Ok. Talk me out of it...

Dave Pritchard · Dec 3, 2001

Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.

People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input! Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Dirk S. · Dec 3, 2001

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Don't ask me for the moment.....
--Skitch http://www.digitalfriends.cc

Dirk S. · Dec 3, 2001

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

I'm toooooooooo angry.

But I know a lot of people of this goup will help you.

Sorry to be negative in so much positive forum.
--Skitch http://www.digitalfriends.cc

I.J. Smith · Dec 3, 2001

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Hi Dave:
I won't try to talk you out of it...simply because I've never used the D5.

I did consider the D7 but the hot spots scared me but they may have taken care of that...hope so.

As you said above, only you can decide on the pros and cons and which dc fits YOU the most.
Best of luck with your choice.
i.j.

Zog · Dec 3, 2001

Hi Dave:

You are correct, no one in Tampa carries it. After reading all the positive reviews, comments and weighing my own needs/wants (lightweight, SLR look sorta, manual controls, etc.) I took a bit of a leap of faith and got the 6900Z. Check out the link below and look at my photos to see what you might get. I've been thrilled. By the way, I'm not sure but don't the Minolta D5 and D7 have very limited aperature settings? Like 2.8 - 8 or something like that. I'm no expert so I'm not sure how much that might matter, but have f11 on the Fuji is one more plus.

http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=A6456E129D9&cb=PA

Zog

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Cassandra59044 · Dec 3, 2001

Check out the following to see examples of what the 6900z can do:

http://pbase.com/galleries/ronhep
http://www.bobgower.co.uk
http://public.fotki.com/bobbygee/
http://www.lizawallis.com/NYC/
http://www.lizawallis.com/photography/090101/
http://www.jackzucker.com/finearts/index.htm
http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=ACF82B12666&cb=PA

Cassandra

-- http://welcome.to/cassandras-galleryhttp://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=ACF82B12666&cb=PAhttp://photos.yahoo.com/clubsi_mom

liza wallis · Dec 3, 2001

Member said:
Member said:

Hey folks,

Click to expand...

Member said:
Member said:

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

Click to expand...

I there Dave...

I can talk you out of it, but you need to realize that I will be telling you why it would be a good choice for me, not necessarily for you. When I made the decision to go with the 6900, I was debating between the D7 and the coolpix 995. Then it was just down to the D7 but I just couldn't get myself to go for it. Too many problems. The colorspace issue was a real drawback for me. I enjoy editing my photos, but I don't want to have to convert all of them before they maximize their potential. I had my heart set on the D7 for months, from the moment I heard it was coming out. It just killed me that when it finally did come out it just wasn't nearly good enough to justify its pricetag. I hadn't even considered the fuji until I did two things... first I did a search of cameras based on zoom length (because like you, I wanted a long zoom), and second, I stumbled into this forum. This forum sold me because what I saw was a large group of independent thinkers who obviously were not swayed by good advertising. I think I ordered my fuji within a day of coming here.

Member said:
Member said:

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

Click to expand...

You'll spend money and you'll save money... I thought it would be cheaper too, and it might be, but you will get addicted to accessories and then there is the printer ink and paper

Member said:
Member said:

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

Click to expand...

The macros from the fuji rival those of my nikon 950 which is considered the best digicam for macro work. Look at BobGower's gallery for studio portrait photography. Street photography you can look at my NYC shots or RonHs shots or any number of other people who escape me at the moment

Member said:
Member said:

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom

Click to expand...

barely

Member said:
Member said:

Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.

Click to expand...

you're right, I prefer CF, but I got used to the SM

Member said:
Member said:

Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.

Click to expand...

I have shot soccer games with no problem in the speed department

Member said:
Member said:

More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.

Click to expand...

hmmmm.... maybe, but I am not sure about this

Member said:
Member said:

D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Click to expand...

it is also only 3mp where the fuji is 6mp

Member said:
Member said:

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)

Click to expand...

you are absolutely right

Member said:
Member said:

I hate my Minolta SLR.

Click to expand...

can't comment on this

Member said:
Member said:

It uses batteries out the wazoo.

Click to expand...

battery life is okay but not great on the fuji

Member said:
Member said:

People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.

Click to expand...

it worried me too.

Member said:
Member said:

6900 has closer macro.

