Minolta oldtimers - what do you think

I had (and sold) the Minolta 28/2.8 - it's just an okay lens. I don't know anything about the other two Tamrons, but the ratings aren't very high on dyxum.com. So if it were me, I'd pass on this set.

Ruvy said:

I can't afford ff camera right now so I thought to start up with film camera and build up my way with lenses first of all. I have an opportunity to buy locally a minolta dynax 7 with lenses that didn't get great reviews and I wonder if in practice they are any good. Opinions and links to images will be most appreciated.

The iffy lenses are Tamron 100-300 and Tamron 24-70. There is also a lens minolta 28 f2.8 that supposed to descent but its not a d or g lens.

Click to expand...

Thanks! mail on its way to you
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

Thanks. It seems like most people feel the same.
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

Thanks

Kenneth B said:

Ruvy,

What are your goals with the FF kit. Since you have MF and an APS-C body I'd just start investing in the glass you want.

Click to expand...

Too wide and different for mied uses such as travel, art, portraits etc. basically it covers the range of 20mm-400mm bt not need to cover all

Kenneth B said:

Also depending on your needs don't forget that the Zeiss lenses arn't the end all be all. IMO Tamron's 28-75 & Sigma's new 24-70 are right up there with the comparable lenses from Canon & Nikon. The Zeiss is sharper but is it $1000 sharper?

Click to expand...

Yes, this very high end very high priced lenses scare me. I didn't know about the tamron but I have had the sigma on a canon and it was very good - got stolen in the desert together with the car several years ago :-()

Kenneth B said:

--
Kenneth Berntsen

Click to expand...

--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

Ruvy said:

Thanks

Sorry if my OP is misleading the replies here. I am using right now both digital and film. Most of my film use is for black and white. My concern is not film or digital but IQ and lens quality of the film camera that I am considering

Click to expand...

Okay, but you still didn't say whether you want the film to end up as digital files so my comments are still relevant. Since you want it for B&W does that mean you have a darkroom or plan to get one? To get the best quality that is the way to go.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

I would buy an Minolta 7D or Minolta 5D or Sony A100 second hand. They go dird cheap most of the time. You can start with a decent lens and buy better lenses when the monney comes in. Don't forget the films need to be developed and printed....

You could also go for a bridge camera and start saving money for an DSLR with good lenses...

Thank you Henry.

You are right of course. the answer is that 90% of the images are scanned to be digital and than get worked on in PS and some goes from there to the printer (not me yet) the other 10% goes as film to a local printer who does wet printing. Problem with that is not enough control - sometimes the do a better job than I do with all my PP but it takes me month to realize that ;-))

Henry Richardson said:

Ruvy said:

Thanks

Sorry if my OP is misleading the replies here. I am using right now both digital and film. Most of my film use is for black and white. My concern is not film or digital but IQ and lens quality of the film camera that I am considering

Click to expand...

Okay, but you still didn't say whether you want the film to end up as digital files so my comments are still relevant. Since you want it for B&W does that mean you have a darkroom or plan to get one? To get the best quality that is the way to go.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Click to expand...

--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

It's like knowing Windows 7 so well but you don't know how to use the Command Prompt and don't understand DOS. Much like the case in which you understand how a digital sensor captures light but CAN'T understand how film emulsions are so sensitive to the color spectrum.

Film photography is the FOUNDATION to where you stand as a photographer. If you skip the opportunity to learn, at least it's history, then you are like a computer wizard who doesn't know DOS.

If you have money to spare, this is a golden opportunity

Thanks for the interesting thought. Its worth looking into it and I'll do but I am using film and love it too and find it not as difficult or costly as some think it is.
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

Thanks for the reassurance about the camera. Being totally new to the Minolta lines I need it.
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

hello Ruvy ,

The A900 and A850 require very good optics because of their high resolution . Using mediocre lenses devaluate this camera's . The only good ones will be some sony primes (as the 50 mm 1.4) and the carl zeiss .
see "lenses" :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony-a900.shtml

At this moment i have only the zeiss 85mm and the sony 50 mm . Or i wait for more zeiss lenses to come or i will buy the zeiss distagon 25 mm M42 with adapter (when i have the money).
As an alternative for wide angle lenses i use the 85 mm to make a pano :



greetings,
guido

Thank you JunMel for the vote of confidence. About the need to know the past in order to get the most out of the present its usually true but I think you may have stretched it a bit in my favor. Thanks but the truth is that I just enjoy shooting film and it doesn't cost me that much.
--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

Thanks Guido - good hearing from you again

Yes, I am aware of this need which is the reason for this thread. I ma convinced the lenses this guy offer are not what I want but reading this thread makes me hopeful and i believe that there are other' less costly lenses than those you have mentioned. I hope to get one soon just to feel that I am going somewhere and not just treading this forum.

--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

Can you get your film scanned when it is processed?? That is the key!! If not, just go digital. I have a Minolta 9XI, Dimage Scanner, and a full complement of lens gathering dust. I moved to Canon 7 years ago. I have now more invested in L-glass than I want to admit.. If you do not have a need to print larger than a 8X10 the 7 series and sub-pro glass should be fine to start out. The hidden costs of going digital are quite a shock. Look to go to a generation or two back. Photoshop Elements instead of Photoshop. A top flight printer that is 2 years old. Windows instead of Mac. Do not invest to much in glass in the beginning, that will dictate which system you are bound to. The only alternatives I have 7 years ago was Nikon or Canon. If Minolta/Sony were then what they are today, I never would have left the fold. Jak

Thanks Jak

You went a longer way with cameras than I did but I feel that I am doing the right thing. Your advice about starting with less than best lenses have merits that I should consider but if I take it than I may as well do it at the time I buy the a850. The whole idea of starting now is to slowly collect one lens at a time and be able to appreciate it. I think I would rather get only one good lens now that I'll not need to replace later. I did check some of the lenses that has been suggested here and some are sub $100 so is the camera so for $200-300 I can have a ff (film) system and grow from there

jaktracy said:

Can you get your film scanned when it is processed?? That is the key!! If not, just go digital. I have a Minolta 9XI, Dimage Scanner, and a full complement of lens gathering dust. I moved to Canon 7 years ago. I have now more invested in L-glass than I want to admit.. If you do not have a need to print larger than a 8X10 the 7 series and sub-pro glass should be fine to start out. The hidden costs of going digital are quite a shock. Look to go to a generation or two back. Photoshop Elements instead of Photoshop. A top flight printer that is 2 years old. Windows instead of Mac. Do not invest to much in glass in the beginning, that will dictate which system you are bound to. The only alternatives I have 7 years ago was Nikon or Canon. If Minolta/Sony were then what they are today, I never would have left the fold. Jak

Click to expand...

--
Ruvy
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il
recent albums at:
http://www.ruvyamir.co.il/gallery , http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
older: http://www.pbase.com/ruvy ,

My upgrade path has been as follows:

Film 7 - still have and will not part with it...
KM7D - a great camera but I always wanted full frame so now I will sell it
A900 - just got it a few weeks ago - WOW !

After moving the KM7D I always regarded this as an interim step to getting full frame whenever KM (or now Sony) brought one out that I could (just about) afford.

Given the above I only bought one cropped sensor lens (18-200 travel zoom which I will sell) and I have continued to invest in "reasonable quality" full frame lenses, mix of new and secondhand as and when I have had the chance to buy them. (eg Min85 F1.4G, Sigma 70-200 F2.8, KM17-35 F2.8/4, KM24-105 etc

As much as I love the Film7 I would advise that you go digital for your main camera at least - the KM7D is a highly specced camera albeit "only" 6MP. Buy some quality full frame lenses as and when you get the chance, then as soon as FF A850/900 etc comes within your price range make the switch.

The handling of KM7D and A900 are very similar and I am sure you would enjoy using the 7D even if its not the ultimate camera you are aiming for

I would not bother with the lenses you mentioned. If you are going to invest in full frame digital some time in the future you want to invest in reasonable quality (does not have to be new) glass.

To get you started a 50 1.4 or 1.7 would be a great start...

Hope this is useful ?
David

When I started with minolta I started with the dynax500si - I think - it'll be in the loft with my other old film cameras. I waited a long time to move to the a100 which I loved with the idea of re-using my lenses, over the years I replaced them all and earlier this year got the a700 (still got the a100 as backup) I love this camera it does everything I need, I have some decent glass too so am happy.

What is my point? Well of the lenses you mention the only one I used was the 28mm 2.8 and as everyone else says it was ok - that's it.

My question or thought is more one of how many people refer to 35mm these days - I know the lens conversion factor for my cropped sensor - so that when I get my 70-300G out I know what it would be - but I never think that way - I see a photo and decide which of my lenses is best suited to what I want to capture.

So now to the point (finally!) you already have both film and digital - if your goal is really FF because that is what you desire - save your money continue with the kit you have and buy the real lenses you require in the future when you buy your FF body - rather than trying to make do or get used to kit because it is a perceived bargain.

BTW http://www.dyxum.com is generally the site most of us use for lens info.

Hope this helps

Paddy

If it was me, I would think it in a different way:

If I want to shoot film, it is for its characteristics (that are not found in digital medium) not for economy. In such a case, I would rather buy a used medium format film camera not a 35sm SLR even if that 35mm camera was/is the best film SLR camera ever created.

Otherwise I would buy a digital SLR: Minolta KM 7D is an inexpensive option which is still a great camera (in particular if you don't mind manual focusing). If you can stretch your budget, an Alpha 700 is even better and can be found for amazing prices around.

I would not opt for film because of budget. Remember, the costs of film is not cheap and in about 1-2 years it can easily cost you $200 or$300.

Ramin

Ramin

Don't understand your comment on this ?

Autofocus on KM7D works just fine - quick and accurate on all my lenses - not really any different to my A900. Do you have other experience ?
David

raminolta said:

If it was me, I would think it in a different way:

If I want to shoot film, it is for its characteristics (that are not found in digital medium) not for economy. In such a case, I would rather buy a used medium format film camera not a 35sm SLR even if that 35mm camera was/is the best film SLR camera ever created.

Otherwise I would buy a digital SLR: Minolta KM 7D is an inexpensive option which is still a great camera (in particular if you don't mind manual focusing). If you can stretch your budget, an Alpha 700 is even better and can be found for amazing prices around.

I would not opt for film because of budget. Remember, the costs of film is not cheap and in about 1-2 years it can easily cost you $200 or$300.

Ramin

Click to expand...

These were taken with my Maxxum 7 and Minolta 28-85 macro as stated a very nice lens.

I had to some editing to get rid of some of the grain, keep in mind that I am not that good but shows what the lens & camera combo could do in more capable hands.







Gene