicism on this board, then I am unlikely to post anything further. Perhaps your surprise at the initial "warm" reception I recieved is a reflection more of your own perceptions and tendencies than those of others on this board.

Jeremy

alex904 said:

alex904 said:

The extemely friendly and balanced atmosphere that exists in the
MTF (except for the ocassional troll) seems to be missing here of
late. There appears to be more and more angry and spiteful people
taking every opportunity to act like the worst of the Canon thugs,
completely unable to carry out a reasoned discussion under any
circumstances.

Click to expand...

I think this thread is a good example what can happen when a Canon
fan comes up with "unbiased" comparative review in Minolta camp.
Actually I was surprised how we all warmly accepted that review. If
you will try to do similar review with bias toward KM in Canon
forum you'll received nice "reception" from some folks there who
value trademark first and photography second.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ here. For whatever it's worth, my Minolta 100-400 f4.5-6.7 Apo zoom lens focuses FASTER than my Sigma 75-300 f4.5-5.6 Apo zoom on the Maxxum 9 at ALL ranges and hunts a lot less than the Sigma. This Minolta lens simply focuses faster and hunts a lot less at 400mm at f6.7 than the Sigma at 300mm at f5.6! The same is true for Minolta's 500mm Reflex AF f8, which I briefly owned. It too focused faster at f8 than the Sigma at f5.6. So it's just not true to say all lenses with the same aperture will make the body focus in an identical matter.
Regards,
Wil

digicam_fetish said:

So please don't get your knickers in a twist about what is "biased"
or "unbiased". I have no loyalty to any company or brand. I could
have kept the information I found to myself, but I posted what I
found in order to help others. If altruism is met with criticism
and cynicism on this board, then I am unlikely to post anything
further. Perhaps your surprise at the initial "warm" reception I
recieved is a reflection more of your own perceptions and
tendencies than those of others on this board.

Jeremy

alex904 said:

digicam_fetish said:

The extemely friendly and balanced atmosphere that exists in the
MTF (except for the ocassional troll) seems to be missing here of
late. There appears to be more and more angry and spiteful people
taking every opportunity to act like the worst of the Canon thugs,
completely unable to carry out a reasoned discussion under any
circumstances.

Click to expand...

I think this thread is a good example what can happen when a Canon
fan comes up with "unbiased" comparative review in Minolta camp.
Actually I was surprised how we all warmly accepted that review. If
you will try to do similar review with bias toward KM in Canon
forum you'll received nice "reception" from some folks there who
value trademark first and photography second.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
-- TerrKC12

Just in case anyone misconstrued my post, I was actually supporting the review and was saddened that there were a number of fairly vitriolic responses to what was, I thought, a fairly balanced comparison. I don't see how any average user could have done better under the circumstances.

Cheers

Ray

OzRay said:

I'm not really a KM owner anymore, but I'm still keeping in touch;
however, I'm begining to wonder lately if my move elsewhere was in
fact a very good decision.

The extemely friendly and balanced atmosphere that exists in the
MTF (except for the ocassional troll) seems to be missing here of
late. There appears to be more and more angry and spiteful people
taking every opportunity to act like the worst of the Canon thugs,
completely unable to carry out a reasoned discussion under any
circumstances.

Support for a product you like is fine, but there have probably
been more messengers shot lately than in all of the Roman
conquests. One moron seems to have been weeded out in the last day
or so. Maybe a few more should follow.

Cheers

Ray

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said
it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

Click to expand...

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

and accept all reviews for a combined consideration toward the choice(s) I make.

Thanks

alex904 said:

alex904 said:

The extemely friendly and balanced atmosphere that exists in the
MTF (except for the ocassional troll) seems to be missing here of
late. There appears to be more and more angry and spiteful people
taking every opportunity to act like the worst of the Canon thugs,
completely unable to carry out a reasoned discussion under any
circumstances.

Click to expand...

I think this thread is a good example what can happen when a Canon
fan comes up with "unbiased" comparative review in Minolta camp.
Actually I was surprised how we all warmly accepted that review. If
you will try to do similar review with bias toward KM in Canon
forum you'll received nice "reception" from some folks there who
value trademark first and photography second.