Click to expand...

see above... exvcellent macro

Member said:
Member said:

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

Click to expand...

and what the rest of us on this forum say. I think this is one awesome camera

Member said:
Member said:

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5.

Click to expand...

DON'T DO IT, YOU'LL REGRET IT!!! there... did I do a good enough job? What did the folks on the minolta forum tell you?

Member said:
Member said:

It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Click to expand...

Gee... I know this game... I played it for a long time too. These are difficult decisions

One last thing... Skitch is a great guy and usually quite upbeat. he has good reason to be really peeved right now. The good news for you is that you live in the US (I am assuming so anyway) and fuji repair in the US has proven excellent so far

Member said:
Member said:

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Click to expand...

Hope this helps
liza--www.lizawallis.com

liza wallis · Dec 3, 2001

Cassandra USA 6900z said:
Check out the following to see examples of what the 6900z can do:

Wow Cassandra, I am really touched and more than flattered that you included me in the list of galleries to check out. Thank you. Unfortunately I think my 090101 gallery is really awful, but I am a bit more partial to my 090201 gallery as listed below.

Thanks..

liza

Cassandra59044 said:
http://www.lizawallis.com/photography/090201/
Cassandra

--
http://welcome.to/cassandras-gallery
http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=ACF82B12666&cb=PA
http://photos.yahoo.com/clubsi_mom

--www.lizawallis.com

SFJP · Dec 3, 2001

Dave,

This question has been already asked in two threads in the last 2 or 3 days. Why do you not read a bit more this forum before asking again the same question that has the effect to make me nervous? Ok, cooood down boy...I just copy/paste here the answer I made to the same question 2 days ago, but first an additional remark for the zoom range. The 6900 has a zoom 35-210 mm. With the very good conversion lenses of Fuji that you can buy afterwards, you'll get a 28-315 mm optical zoom range. Not bad... Now the copy of the answer I made previously to the other people who asked the same question:

"The D5 and the6900 are not in the same league and it makes me nervous that people dare to ask such questions (no, not everyone is nice in the Fuji forum, I am not!!).

Please ask us to compare the D7 and 6900 if you want, but certainly not the D5 and the 6900!! The D5 has inherited all the defects of the D7, plus a lower resolution. Note that the D7 could have been an excellent camera (Minolta signature is not nothing in the camera world) worth to consider if Minolta had asked its own specialists of the film camera department how one builds an acceptable autofocus, if it had asked them also how one builds a high resolution lens, and if it had asked Fuji how one builds and exploits a good CCD. Yes, if Minolta had thought to ask these simple questions before producing its poor D7, this camera would have been worth to compare with the 6900 and would not have been the big failure it has been, but as Minolta did not, there is no question the 6900 is a much better choice except if you want to spend interesting nights removing the noise from your pictures with Photoshop.

So, the D5... forget it! The 6900, thanks to its superCCD and a better lens has a much higher optical resolution (even higher than the resolution of the D7), produces much less noisy pictures and has naturally stunning colors without requiring a conversion of color space. In fact, the 6900 is in my view the best prosumer digicam currently available: to get better, you must have more money to spend on a camera than I have today and look at the Canon D30 or the Fuji S1, nothing less!"

Regards,

Jean-Paul

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Mike Zh · Dec 3, 2001

Hi,

As most of the input is talking about the quality of 6900 (D5 is really not in the same level as 6900, and their input is from heart...). I will give you another suggestion: The price of 6900.

Fuji almost always has the lowest price at the same level cameras. They just lower 6900 price $100/$200 1~2 months ago. So, it means you really get a good price of 6900 now. (The total cost for me is $400 plus a $100 gift card).

D5 is so cheaper than D7 (do you think you can get the similar configuration of D7, then?). They just came out for some days (not sure) and don't decrease the price yet (price curve?).

I think $500 shoud be a acceptable price for you. (If you buy D5, you need spend at least $50 more to buy batteries, etc).

So, price is not a advantage of D5 here.

From my searching experience: 6900 has the best+++ money value.

Hope this be helpful.

Let me know if you want more detail 6900 shopping info.

