TOTAL Lag Time for M7D

Heck, I'm sure at this point in photography, KM and the rest realize that you can't be successful with delay. Here's the dilemma:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right. When the owner took it, I then saw the lens change for focus - FAST!

However, when I showed him that another of his lenses worked with the 300D, it wasn't exactly as fast.

What do we face with the M7D? Never having shot with the Dynax/Maxxum 7, I don't have a personal point of reference. What can we expect - existing glass?

Anyone with thoughts?

--
JusGene
http://www.pbase.com

Gene,

I've quoted from LL article written last year here..

"Minolta claims that the Maxxum 7's autofocus is the world's fastest. I'm not in a position to dispute or confirm that claim, but let's just say I can believe it."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-04-06.shtml

Not sure if its really that good, but I'm very happy working with 7 and quite surprise that its able to focus at some very low light condition.

JusGene said:

Heck, I'm sure at this point in photography, KM and the rest
realize that you can't be successful with delay. Here's the dilemma:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.
When the owner took it, I then saw the lens change for focus - FAST!

However, when I showed him that another of his lenses worked with
the 300D, it wasn't exactly as fast.

What do we face with the M7D? Never having shot with the
Dynax/Maxxum 7, I don't have a personal point of reference. What
can we expect - existing glass?

Anyone with thoughts?

--
JusGene
http://www.pbase.com

Click to expand...

I don´t feel that the AF on Dynax 7 is that fast, with my Minolta 300/4 G APO i really think that it is kind of slow and unsecure. But i havent tried any other cam either.

JusGene said:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.

Click to expand...

Funny my Nikon owning friend said the same thing about my Maxxum 7 a few weeks ago. And that was with a Tokina 24-200 mounted on it.

Sunki, yes the 300/4 G is a bit slow, but then again it is a design from 1988. The newer and shorter lenses focus faster than that.

Darrin

--
Remember, never eat more than you can lift.

A couple of years ago; I was ona trip and compared my Maxxum 9 to a Canon EOS-Iv that a friend had and did not not notice any difference. This was across a broad range of lens but primarily with the 80-200/2.8 zoom and the Canon equivalent.

Pop Photo in 1999 or early 2000

I believe the German Fotograof and the French mag Chave done AF timing comparisons with the 7 and it has held its own but I cannot give a specific reference for those.

Minoltians IMO have a inferiority complex when it comes to AF speed . I haven't seen many complaints form the the 7 owners that seem to represent a reasonable basis for determing a speed deficiency. Jose uses a 7 all the time with his tennis phpotpgrpahy and doesn't seem to have a problem.

Cheers
Tim

Darrin Behm said:

JusGene said:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.

Click to expand...

Funny my Nikon owning friend said the same thing about my Maxxum 7
a few weeks ago. And that was with a Tokina 24-200 mounted on it.

Sunki, yes the 300/4 G is a bit slow, but then again it is a design
from 1988. The newer and shorter lenses focus faster than that.

Darrin

--
Remember, never eat more than you can lift.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the impression fastness or slowness of AF could be due to..

• AF Noise, silent AF like USM, SSM etc give an impression that the AF is faster? (I'm more refering to small lens here, think it really make a difference in those big guns!)

• AF behaviour, my friend's Pentax MZ-S, tends to be more zappy, the AF move more aggressively comparing to my 7. However, it always takes sometime to make minor adjustment around the point before confirming the focus. So the total time duration may not be less than my 7 which slower but more decisive.

Just think out loud...

Timothy S Broadley said:

Pop Photo in 1999 or early 2000
the EOS-3 and the F100 which were all brand new at the time and as
I recall they Minolta held more than its own althought there was
very little to choose from

I believe the German Fotograof and the French mag Chave done AF
timing comparisons with the 7 and it has held its own but I cannot
give a specific reference for those.

Minoltians IMO have a inferiority complex when it comes to AF speed
. I haven't seen many complaints form the the 7 owners that seem to
represent a reasonable basis for determing a speed deficiency. Jose
uses a 7 all the time with his tennis phpotpgrpahy and doesn't seem
to have a problem.

