Reading mode: Light Dark

A2(00) vs. Digital Rebel XT? Why should I stay with Minolta?

Go to last post
U

Us 5 Camp

Active member
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Location
WC Minn, US
Hello,

We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:

Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
 
Us 5 Camp said:
Hello,
We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or
Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:
Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing
to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
Click to expand...
There are a lot of threads that cover dSLR vs. non-dSLR arguments. It's a personal decision. Here are my reasons for not going the dSLR route:

1. Smaller size
2. Lower cost
3. Lighter weight
4. Movie mode
5. B&W preview
6. No need for super long lenses
7. No real indoor sports shooting

Reasons I'd think about going to a dSLR:
1. Smaller depth of field
2. Better low light performance
3. Faster focusing

So, I weighed the pros and cons, and for me, the A1 makes a lot more sense. Your mileage may vary.
 
An add to this:

Ax has better LCD & AntiShake too.

I personally go for Ax because of AS, size, costs, & movie. The speed & ISO noise is acceptable for me. I hate to carry any stuff when I travel. So, DSLR will collect dust in my house if I have them.
Good luck!
RitterSport said:
Us 5 Camp said:
Hello,
We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or
Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:
Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing
to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
Click to expand...
There are a lot of threads that cover dSLR vs. non-dSLR arguments.
It's a personal decision. Here are my reasons for not going the
dSLR route:

1. Smaller size
2. Lower cost
3. Lighter weight
4. Movie mode
5. B&W preview
6. No need for super long lenses
7. No real indoor sports shooting

Reasons I'd think about going to a dSLR:
1. Smaller depth of field
2. Better low light performance
3. Faster focusing

So, I weighed the pros and cons, and for me, the A1 makes a lot
more sense. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...
 
Add to the above the all important preview histogram that the XT does not offer.
Regards, Jim
Steven Lam said:
Ax has better LCD & AntiShake too.

I personally go for Ax because of AS, size, costs, & movie. The
speed & ISO noise is acceptable for me. I hate to carry any stuff
when I travel. So, DSLR will collect dust in my house if I have
them.
Good luck!
RitterSport said:
Us 5 Camp said:
Hello,
We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or
Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:
Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing
to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
Click to expand...
There are a lot of threads that cover dSLR vs. non-dSLR arguments.
It's a personal decision. Here are my reasons for not going the
dSLR route:

1. Smaller size
2. Lower cost
3. Lighter weight
4. Movie mode
5. B&W preview
6. No need for super long lenses
7. No real indoor sports shooting

Reasons I'd think about going to a dSLR:
1. Smaller depth of field
2. Better low light performance
3. Faster focusing

So, I weighed the pros and cons, and for me, the A1 makes a lot
more sense. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--



Odds N' Ends album here:
http://www.pbase.com/jimh/inbox&page=all
Z album here: http://www.pbase.com/jimh/marilyn_the_car&page=all
Jim N'AZ
 
To a great extent it depends on your camera use & photo choices. The Ax series is unquestionably more portable (although the spare batteries are heavy !). It is also unquestionable that the XT or similar DSLR would give you much more quality especially in low light at much higher ISOs.

You may find that you can get away with only one lens for the XT & if you have shaky hands you need to consider the 17-85 IS Canon zoom. This gives the equivalent of approximately 27-136 in 35 mm terms which good enough for most general photography. Otherwise you might prefer a 12-24 Sigma + long telephoto for wildlife shots.

If you are undecided the kit zoom is quite a good start & if you are short of cash there is more choice in secondhand lenses. The inclusion of a kit lens makes the body more sale-able if you then decide to upgrade.

Keith-C
 
I've been debating the same thing, but am down to the A200 or XT. The BIGGEST difference is cost, the next biggest is picture quality. dSLR's just have WAY less noise even at ISO 800, and in many cases at ISO 1600. You have a vast assortment of lenses to chose to fit your style. If you want AS you can get IS, there is a lens for any direction you want to take your photography... so many choices (that's another big problem, "choosing").

Reasons I might go XT:
1. Picture quality (less noise, better DOF, better contrast, etc....)
2. Financial future of Minolta.
3. Picture quality.

4. Resalability of equipment (you probably won't be too much worse off if you choose to get out, very good resale market if you buy good equipment).