New Fuji Talk member: Mike @

Zog said:
You are correct, no one in Tampa carries it. After reading all the
positive reviews, comments and weighing my own needs/wants
(lightweight, SLR look sorta, manual controls, etc.) I took a bit
of a leap of faith and got the 6900Z. Check out the link below and
look at my photos to see what you might get. I've been thrilled. By
the way, I'm not sure but don't the Minolta D5 and D7 have very
limited aperature settings? Like 2.8 - 8 or something like that.
I'm no expert so I'm not sure how much that might matter, but have
f11 on the Fuji is one more plus.

http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=A6456E129D9&cb=PA

Zog

Dave Pritchard said:

Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Click to expand...

SFJP · Dec 3, 2001

I am with you Skitch!

The two last times I sent a camera to repair (once my Oly D600 and once the Yashica film P&S of my wife) it took me respectively 2 and 3 months to get them back! For the D600, I waited 2 months to be made aware that nothing had been done because the electric failure it had did not repeat itself in the repair center (and since it works fine!!). And for the Yashica, the defect (film advance broken) had not been fixed while they wanted to charge me 80$ for this "repair" of a camera under warranty and not working at all!

You see your case is still not in the worst cases worth of the Guiness book, so be patient, keep cool, do not let you give way to alcool or drug addiction, life can be beautiful even without your camera, be a man my son, etc, etc.... But, for me, if I had to send to repair my 6900, after the experiences reported above, I would just kill me... or take this as a justification to buy quickly an additional spare one...-

Jean-Paul

aspherix said:
I'm toooooooooo angry.

But I know a lot of people of this goup will help you.

Sorry to be negative in so much positive forum.

--
Skitch
http://www.digitalfriends.cc

Cassandra59044 · Dec 3, 2001

Liza,

Dave mentioned he was interested in street photography and I thought both your albums were excellent examples!

Here are some others (and my humblest apologies to everyone whose work is worthy of consideration but I did not have a link to share):

http://www.pbase.com/sfjp
http://public.fotki.com/CJWoodley/
http://home.planet.nl/~lumen003/samples.html

Finally, take a look at "moth" in my Powell Gardens album for an example of what a veritable newcomer to the 6900 can accomplish in macro mode:
http://photos.yahoo.com/clubsi_mom

©azil - FP6900 said:
Thanks..

liza

liza wallis said:

http://www.lizawallis.com/photography/090201/
Cassandra

Click to expand...

http://www.lizawallis.com

-- http://welcome.to/cassandras-galleryhttp://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=ACF82B12666&cb=PAhttp://photos.yahoo.com/clubsi_mom

tony gilmour · Dec 4, 2001

Dave I would not try to justify the 6900z or the d5 to you, so i posted some picks to help you make up your mind!

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

RJNedimyer · Dec 4, 2001

Cassandra USA 6900z said:
Check out the following to see examples of what the 6900z can do:

http://pbase.com/galleries/ronhep
http://www.bobgower.co.uk
http://public.fotki.com/bobbygee/
http://www.lizawallis.com/NYC/
http://www.lizawallis.com/photography/090101/
http://www.jackzucker.com/finearts/index.htm
http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=ACF82B12666&cb=PA

Cassandra

--
http://welcome.to/cassandras-gallery
http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=ACF82B12666&cb=PA
http://photos.yahoo.com/clubsi_mom

Oh you of few words took my thoughts and expanded them well.

Since Cassnadra did such an excellent job I'll just add a few thoughts.
1. My Minolta X700 (my favored camera of 15 years) is in mothballs.

2. The 6900 is THE competitor for the D7 and in my opinion the final result and joy of using the 6900 is much greater; weight, balance, general shape, SLR Style, ease of use.

3. I was down to 15 rolls of film a year with 35mm costs about $300 [film development and CD-R no prints and thr price for processing just went up $3]. With the 6900 I'm shooting that every 2 weeks costs a $0.10 or so in electricity in 4 months and less than $5 in CD-R's. Till someone made a comment I did not realize how many photo's I've taken nor how little I've spent to do it.

4. I'm getting better results in my prints since I have the control again and that also increases the ejnoyment of the camera.

1, 3 and 4 will apply to the D5 or D7 as well as the 6900. But, #2 is strictly the 6900's advantage.