Cheers
Tim

Darrin Behm said:

JusGene said:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.

Click to expand...

Funny my Nikon owning friend said the same thing about my Maxxum 7
a few weeks ago. And that was with a Tokina 24-200 mounted on it.

Sunki, yes the 300/4 G is a bit slow, but then again it is a design
from 1988. The newer and shorter lenses focus faster than that.

Darrin

--
Remember, never eat more than you can lift.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There will always be lens affects; but I knoiw the Pop Photo comparison was done with both a 50mm normal and a 300/2.8 lens and my experience with the Canon versus the Minolta and the in lens focusing was that it did not make that much of difference and I think all the tests that have been done tend to bear that out. I am not saying there is not a difference ; just that is small when actually measured regardless of focal lenght. certainly the bigger focal lenses of Canon especially will be faster because they have an updated design whereas Minolta's dates back to the late 80s.

Now I don't know how you can compare af spees if the systems is still hunting when one achieves focus. The time to focus should be exactly that...the time when focus is achieved so I don't understand how something can be slower but gets to focus faster? If I am undrestanding what you say correctly

Cheers
Tim

Desmond Lim said:

• AF Noise, silent AF like USM, SSM etc give an impression that the

AF is faster? (I'm more refering to small lens here, think it
really make a difference in those big guns!)

• AF behaviour, my friend's Pentax MZ-S, tends to be more zappy,

the AF move more aggressively comparing to my 7. However, it always
takes sometime to make minor adjustment around the point before
confirming the focus. So the total time duration may not be less
than my 7 which slower but more decisive.

Just think out loud...

Timothy S Broadley said:

Pop Photo in 1999 or early 2000
the EOS-3 and the F100 which were all brand new at the time and as
I recall they Minolta held more than its own althought there was
very little to choose from

I believe the German Fotograof and the French mag Chave done AF
timing comparisons with the 7 and it has held its own but I cannot
give a specific reference for those.

Minoltians IMO have a inferiority complex when it comes to AF speed
. I haven't seen many complaints form the the 7 owners that seem to
represent a reasonable basis for determing a speed deficiency. Jose
uses a 7 all the time with his tennis phpotpgrpahy and doesn't seem
to have a problem.

Cheers
Tim

Darrin Behm said:

JusGene said:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.

Click to expand...

Funny my Nikon owning friend said the same thing about my Maxxum 7
a few weeks ago. And that was with a Tokina 24-200 mounted on it.

Sunki, yes the 300/4 G is a bit slow, but then again it is a design
from 1988. The newer and shorter lenses focus faster than that.

Darrin

--
Remember, never eat more than you can lift.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have a 300 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 100 macro 2.8, as a few reference points for you, Gene. And I can tell you, I'd put it up against anything. Not even kidding. I've shot a lot of wildlife, and sports with the Maxxum 7, and it misses, just about nothing. Very sweet AF system. If the M7D is that fast, we've got no worries.

JusGene said:

Heck, I'm sure at this point in photography, KM and the rest
realize that you can't be successful with delay. Here's the dilemma:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.
When the owner took it, I then saw the lens change for focus - FAST!

However, when I showed him that another of his lenses worked with
the 300D, it wasn't exactly as fast.

What do we face with the M7D? Never having shot with the
Dynax/Maxxum 7, I don't have a personal point of reference. What
can we expect - existing glass?

Anyone with thoughts?

--
JusGene
http://www.pbase.com

Click to expand...

--
Sol

Sometimes a photograph captures reality.
Sometimes a photograph captures the imagination.
Ultimately, a photograph simply captures a moment in time.
And then, . . . it lives forever.

Hi Tim,

Timothy S Broadley said:

Now I don't know how you can compare af spees if the systems is
still hunting when one achieves focus. The time to focus should be
exactly that...the time when focus is achieved so I don't
understand how something can be slower but gets to focus faster? If
I am undrestanding what you say correctly

Click to expand...

I totally agreed with what you've said.

What I saying was the 'impression' of fastness or slowness. Let me explain again, camera A move into near position to a focus point faster, but fidget over the point awhile before achieving focus. While camera B move slower to near position, but doesn't fidget much before achieving focus. So total time taken for both to be in focus may be the same but the camera A may feel faster and snappier.