Click to expand...

--
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)

digicam_fetish said:

Screen:
D7D only wins by a small margin, IMHO. I thought I would like the
screen on the D7D a lot more. It certainly is bigger than the
Canon by a longshot, but wasn't as "contrasty", so that images on
the D7D screen didn't look as clear as on the 20D's screen. Also,
you can only zoom to 4.7x on the D7D screen, whereas Canon can zoom
to 10x. I occasionally found that I wanted more "zoom" than was
available on the D7D to check focus.

Images:
20D wins. I took some shots at ISO 3200 on the D7D. The noise
when zoomed in to 4.7x didn't look too bad. However, the D7D
seemed to have a lot more difficulty getting a focussed shot than
the Canon. On the Canon, more of my shots seemed to be in focus.

Overall feel:
The Canon 20D gave me a more positive overall user experience. The
camera felt much more responsive due to shorter start times/shutter
lag, and faster AF speed. It felt like a slicker, more polished,
professional piece of kit. The LCD screen on the D7D was a lot
bigger, but because it wasn't as contrasty, it didn't seem that
much better than the 20D. The viewfinders weren't that much
different. The AS on the K-M was nice, but I don't know if it
justifies the higher price when the camera is otherwise less
responsive and didn't seem as good at focussing.
(I realize the lens on the D7D may have something to do with this).

Click to expand...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/minolta-a2-location.shtml

The following is from the above web site:

Another area which I have seen commentary on is that the A2's images are not as sharp as they should be, and that this means that the camera's lens may not be as good as that of competitive cameras. This is not the case. The lens is very good indeed. The issue is that RAW mode images are softer than those from some other cameras and needs a greater level of sharpening that users may be used to with their previous cameras.

As long-time readers and advanced digital photographers likely know, sharpening of digital files has nothing to do with sharpness. It has to do with edge contrast, otherwise known as accutance. Sharpening was a poorly chosen word when it was applied to the Unsharp Masking process (another poorly chosen word used to apply to a digital process that has its origins in the film world). In any event, this simply means that Minolta is trying to provide you with as virgin a file as possible, and it's then up to you to make the most of this. I much prefer this approach to the one taken by Canon, which has admitted that it even sharpens RAW files in-camera. Mother, please! — I'd rather do it myself.

--
Dan T

I notice the lens makes a big difference. I think the Minolta 24-105mm focusses noticeably faster than the Sigma 28-70mm for example. Though again I don't have any scientific data to back that up just an impression,

...

... comparing a production Canon 20D and US$600 lens with a pre-production KM 7D and a $99 lens is , to say the least, naively unfair. Also, your total lack of knowledge of a SLR or DSLR and previous experience only with Canon P&S's as you said can actually lead you to very doubtfull analysis and misleading conclusions.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but even for your own benefit in your choosing, I recommend you to carefully read the analysis of more experienced photographers and reviewers on those too cameras, when they start showing up. Then you shoud try them again on your local store.

... Lucas

digicam_fetish said:

Ummmm... excuse me, but I was trying to help everyone on this forum
by posting what I found about the D7D, which very few people have
had the opportunity to examine at this point. I was not trying to
"bias" things in either direction - as I said in my post, my plan
was initially to buy the D7D (I in fact have already ordered
Minolta lenses).

So please don't get your knickers in a twist about what is "biased"
or "unbiased". I have no loyalty to any company or brand. I could
have kept the information I found to myself, but I posted what I
found in order to help others. If altruism is met with criticism
and cynicism on this board, then I am unlikely to post anything
further. Perhaps your surprise at the initial "warm" reception I
recieved is a reflection more of your own perceptions and
tendencies than those of others on this board.

Jeremy

Click to expand...

Relax Jeremy. Most of us really appreciate you taking the time to look at both cameras and also posting your opinion. Unfortunately, this forum has been invaded by others with their teeth showing. Some on this forum are reacting to previous attacking posts. Forgive those of us who have not expressed appreciation for your post. Though we all will not come to the same conclusion, your observations are helpful. We are looking at (what appears to be) two very nice dslr's. Every one of us carries some bias. Your post is appreciated.

Jim

Lucas

One thing to consider is that Jeremy provided a point of view that is likely to be much the same for many who are considering the move to DSLR. These potential DSLR owners in a lot of cases may do nothing more than rely on personal feel and what sort of yarn the camera salesman spins. Many may never visit dpreview or pick up a digital camera mag.

It doesn't matter whether Jeremy's review is valid or not, it's the perception that the millions of camera buyers have, compared to the possibly thosands that visit sites such as dpreview. In this case, Jeremy is as correct in his review, as would be Phil or Michael Reichmann in theirs.

Again, it's a case of don't shoot the messenger, but read more deeply into what the message it about.

Cheers

Ray

lcmacedo said:

...

... comparing a production Canon 20D and US$600 lens with a
pre-production KM 7D and a $99 lens is , to say the least, naively
unfair. Also, your total lack of knowledge of a SLR or DSLR and
previous experience only with Canon P&S's as you said can actually
lead you to very doubtfull analysis and misleading conclusions.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but even for your own
benefit in your choosing, I recommend you to carefully read the
analysis of more experienced photographers and reviewers on those
too cameras, when they start showing up. Then you shoud try them
again on your local store.

... Lucas

Click to expand...

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

I just prefer bigger cameras like my Maxxum 7/9 and the Canon 20D.

macuser said:

just wanting to know how the viewfinder, build, etc compares. Thanks!

Tom

Click to expand...

--

Impatiently waiting for 'Steady Eddie'-----the Maxxum 7D. T-minus-6-days and counting

the firmware that is currently being used is old fimrware this is being used in the other digital Minolta cameras. This plays a factor too. I just read a email from the Yahoo Minolta group. If I read this correctly, there is a new firmware upgrade for Minolta D7. One member who is trying to download th firmware for I think his A2 camera pointed out that the firmware is the the d7 for faster focus and new flash options are available. This may be for another d7. If read on this forum somewhere, there is another d7 and I guess the dlsr would titled 7D. ????? But again, the should have made a new firmware for this camera period.

dant901 said:

dant901 said:

Screen:
D7D only wins by a small margin, IMHO. I thought I would like the
screen on the D7D a lot more. It certainly is bigger than the
Canon by a longshot, but wasn't as "contrasty", so that images on
the D7D screen didn't look as clear as on the 20D's screen. Also,
you can only zoom to 4.7x on the D7D screen, whereas Canon can zoom
to 10x. I occasionally found that I wanted more "zoom" than was
available on the D7D to check focus.

Images:
20D wins. I took some shots at ISO 3200 on the D7D. The noise
when zoomed in to 4.7x didn't look too bad. However, the D7D
seemed to have a lot more difficulty getting a focussed shot than
the Canon. On the Canon, more of my shots seemed to be in focus.

Overall feel:
The Canon 20D gave me a more positive overall user experience. The
camera felt much more responsive due to shorter start times/shutter
lag, and faster AF speed. It felt like a slicker, more polished,
professional piece of kit. The LCD screen on the D7D was a lot
bigger, but because it wasn't as contrasty, it didn't seem that
much better than the 20D. The viewfinders weren't that much
different. The AS on the K-M was nice, but I don't know if it
justifies the higher price when the camera is otherwise less
responsive and didn't seem as good at focussing.
(I realize the lens on the D7D may have something to do with this).

Click to expand...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/minolta-a2-location.shtml

The following is from the above web site:

Another area which I have seen commentary on is that the A2's
images are not as sharp as they should be, and that this means that
the camera's lens may not be as good as that of competitive
cameras. This is not the case. The lens is very good indeed. The
issue is that RAW mode images are softer than those from some other
cameras and needs a greater level of sharpening that users may be
used to with their previous cameras.

As long-time readers and advanced digital photographers likely
know, sharpening of digital files has nothing to do with sharpness.
It has to do with edge contrast, otherwise known as accutance.
Sharpening was a poorly chosen word when it was applied to the
Unsharp Masking process (another poorly chosen word used to apply
to a digital process that has its origins in the film world). In
any event, this simply means that Minolta is trying to provide you
with as virgin a file as possible, and it's then up to you to make
the most of this. I much prefer this approach to the one taken by
Canon, which has admitted that it even sharpens RAW files
in-camera. Mother, please! — I'd rather do it myself.

--
Dan T

Click to expand...

I'm an expert these techie stuff.. from my personal experience and reading from others.

Both body and lens are responsible for the AF performance. Meaning to say, same body with different lens perform differently, and vice versa.

Very much like computer hardware and software relationship?

Nuno Severiano said:

I was under the same impresion!

--
Regards,

Nuno Severiano

Click to expand...

--
Des

'Charter Member - 7D Adoption Society'

Hi kiklop_2,

Sure! I will see if I can help, although I'm very much newbie comparing to the experienced and knowledgeable ones in the forum .

BTW, I happen to found this KM SG site that contains some good info for lenses last night.. check this out!

http://www.konicaminolta.com.sg/products/consumer/lens_accessory/lens/index.html

kiklop_2 said:

Hi Desmond,

straight to the point. I need someone with some experience with
Minolta lenses to look thru the lens section of website the website
I work on. The lens section is almost finished but before enabling
reviews I would hear some comments from experienced users. Does
some important data missing, should I make changes to review
process, etc.
The website is strictly noncommercial and build like one reference
point to MTF users.
So if you feel that this would be useful to MTF community please
visit and drop me a few comments (www.dyxum.com)

happy shooting

Click to expand...

--
Des

'Charter Member - 7D Adoption Society'

digicam_fetish said:

Physical interface:
Which camera wins is a matter of personal preference. I suspect
those who are used to a film 7D will love the D7D. It's nice to be
able to adjust settings using dials on the D7D, but if you're using
one of the "memory" settings on the D7D then dial positions won't
reflect what settings are actually active - then you would have to
check the LCD. I prefer the readout on the top of the 20D to the
display on the back of the D7D to check settings (more convenient).
Since I have no prior experience with either camera, I suspect I
could adapt to either physical interface.

Click to expand...

How much a person likes a physical interface is very personal. Some people like the old the button and turn the control dial type and others like individual controls for almost all functions.

One of my favorite parts of the Maxxum 7 interface is the memory setting. The way I use it, I don't have to refer to the back screen once it is set. I program the 3 mempries based on they type of shooting I will be doing that day. I always set #2 as the default I want for that type of shooting. I set #1 for a less used group of settings, and 3 (if necessary) for the even less used.

For example if I am going to shoot a wedding. I will usually set the #2 for P, single shot, 0 exp and flash comp, DMF-AF, front curtain flash, center AF sensor, and 14 seg meter. During the event I will occasionally (about every minute if I'm waiting for a shot) just turn the exposure mode dial from #2 to #1 and back to #2 so that I have my defaults active. I do this because I have a bad habit of unconciously playing with the control dials while waiting and will set exp comp. For that same situation, I'll set #1 to A priority for the cases where I want a different DOF than the camera would set. For the entire event, I will use the camera only on #1 or #2, making minimum changes with the other controls (usually exp comp and AF sensor).

I used to take shots of my son's rock band when they were performing. They asked me to get some special effects shots. Since the venues werer always dark, I was not looking forward to trying to change all the controls for different setups in the dark. So I used the memories.

In this case I set up #2 as my default but with A mode instead of P. I set #1 to be a zoom effect, with Manual exposure (1 shutter speed), spot meter, rear sync flash, continuous AF, and a few others things I that I don't recall. I set up #3 as a multi exposure effect, with P mode, mulit exp, exp comp at -2, and flash at +1 (flash was set up so that its comp added to the exp comp), continuous AF and 14 seg metering. Since the 7 indicates exposure mode in the VF, I could confirm which mode I was in just by checking that. In operation, I'd take most shots using #2. If the scene looked good for a zoom shot I'd switch to #1, set my starting FL and zoom the lens as the shot was made. When he band was in a position that multi exposures would look good, I'd switch to #3 (by feel) take a 4 shot multi exposure and turn the exposure mode dial back to #2 to end the multi and advance the frame. All very easy with no mistaken settings, and I didn't ook at the back display once the shooting started.

Tom