You will have to choose. I did, but I considered the D7 and it did not make the cut to me. When you cinsider I preferred Minolta's 35mm to Canon's (the pro Nikon's were out of site then and now price wise) you will understand I wanted the D7 to be the winner. But the 6900 won out and
to this day I'm very pleased it did.--RayRJNedimyer

robby50649 · Dec 4, 2001

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

I am in a similar situation as you are Dave, but my comparison is with the G2. The slr in me says I would only be happy with that type of body rather than point and shoot, but the image capability and storage media leans me toward the G2. I, nor you, would get a loser in either the D5 or the G2, but something keeps drawing me toward the Fuji, and I have never held a 6900! I too have enjoyed the Fuji forum over the past couple of weeks after discovering the 6900, so if anyone can fire any more salvos over my bow, I am willing to listen..robby

Mapril Oliveira · Dec 4, 2001

I have been in doubt for several weeks between the D5 and the 6900. After reading many posts in this group and in Minolta's, I noticed that people here seems much happier with their cameras. Also, there is much more people here who like to share their photos. I think that means something.

Today I compared the reviews of D7 and 6900 in megapixel.net ( http://www.megapixel.net ). After comparing side by side the images in the reviews (look especially at the photos of the building), I confirmed what I suspected already: the quality of the 6900 is better indeed than the D7 (to my taste, at least).

Finnaly I'm decided - I like the Minolta for the manual zoom... but I will go for the 6900.--Mapril

@Dan.com · Dec 4, 2001

Dave,

A lot of good information has already been provided so I won't repeat it. It is a shame that Fuji doesn't do a better job of getting it's camera into retail stores.

I have to admit that I picked up the D7 and Sony 707 when I was in BestBuy last weekend. I couldn't believe the cheap plastic and magnesium alloy casing on a camera that retails for $1,200. The 6900 is all metal. The shape was not near a comfortable as the 6900 either. I found both the D7 and 707 to be very awkward to handle.

HTH,

Dan

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

John Pantera · Dec 4, 2001

Dave Pritchard said:
Hey folks,

I have been reading these posts over the past few weeks, and I am
am appreciative of the way that this forum is so helpful to
everyone who posts here.

I have a problem... I am torn between the 6900z and the Minolta
D5. I realize that this is a much discussed issue, but I wanted
the group's input on the situation as it applies to me.

I am a fairly skilled SLR photographer. I am not great, but I
don't suck. I would like to use digital to avoid the hundreds of
dollars I spend developing film.

I would like to use my soon-to-be-purchased digital camera for
macro photography, street and portraiture photography, and expect a
high level of performance from my camera. I travel to Europe once
a year, and would like to take the digital with me.

With these factors involved, the Minolta is ahead in these
categories...
Longer zoom
Compact Flash, so Microdrive is an option.
Faster zoom because it is operated by a ring, not a button.
More external controls making it easier to override the camera
settings.
D5 is $100 less (that's a lot of bucks!)

Here are the drawbacks...
This forum has cooler people... (not joking)
I hate my Minolta SLR.
It uses batteries out the wazoo.
People complain of the body getting hot behind the CF compartment
and that worries me.
6900 has closer macro.

I have looked at the D5 at bestbuy and it was ok, but no one in
Tampa carries the 6900, so I can only go by what the DPReview says.

This is the last effort. Talk me out of buying the D5. It seems
like the better route at the moment, although I will change my mind
again tomorrow. I am looking forward to your always helpful input!
Let me see as many pictures as possible to prove your point!!!!

Best,
Dave
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/dprichar

Hey Dave,

Is there a Brandsmart in Tampa? Brandsmart, here in South Florida has the 6900. I put my hands on it there, but I bought it online from Gateway Accessories.

John P

James Ball · Dec 4, 2001

Robby. I asked the same question a month or two ago and got a very long and informative response from one of the 'senior members' of this board, Jean Paul. Here it is (Jean Paul, I hope you don't mind me copying the email in here):

"An advantage of a through the lens viewer camera like the 6900 other
rangefinder camera like the G2 is that if you add conversion lenses you will
still see what you get in your viewfinder. I just got the Fuji wide angle
and tele conversion lenses and this gives me a 12 x optical zooming range
from equivalent 28 mm to equivalent 320 mm...!

An advantage of the electronic viewfinder on an optical viewfinder is that
you can see immediately if the picture will be over or under exposed, how is
going the contrast, etc. Otherwise, the Fuji EVF could be better (it is
significanltly worst than the Sony 707 EVF by lack of definition). It is
seldom of a great help to control the accuracy of the focus, which is a
shame and it is my main complaint with the camera that otherwise I love a
lot!