Hope this will clarifies.

Cheers!
Des

I also have the 7 and it is very fast. I acutally tried using a first generation Minolta AF lens (75-300) on a 7000, 7000i, QTsi, 4, and 7. (My local photo store had an interesting collection of used and new Minolta's in stock). I was considering buying the 7000 and 7000i and that lens for my collection, but also wanted to be able to use them. I also wanted to figure out if buying old lenses was a good idea or if it would cripple my 7.

The old lens on the old cameras (particularly the 7000) was frustratingly slow. In the lighting of the store, the 7000 had difficulty locking on to medium contrast subjects at 300mm. The 7000i was somewhat better, but still pretty slow. I believe that these cameras combined with the silent focusing of Canon USM lenses combine to give the legend of Minolta slow focusing.

I then tried the lens on the QTsi. This was the lowest level "si" camera Minolta made (fully automatic with no ability to adjust exposure - an interchangable lens P&S). The focusing speed difference was amazing. Not that it was a super fast camera, but it was a lot faster with that lens than the 7000. It also locked onto subjects that the 7000 couldn't.

The 4 was faster still, and the 7 was significantly faster.

There is one issue with Minolta AF cameras, however, that leads some who are used to other cameras to complain. If the subject is very out-of-focus, the camera always starts searching by focusing in towards closer settings. If the subject is furter away from the camera, but well out-of-focus, (fairly typical with long focal length lenses) the camera will normally search all the way in before focusing out. If you have a close focusing lens, it can take a long time for it o finish the hunt. On the otherhand if the camera is fairly close to focus, it will snap right to the subject.

If I'm waiting for a subject to come into my field of view, with a long lens, I will usually pre focus just past where I expect it to show up. That way if it hunts it hunts in the right direction and is very fast. With my 7 I can do this with the AF/MF button, but with my 700si, I'll AF at a point on the ground. With a lens with a focus limiter, I will use that in case I miss.

Tom

Sol said:

JusGene said:

Heck, I'm sure at this point in photography, KM and the rest
realize that you can't be successful with delay. Here's the dilemma:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.
When the owner took it, I then saw the lens change for focus - FAST!

However, when I showed him that another of his lenses worked with
the 300D, it wasn't exactly as fast.

What do we face with the M7D? Never having shot with the
Dynax/Maxxum 7, I don't have a personal point of reference. What
can we expect - existing glass?

Anyone with thoughts?

--
JusGene
http://www.pbase.com

Click to expand...

--
Sol

Sometimes a photograph captures reality.
Sometimes a photograph captures the imagination.
Ultimately, a photograph simply captures a moment in time.
And then, . . . it lives forever.

Click to expand...

Des:

Assuming lens equality i.e both 50mm or at least similar focal lengths; it would surprise me that the Pentax is even close to the 7. Now if the lenses were different who knows!
Tim

Desmond Lim said:

Desmond Lim said:

Now I don't know how you can compare af spees if the systems is
still hunting when one achieves focus. The time to focus should be
exactly that...the time when focus is achieved so I don't
understand how something can be slower but gets to focus faster? If
I am undrestanding what you say correctly

Click to expand...

I totally agreed with what you've said.

What I saying was the 'impression' of fastness or slowness. Let me
explain again, camera A move into near position to a focus point
faster, but fidget over the point awhile before achieving focus.
While camera B move slower to near position, but doesn't fidget
much before achieving focus. So total time taken for both to be in
focus may be the same but the camera A may feel faster and snappier.

Hope this will clarifies.

Cheers!
Des

Click to expand...

On one side:
Minolta Maxxum 7, with 24-105

On the other side:
10D, with 17-40L

My conclusions:

• AF is much faster and more silent with the canon, but this is probably due to the lens, which has USM.
• the reliability of AF and its ability to lock in low light (or on moving subjects) is better on the minolta. It is hard to say how much better, but it IS better or maybe it is just that I am still not used to my 10D (however it took no time to me for getting used to my faithful maxxum 7 AF).