Reasons I might go A200:
1. Cost (initial and future)

2. Rotating LCD (I have an A95 and find this feature one of the greatest additions to digital photography)
3. Not having to choose lenses (back to cost).
4. "Free" AS

I am likely going with the XT. My "theory" is I will be out about $2K for what I intially want, but it's worth at least $1800 if I turned around and sold it. And the $1K (or more) I invest in lenses can be used on future models, or sold if I don't like dSLR. I am 54 years old and photography is about the only thing I could see enjoying until the end of days (other than maybe wife, kids and golf)... why not make the most of it.

The biggest problem is that $2K can easily turn to $5K.... and who knows, a year from now somebody odd like Samsung could come out with a 18-360mm 10mp camera that takes noiseless, perfect images, for $500, and make all the investment worthless...

"Choose wisely"

--
Tom
http://www.pbase.com/photoman
 
Vegard said:
Tom said:
2. Rotating LCD
Click to expand...
Check this thread. You simply CANNOT take such pictures with a
DSLR. Do you have fast crawling children or grandchildren? Pets?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=12768812
Click to expand...
I make frequent use of my A1's tilting LCD and I love it. However, if I had to choose btwn much faster AF and clean images up to ISO800 vs. the tilting LCD, I'd give up the LCD immediately.

That's why I'm trying to scrape up the money for a DSLR. Of course, I'm keeping my A1, too. That'll give me the best of both worlds, although not in the same package.

Larry
 
Us 5 Camp said:
Hello,
We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or
Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:
Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing
to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
Click to expand...
Having the same problem. bought an A200 and took it back, mainly because of low light focus and shutter lag. It took awsome pictures , great lens and image quality. but just slow. Imagine stabilization works great. Been back to Shop twice playing with the Rebel Xt ,it is great but need to spend another 5 or 6 hundred bucks for the IS lens 17-85. I actually think after bring home two 512 cards full from each camera that the is works better on the A200 and the images are close, maybe A200 are sharper. So for half the price I think I'll go back and rebuy the A200. But the sales guy now has me looking at the 7D , awsome in cramera anti shake like the A200 but back to price if not More than Xt. What to do, what to do.
 
I would upgrade to a refurbished A2 and save up for the a DSLR. Here's why:
  • The quality of the lens and the AS system in an A2 would cost you another $1000 more at least (in addition to the body), many more pounds, and more size in bulk to replicate in a DSLR. Go check the prices, size, and weight on Canon's IS zoom lenses to see what I mean. Yes, the higher ISO capabilities of a DSLR would let you get by with slower lenses but you'll see what I mean regardless.
  • The A2 is as fast as cranking out raw files almost as the original Digital Rebel was. Rip off three as fast as the camera can cycle the shutter and then another as soon as there is space in the buffer. All in a package about half the size and weight of an original DRebel and Sigma 18-125 lens (and A2's lens is better).
  • The A2's 4:3 ratio sensor means you can apply almost all of its 8MP to a standard sized print, whereas the 2:3 ratio of a DSLR means you will be cropping some away. Not much of an argument unless your talking about print sizes above 11x14, but still.
  • The A2 can sync the flash at all shutter speeds. Very important if you ever expect to do fill flash in broad daylight. The only DSLR that comes close to this capability is the Nikon D70.
  • The A2's flip-out LCD and flip-up EVF expand your POV way beyond what a DSLR can offer. The A200's articulated LCD screen can be nicer, but I prefer the A2's simple flip-out instead. With the way I carry a camera the articulated screens get caught in the neck strap.
  • The A2's nearly inaudible leaf shutter is great for making discreet candids (turn off all those stupid beeps first). DSLR's are much louder.
  • The A2's video mode is excellent. DSLR's can't do this trick yet.
  • And lastly, no lengthy deliberations over the camera back trying to decide what lenses to take with your DSLR. Just grab the A2 and hit the road.
Having owned an A2 for the last six months I would not trade it in on or sell it for any DSLR. Period. The A2 is far too capable and far too versatile. For me it's only real-world disadvantage to a DSLR is increased sensor noise. This is only a serious issue at ISO 400 and 800, and using the raw mode and Adobe Camera Raw ISO 400 is often salvagable. ISO 200 is usable depending on your print size and exposure, and ISO's 100 and 50 are clean enough that you will hardly see the noise in print if at all.

Alternately, you could just keep your 7Hi and save up for the DSLR. The 7Hi appears to be a excellent camera according to Phil's review. Compared to an A2 it's only significant downsides appear to be the EVF, no AS, no flip-out LCD, AA batteries, and 5MP. Of these, the last two may not be an issue to you (I like Li-Ion rechargables) and 5MP is plenty or pixels for most any print you would likely make. Just a thought.

Rad
Us 5 Camp said:
Hello,
We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or
Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:
Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing
to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
Click to expand...
 
The image quality of the DSLR's larger sensor is a huge benefit if you want to shoot at speeds beyond ISO200. I think you end up with about the same low lighting shooting abilities (Ax can user a slower shutter speed but DSLR can use higher ISOs) but the DSLR will allow you to more easily freeze motion in low light.

DSLRs also allow wireless ratio flash control, something which none of the KM digicams can do.

DSLRs allow for very fast AF. This is one of the big reasons why I am looking at buying a DSLR.

Oh yeah, the other nice thing about a DSLR is that it allows for much shallower DoF. If you happen to like that look (I do) then it is an important consideration.

And finally, the overall response time is faster with a DSLR. Virtually instant-on and no shutter lag. With the D70, you can use its Flash Value lock to measure the req'd amount of flash exposure and lock it in place, so you can shoot flash photography with no pre-flash lag. The only way you could do this with the Ax is to use the flash in manual mode and do a series of test shots (or use a flash meter).

As for as an Ax camera being as fast a DSLR, there are some differences. First, the DSLR (ie: 350XT or D70) has a much larger buffer so it can shoot faster, longer. Second, the DSLR doesn't blank out the viewfinder the way the Ax cameras do. With a DSLR, you can use the viewfinder to track your subject while firing at full speed.

I'd recommend keeping your Minolta AND buying a DSLR.

Larry
 
I think this thread finally pushed me over the edge to buy the XT. One advantage I have is I don't own an A1 or A2, so I won't miss the live histogram and some of the other "positives" the A2 carries. For about $1100 you can get an XT with a Sigma 18-125 lens (which is at least as good as the kit lens and gives you the 7X zoom). From there you can spend as much or as little as you want to (or can afford). I haven't really decided on the lens(s) I plan to buy, but pretty sure I'll be buying an XT shortly.

--
Tom
http://www.pbase.com/photoman
 
Tom said:
I think this thread finally pushed me over the edge to buy the XT.
One advantage I have is I don't own an A1 or A2, so I won't miss
the live histogram and some of the other "positives" the A2
carries. For about $1100 you can get an XT with a Sigma 18-125
lens (which is at least as good as the kit lens and gives you the
7X zoom). From there you can spend as much or as little as you
want to (or can afford). I haven't really decided on the lens(s) I
plan to buy, but pretty sure I'll be buying an XT shortly.
Click to expand...
Tom, this is really going to send this spiralling off-topic (particularly for a Minolta forum) but I strongly recommend that you look at the Nikon D70 and its kit lens. The price is around USD$1100 and, imo, it's feature set is closer to that of an Ax camera (ie: dual control dials, the built-in flash can control a remote flash, nicer build quality). The Nikon 18-70 zoom is supposed to be quite good, too.

I've been comparing the 350XT and D70 and am leaning towards the D70. Also, good quality lenses for it are quite affordable. It seems to me that Nikon has more affordable options that fall in btwn the low-end consumer and high-end pro glass. Definitely price out the lenses and flash equipment when deciding. I'm thinking that the 18-70 plus a non-AF-S 80-200/2.8 zoom, and the SB600 or SB800 will be a good starting kit for me. I figure it'll cost me under USD$2000 if I buy the 80-200 used.

I also like the fact that the Nikon allows the use of custom curves and lossless compressed RAW files. The final selling point for me is that is supports wireless ratio flash and Flash Value lock which provides an inbetween feature btwn manual flash control and metered flash control, the end result being the elimination of pre-flash.

Good luck with whatever system you choose.

Larry
 
if i could afford it, i would get a DSLR... but even though i get one, i will always have my Ax with me since they compliment each other... DSLR when i need the speed and low light capability... everything else my A2 can handle...
Us 5 Camp said:
Hello,
We have a 7Hi that we are thinking of upgrading to an A2 or A200 or
Digital Rebel XT.

My question for Minolta users is this:
Please give me the argument for staying with Minolta vs. changing
to a digital SLR like the Rebel XT.

--

'Us 5 Camp'
  • Just trying to learn to take better pictures....
Click to expand...
 
Okay. I missed a few others. Oh well.

Rad
larsbc said:
The image quality of the DSLR's larger sensor is a huge benefit if
you want to shoot at speeds beyond ISO200. I think you end up with
about the same low lighting shooting abilities (Ax can user a
slower shutter speed but DSLR can use higher ISOs) but the DSLR
will allow you to more easily freeze motion in low light.

DSLRs also allow wireless ratio flash control, something which none
of the KM digicams can do.

DSLRs allow for very fast AF. This is one of the big reasons why I
am looking at buying a DSLR.

Oh yeah, the other nice thing about a DSLR is that it allows for
much shallower DoF. If you happen to like that look (I do) then it
is an important consideration.

And finally, the overall response time is faster with a DSLR.
Virtually instant-on and no shutter lag. With the D70, you can use
its Flash Value lock to measure the req'd amount of flash exposure
and lock it in place, so you can shoot flash photography with no
pre-flash lag. The only way you could do this with the Ax is to
use the flash in manual mode and do a series of test shots (or use
a flash meter).

As for as an Ax camera being as fast a DSLR, there are some
differences. First, the DSLR (ie: 350XT or D70) has a much larger
buffer so it can shoot faster, longer. Second, the DSLR doesn't
blank out the viewfinder the way the Ax cameras do. With a DSLR,
you can use the viewfinder to track your subject while firing at
full speed.

I'd recommend keeping your Minolta AND buying a DSLR.

Larry
Click to expand...
 
Actually the shutter is completely inaudible because it doesn't have a shutter! The sound you hear is the aperture blades closing down to the required f-stop.

IIRC, i guess it does have a shutter for "dark screen" noise reduction for long exposures and also closes, I think, when the camera is off.
radimus said:
radimus said:
  • The A2's nearly inaudible leaf shutter is great for making
Click to expand...
discreet candids (turn off all those stupid beeps first). DSLR's
are much louder.
Click to expand...
 
In an ideal world you really want both an A200 type camera and a dSLR.

The A200 takes great photos, is very portable, has an ideal zoom range, and with the fold out LCD and the remote you can frame a perfect self portrait.

The dSLR will have less noise in low ambient light situations and will focus faster. The dSLR is subject to collecting dust on the sensor chip, the longer zoom lenses are both expensive and hard to lug around, and if you read the forums you will find many people having front focus, back focus, and mis- focus issues.

If you can only afford one, you must ruthlessly evaluate what types of photos you will be shooting in order to decide which one you need and which one you can live without.
 
I've got an A2 and a Canon 10D, and the 10D is for sale now that I've found out how much the A2 suits me. The 10D is a very fine camera through and through, I can't fault it, except that it is large and heavy and not that much fun to use. Many DSLRs share this downside. Comparatively, the A2 is a blast to use as well as inspiring in its flexibility and lightweight handling. Even the smaller, lighter new DSLRs, once you include a lens, especially one as capable as the A2's GT lens (if that's even possible for less than the cost of a second DSLR body), turn into rather awkward and unbalanced devices. For me this is an important issue, and the reason I'm changing to the A2. There's a lot of great things about the 10D, not the least of which is its robust build quality and I'll miss it. But the A2 is also a quality piece of gear, and IMO nicer to hold and use than the dRebel XT, in that respect. Add the many features and advantages of an all in one digicam, enumerated above, and the A2 knocks the DSLRs out of the ring for my uses. And I think the high ISO advantages of the DSLRs are overblown. Yes, nice to have, but most of the greatest photographers in history seldom went over ISO100 . They didn't have a choice. It's not a limitation if you learn to work with it. And there's always flash, and it doesn't have to look washed out and flat if you learn to use it, and the A2 with the Minolta 5600 is a extremely capable combination, and the A2 has one of the easieast on board flashes to adjust for exposure.
arthur53821 said:
In an ideal world you really want both an A200 type camera and a dSLR.

The A200 takes great photos, is very portable, has an ideal zoom
range, and with the fold out LCD and the remote you can frame a
perfect self portrait.

The dSLR will have less noise in low ambient light situations and
will focus faster. The dSLR is subject to collecting dust on the
sensor chip, the longer zoom lenses are both expensive and hard to
lug around, and if you read the forums you will find many people
having front focus, back focus, and mis- focus issues.

If you can only afford one, you must ruthlessly evaluate what types
of photos you will be shooting in order to decide which one you
need and which one you can live without.
Click to expand...
 
D. G. wrote:
[snip]
D G said:
And I think the high ISO advantages of the DSLRs are overblown.
Yes, nice to have, but most of the greatest photographers in
history seldom went over ISO100 . They didn't have a choice.
Click to expand...
Likewise, the majority of the "greatest" photos by the "greatest photographers" have been made with film, so are the advantages of digital overblown? Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative but that logic can be applied to dismiss a great variety of features, digital or otherwise.

Larry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top