The autofocus of the Fuji works well in general, while you are allowed to
dream of the speed of the autofocus of the Olympus E10/E20. Its accuracy is
perfect when it is not completely wrong. I explain: it seems that the area
considered by the autofocus is a vbit bigger than the autofocus rectangle in
the viewfinder. In consequence, on a small subject, if you are not careful
to avoid to focus on an area close to the border of your subject, the Fuji
might as well take in consideration the background to set the focus to this
background (at least it is the explanation I give to many of my out of focus
shots, explanation that might well be the correct one).

Using 6 mp, fine, soft sharpening, I get generally incredibly sharp and high
res pictures after some post processing (enhancing the contrast, sharpening
with Ultra-Sharpen Pro V3). Using normal sharpening results in artifacts
clearly visible at 6 mp, especially when using a flash. NB: in Auto mode you
have no choice, the normal sharpening is chosen by the camera, so to avoid
this I generally use Aperture or Sutter speed priority. If you are using 3
mp pictures, normal sharpening is OK, the artifacts will not be so visible.

I have visible distortion in the corners with 6 mp pictures (not visible at
3 mp). The lens is not perfect... But this also shows that 6 mp, revealing
this imperfection not visible at 3 mp, provides quite more details that an
interpolated 3 mp! The real resolution at 6 mp is somewhere between 4 and 5
mp, slightly better than the G2.

The resolution, colors and naturalness of the images I generally get from
the Fuji in outdoor daylight pictures are in my view the best available
today in prosumer cameras (better than Sony 707 and Olympus E20) and can be
even compared with what you get from a 6,000$ camera like a Nikon D1X.

For indoor or low light pictures, things are not perfect, especially because
you have to be careful to correctly set the white balance, the automatic WB
being quite disappointing when using flash or with artificial light.

For dark night shot, with exposure longer than 1 second, the Fuji becomes
kind of a nightmare because of the numerous hot pixels that have generally
its super CCD. If this is the kind of pictures you specialize in, get a Sony
707!

I cannot say a lot of the G2, except that its image quality seems quite OK,
but I refuse to consider a 1,000$ rangefinder camera that would not offer a
better ergonomy and viewfinder than a 100 $ P&S. The viewfinders of the
current rangefinder digicams are unacceptable, whatever the brand! I dream
of a Leica M6 body with a CCD instead of film. Perhaps the new forthcoming
Panasonic 4 mp digicam using Leica lens will offer at last a correct
viewfinder? I do not know. So, for now, I exclude a priori from my
considerations anything that is not TTL in the digicam world, which
restricts what I would consider to F6900, Minolta D7, Sony 707, Olympus E20,
and for those who have a lot of money, Canon D30, 1D, Nikon D1x, etc.

Except for dark night shot, I would not exchange my F6900 for another camera
of this family, even if the exchange was given to me for free with a 10
times more expensive camera! (except if this was an Hasselblad with a 20 mp
Kodack digital back of course...!).

I cannot tell you more. The G2 and the Fuji, are belonging to two quite
different families, on is of the rangefinder family with a limited zoom, the
other is t=from the TTL family with a much bigger range of focal lenghts.
You should first know in which family you want to choose your camera,
without considering if it is digital or not and what is the quality of the
pictures it produces. Then you should consider if the ergonomy (including
viewfinder comfort) in the category you choose is what you would expect from
a camera of this family (for me, the answer for the G2 is NO!). If yes,
pick the best of the family, may be G2 in the rangefinder category (but I
would wait to look more cllosely to the Panasonic/Leica), and for most uses
certainly the F6900 in the TTL family except if your interest is in dark
night shots or if you absolutely want an optical viewfinder (then you need
to get an E20 or D1X!)"

By the way, I bought a 6900 2 days and already love it.

Cheers, James

Mike Zh · Dec 4, 2001

From my (a novice) perspective, this discussion is what I 100% agree with.

From 5 days trying experience, I found 6900 is extremly easy for a novice to take good daylight pictures (normal and macro). But a little hard to take night pictures (can't auto focus, and totally dark EVF, etc).

But I know there are methods for advance photographers to work these things out and study these skills later.