Plus one more (out of topic) point: if the AF is goofed, you can still do precise MF with the minolta thanks to its large & bright viewfinder. It is more difficult on the 10D.

Fortunately, I do not shoot that often in low light

To answer your question: if the M7D AF is the same as the one of the Maxxum 7, you should be fine. Only problem: the sensors might be a little out-centered due to the crop factor.

--
Regards,

Xavier

Hi Xavier,

Will you able to test 10D with another standard zoom similar to 24-105?

I've no doubt on your finding, but the lenses are just 2 different animals to compare with. Since we are discussing about the AF performance of a camera (and not lens). Perhaps test both with a 50mm prime will be the best since Canon's 50mm doesn't have USM as well (AFAIK).

Cheers!
Des

xavier said:

On one side:
Minolta Maxxum 7, with 24-105

On the other side:
10D, with 17-40L

My conclusions:

• AF is much faster and more silent with the canon, but this is

probably due to the lens, which has USM.

• the reliability of AF and its ability to lock in low light (or on

moving subjects) is better on the minolta. It is hard to say how
much better, but it IS better or maybe it is just that I am still
not used to my 10D (however it took no time to me for getting used
to my faithful maxxum 7 AF).

Plus one more (out of topic) point: if the AF is goofed, you can
still do precise MF with the minolta thanks to its large & bright
viewfinder. It is more difficult on the 10D.

Fortunately, I do not shoot that often in low light

To answer your question: if the M7D AF is the same as the one of
the Maxxum 7, you should be fine. Only problem: the sensors might
be a little out-centered due to the crop factor.

--
Regards,

Xavier

Click to expand...

xavier said:

Plus one more (out of topic) point: if the AF is goofed, you can
still do precise MF with the minolta thanks to its large & bright
viewfinder. It is more difficult on the 10D.

Click to expand...

Don't expect this to be an advantage on the M7D if it has a 1.5x crop. Unless, of course, Minolta does something incredibly cool and magnifies the viewfinder.

--
JCDoss

Desmond Lim said:

Will you able to test 10D with another standard zoom similar to
24-105?

Click to expand...

I wish I would. The 17-40L is my only canon lens right now. I plan to get a 70-200 (either canon USM or sigma HSM) hopefully next week, but this will not provide me a "fair candidate for comparison" with my minolta lenses..

Anyway, the AF speed of the minolta is not bad to my eyes (even after I got accustomed to the fast and silent AF lock of the 10D).

Desmond Lim said:

I've no doubt on your finding, but the lenses are just 2 different
animals to compare with. Since we are discussing about the AF
performance of a camera (and not lens).

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. The comparison I posted was a bit unfair; I just wanted to share my experience (and agree that it is not very worthy because the lenses are not comparable). Though, the good point for you my comparison it is that reliability of the maxxum 7 AF system is great compared to the 10D AF: I do not speak about back/front focus problems, which I have not experienced; but about AF sensitivity in low ligth/difficult environment. A quick test of the D70 at a photo show did not show me better results either. So the M7D should be above average in this area.

Another advantage of the maxxum: the AF brackets are very small compared to the big rectangles you can see on other cameras. If this information is correct, you know EXACTLY where you try to autofocus on. I cannot say that with the 10D big AF rectangles.

For my photography style, AF speed is not extremely usefull, but precision and ability to focus in low light are. This is even more true when manual focus is not a safe option, due to smallish VF.

Desmond Lim said:

Perhaps test both with a
50mm prime will be the best since Canon's 50mm doesn't have USM as
well (AFAIK).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I do not own it.

BTW, I do not understand why KM took so much time releasing SSM and did only release it on very high end lenses.

It is much harder to me to understand why there are NO sigma HSM lenses for minolta mount. I guess that the existence of SSM lenses proves that ultrasonic minolta lenses are feasible.
Is there a technical problem here ?

--
Regards,

Xavier

Member said:

Don't expect this to be an advantage on the M7D if it has a 1.5x
crop. Unless, of course, Minolta does something incredibly cool
and magnifies the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Actually I believe that the "incredible thing" that would provide us better viewfinders on DSLRs is "full frame sensor" (or nearly): you can just not gather more light into a bright VF if you start by dividing the area of the focusing screen by more than 2. Magnifying a smaller image would give at best a large and dark image (not great either).

--
Regards,

Xavier

xavier211199 said:

BTW, I do not understand why KM took so much time releasing SSM and
did only release it on very high end lenses.
It is much harder to me to understand why there are NO sigma HSM
lenses for minolta mount. I guess that the existence of SSM lenses
proves that ultrasonic minolta lenses are feasible.
Is there a technical problem here ?

Click to expand...

I guess Minolta lens sales drop like meteoroid during the last few years. Local stores here don't even bother to stock up Minolta cameras, lenses and accessories. Without demand, I don't think Minolta will produce more SSM lenses.

I heard that Sigma always do reversed engineering out of Minolta equipment and produce compatible version. So they need to wait till Minolta stabilitized and commit on the SSM technology before they act on it (provided there is demand for them as well).

I do hope to see changes after 7D released, I really want to try, test, touch, feel.. a lens before buying, and no more mail order!! (

Cheers!
Des

Desmond Lim said:

I guess Minolta lens sales drop like meteoroid during the last few
years. Local stores here don't even bother to stock up Minolta
cameras, lenses and accessories. Without demand, I don't think
Minolta will produce more SSM lenses.

Click to expand...

It is true that minolta has probably lost quite a lot of lenses sales. In my opinion this is the result of a lack of effort in satisfying advanced (D)SLRs users in the last few years.

As far as I know, they sell a LOT of entry level SLRs in Europe (and especially here in France), but their only significant release for more advanced users in the last three years has bee the two (very pricy) SSM lenses, so they are not doing well in the advanced or pro users market. I regret this situation and I have to admit it was one of the reasons that drove me to think about canon or nikon, for my DSLR. If the 7D had been released at PMA, it might have been different

It is really very sad; they have wonderful camera technology as proves the maxxum 7. My maxxum 7 + 24-105 gives me more or less all what I want to shoot film (I have a basic 70-300 as well), so I will not chage it.

Desmond Lim said:

I heard that Sigma always do reversed engineering out of Minolta
equipment and produce compatible version. So they need to wait till
Minolta stabilitized and commit on the SSM technology before they
act on it (provided there is demand for them as well).

Click to expand...

Indeed sigma usually reverse engineer lens mounts, which is very unfortunate. Compatibility problems have been reported for canon or nikon cameras for instance.

Yet, minolta has released SSM technology and I would expect this to be enough for sigma to copy it.

Desmond Lim said:

I do hope to see changes after 7D released, I really want to try,
test, touch, feel.. a lens before buying, and no more mail order!!
(

Click to expand...

I wish you are right. If the 7D is a good body, with no big limitation and some inovation like AS, sales for higher end minolta lenses should go up.

--
Regards,

Xavier

The real strength of the Maxxum 7 is not on its AF speed. Yes, it is fast but more important is its ability to focus in very dim light, even without firing the infrared assist. It consistently outperforms other brands in dim light.

Another less mentioned one is the additional f2.8 AF sensor. If you have a f2.8 lens, it nail the focus much more precisely. It is especially apparent at the wide end.

Biu

JusGene said:

Heck, I'm sure at this point in photography, KM and the rest
realize that you can't be successful with delay. Here's the dilemma:

I sampled another 300D earlier this week and with the kit lens
focus was SO-O-O-O fast that I thought it wasn't working right.
When the owner took it, I then saw the lens change for focus - FAST!

However, when I showed him that another of his lenses worked with
the 300D, it wasn't exactly as fast.

What do we face with the M7D? Never having shot with the
Dynax/Maxxum 7, I don't have a personal point of reference. What
can we expect - existing glass?

Anyone with thoughts?

--
JusGene
http://www.pbase.com

Click to expand...

Desmond Lim said:

I guess Minolta lens sales drop like meteoroid during the last few
years. Local stores here don't even bother to stock up Minolta
cameras, lenses and accessories. Without demand, I don't think
Minolta will produce more SSM lenses.

Click to expand...

This statement right here is going to keep lots of people from investing in a Minolta system.

--
JCDoss