James Ball said:
Robby. I asked the same question a month or two ago and got a very
long and informative response from one of the 'senior members' of
this board, Jean Paul. Here it is (Jean Paul, I hope you don't mind
me copying the email in here):

"An advantage of a through the lens viewer camera like the 6900 other
rangefinder camera like the G2 is that if you add conversion lenses
you will
still see what you get in your viewfinder. I just got the Fuji wide
angle
and tele conversion lenses and this gives me a 12 x optical zooming
range
from equivalent 28 mm to equivalent 320 mm...!

An advantage of the electronic viewfinder on an optical viewfinder
is that
you can see immediately if the picture will be over or under
exposed, how is
going the contrast, etc. Otherwise, the Fuji EVF could be better
(it is
significanltly worst than the Sony 707 EVF by lack of definition).
It is
seldom of a great help to control the accuracy of the focus, which
is a
shame and it is my main complaint with the camera that otherwise I
love a
lot!

The autofocus of the Fuji works well in general, while you are
allowed to
dream of the speed of the autofocus of the Olympus E10/E20. Its
accuracy is
perfect when it is not completely wrong. I explain: it seems that
the area
considered by the autofocus is a vbit bigger than the autofocus
rectangle in
the viewfinder. In consequence, on a small subject, if you are not
careful
to avoid to focus on an area close to the border of your subject,
the Fuji
might as well take in consideration the background to set the focus
to this
background (at least it is the explanation I give to many of my out
of focus
shots, explanation that might well be the correct one).

Using 6 mp, fine, soft sharpening, I get generally incredibly sharp
and high
res pictures after some post processing (enhancing the contrast,
sharpening
with Ultra-Sharpen Pro V3). Using normal sharpening results in
artifacts
clearly visible at 6 mp, especially when using a flash. NB: in Auto
mode you
have no choice, the normal sharpening is chosen by the camera, so
to avoid
this I generally use Aperture or Sutter speed priority. If you are
using 3
mp pictures, normal sharpening is OK, the artifacts will not be so
visible.

I have visible distortion in the corners with 6 mp pictures (not
visible at
3 mp). The lens is not perfect... But this also shows that 6 mp,
revealing
this imperfection not visible at 3 mp, provides quite more details
that an
interpolated 3 mp! The real resolution at 6 mp is somewhere between
4 and 5
mp, slightly better than the G2.

The resolution, colors and naturalness of the images I generally
get from
the Fuji in outdoor daylight pictures are in my view the best
available
today in prosumer cameras (better than Sony 707 and Olympus E20)
and can be
even compared with what you get from a 6,000$ camera like a Nikon D1X.

For indoor or low light pictures, things are not perfect,
especially because
you have to be careful to correctly set the white balance, the
automatic WB
being quite disappointing when using flash or with artificial light.

For dark night shot, with exposure longer than 1 second, the Fuji
becomes
kind of a nightmare because of the numerous hot pixels that have
generally
its super CCD. If this is the kind of pictures you specialize in,
get a Sony
707!

I cannot say a lot of the G2, except that its image quality seems
quite OK,
but I refuse to consider a 1,000$ rangefinder camera that would not
offer a
better ergonomy and viewfinder than a 100 $ P&S. The viewfinders of
the
current rangefinder digicams are unacceptable, whatever the brand!
I dream
of a Leica M6 body with a CCD instead of film. Perhaps the new
forthcoming
Panasonic 4 mp digicam using Leica lens will offer at last a correct
viewfinder? I do not know. So, for now, I exclude a priori from my
considerations anything that is not TTL in the digicam world, which
restricts what I would consider to F6900, Minolta D7, Sony 707,
Olympus E20,
and for those who have a lot of money, Canon D30, 1D, Nikon D1x, etc.

Except for dark night shot, I would not exchange my F6900 for
another camera
of this family, even if the exchange was given to me for free with
a 10
times more expensive camera! (except if this was an Hasselblad with
a 20 mp
Kodack digital back of course...!).

I cannot tell you more. The G2 and the Fuji, are belonging to two
quite
different families, on is of the rangefinder family with a limited
zoom, the
other is t=from the TTL family with a much bigger range of focal
lenghts.
You should first know in which family you want to choose your camera,
without considering if it is digital or not and what is the quality

Ok. Talk me out of it...

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

I.J. Smith

Guest

Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Mapril Oliveira

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts