A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 5th 06, 10:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Geir Eivind Mork
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

I'm as one might guess a Minolta user with lots of minolta lenses. I'm
at last considering going digital, but Minolta hasn't exactly been
releasing tons of cameras to consider.

I currently have a Minolta 700si which predates the Minolta 7 which the
Minolta 7d is based on. And I really like the build of it compared to
the cheaper 5-series. But the Minolta 7d is still 6 megapixles and goes
for about US$750-up on the used marked (where i know to look at least)
and the 10 mpx a100 do go for US$1000-up.

So, Either the build quality and (in some way) better handling of the
7d, or do the a100 pack that much punch to be prefered at that price point.

It IS the image quality that is important. I love doing landscapes,
nature, mountainbike / skiing shots and urban nightlife. So it have to
be the one of the two that gives me the best result in that under same
conditions.

Anyone help me choose?
  #2  
Old December 5th 06, 10:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Thomas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

Geir Eivind Mork wrote:
I'm as one might guess a Minolta user with lots of minolta lenses. I'm
at last considering going digital, but Minolta hasn't exactly been
releasing tons of cameras to consider.


One camera is enough for me :-). But the choice is indeed rather
limited.

I currently have a Minolta 700si which predates the Minolta 7 which the
Minolta 7d is based on. And I really like the build of it compared to
the cheaper 5-series.


Absolutely, I have the 500si super, which is certainly a nice camera,
but has a very lightweight build. Luckily, the 5d I have now is of much
better build quality than the 500si. So unless you need a vertical grip
(which is only available for the 7d), you should actually be fine with
the 5d.

The main advantage of the 7d (apart from the vertical grip) is the high
resolution display. Nice, but in my view not essential.

The A100 is a nice upgrade for the pixel count, but it comes at
slightly more noise and with the ugly SONY logo. I agree with you that
the price is a bit high. There is some speculation that Sony is going
to launch a better camera early next year, which would probably let the
price of the A100 drop a bit.

It IS the image quality that is important. I love doing landscapes,
nature, mountainbike / skiing shots and urban nightlife. So it have to
be the one of the two that gives me the best result in that under same
conditions.


If you to low light shots, the 5d and 7d might have a slight edge
because of the lower noise. In just about any other aspect, the A100
should have the edge. But only you know whether that is worth the
additional money.

Thomas

  #3  
Old December 5th 06, 11:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Kilpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 693
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

Geir Eivind Mork wrote:
I'm as one might guess a Minolta user with lots of minolta lenses. I'm
at last considering going digital, but Minolta hasn't exactly been
releasing tons of cameras to consider.

I currently have a Minolta 700si which predates the Minolta 7 which the
Minolta 7d is based on. And I really like the build of it compared to
the cheaper 5-series. But the Minolta 7d is still 6 megapixles and goes
for about US$750-up on the used marked (where i know to look at least)
and the 10 mpx a100 do go for US$1000-up.

So, Either the build quality and (in some way) better handling of the
7d, or do the a100 pack that much punch to be prefered at that price point.

It IS the image quality that is important. I love doing landscapes,
nature, mountainbike / skiing shots and urban nightlife. So it have to
be the one of the two that gives me the best result in that under same
conditions.

Anyone help me choose?



I use both. If you shoot landscapes, there is no contest; the A100 wins.
It has finer detail processing as well as more megapixels, and it
retains far more of the 'grass and twigs' info than any other camera I
have used or own. That includes the Canon 400D and the Nikon D80, which
equal it in megapixels, but just are not as high in resolution for the
sort of fine marginal detail which makes landscape stuff come to life.
The 7D has rather nicer landscape colours and I far prefer its user
interface and feel, but for detail - the A100. That covers landscapes
and nature (the A100 also wins out for fur and feathers).

For mountainbike and skiing shots, the A100 wins when the light is
excellent - when you can shoot at 100 or 200 ISO. It has faster, more
accurate focusing and although the shooting speed is about the same (2.8
frames per second or so, using either JPEG large fine or RAW+JPEG) with
a good card the A100 will shoot 9 or 10 continuous RAW and - I have
tested it.. - over 500 continous JPEGs in a burst! The 7D will lock you
out after a burst of only 3 RAW images or half a dozen JPEGs. There's
not much in the shutter lag between them; they are not as good as the
film 7 or the 700si, maybe about 10 milliseconds lost between pressing
the button and getting the capture. But the A100 will generally be ready
to shoot every single frame you take even when the action is fast.

Where the A100 would fall down would be mountainbike forest trail shots
under tree shade in winter. I've done this, using the original Nikon
D100, at ISO 6400 and even that was barely enough. At 1600, the 7D beats
the A100 hands down; the A100 gets very grainy and noisy. The 7D is
better even at 400 and 800. Low light, fast action, high ISO essential -
you need to do lots of NR post processing on A100 files and lots of
shadow detail is lost.

Urban nightlife, not sure. If you use flash+slow speed synch, which is
my preference for atmosphere and effect in club and carnival type shots,
the A100 does it better out of the box. The flash exposure is more
accurate. Setting the required different compensation factors for flash
and ambient is tedious, through menus, where the 7D offers real dials
you can just turn - and three user memories where you can save such
presets, and get to them instantly. Urban nightlife pix are not wanted
huge generally and ultra fine detail is not critical. I'd rate the 7D
better if you have the skill to test and set up flash, and ideally get a
thyristor-sensor auto flash instead of a 'mock TTL' job. But again the
A100 is smaller, and this can help in clubs, crowds.

Overall I would pick the A100. I just took mine to Barbados for two
weeks, along with our 5D (the 7D stayed at home in the studio, light
cameras preferred for travel). 5D - quite a lot of sensor spots! A100 -
not a sensor spot in sight, dust free. Lots of lens changing, sand, jeep
safari, rain, wind, sun, etc and as yet I've not found one frame out of
a thousand and more from this trip with any sensor dust.

David
  #4  
Old December 5th 06, 11:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Geir Eivind Mork
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

Thomas skrev:

One camera is enough for me :-). But the choice is indeed rather
limited.


When the 7d was relased I was a bit turned down by the though of
investing the price in a 6 mpixel camera. So I waited for a potential 9d
with 8 for a while but realized it was going to be a longshot. Started
searching for used RD-175 just to have something digital but the price
people were asking for that piece of slow, first gen dslr put me off. I
hope it was collectors that actually bought them.

But I'm getting a bit tired of waiting for a new 7d now.

Absolutely, I have the 500si super, which is certainly a nice camera,
but has a very lightweight build. Luckily, the 5d I have now is of much
better build quality than the 500si. So unless you need a vertical grip
(which is only available for the 7d), you should actually be fine with
the 5d.


I love the vertical grip of my 700si. not sure if I need it that bad but
it was a charm to be able to use AA batteries and have the controls on
the flipside.

The A100 is a nice upgrade for the pixel count, but it comes at
slightly more noise and with the ugly SONY logo. I agree with you that
the price is a bit high. There is some speculation that Sony is going
to launch a better camera early next year, which would probably let the
price of the A100 drop a bit.


They possibly saved the Minolta heritage. That alone should be worth
living with that Logo

But if Sony is planning on a 7d -replacement next year it's not going to
make me buying a camera now any easier. But I do have a slightly used
a100 on hand for US$815. But I'm afraid the noise will annoy me. My
greatest Minolta Moments was with ISO 50 Agfa Ultra and ISO 25 Kodak
Royal Gold (You are truly truly missed!) - So I'm a bit picky.

If you to low light shots, the 5d and 7d might have a slight edge
because of the lower noise. In just about any other aspect, the A100
should have the edge. But only you know whether that is worth the
additional money.


The worst thing is that if sony is planning on releasing a new camera,
they better tell me if they're going to use the same sensor but with
better build (as the 5d is vs the 7d) or use another sensor with
possibly less noise. I wouldn't mind paying the inital price of the 7d
for a 7d replacement.

But I do also have high hopes for the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT
16-80 F3.5-4.5 - But that is not out for another 3 months either. I
really need something to replace my trusty old Minolta 24-50mm f4 lense
as standard zoom (because that'll be 36-75mm, which isn't exactly as
wide as I like it. But few lenses I've tried have come close to beeing
as linear and as sharp on the wide end as that one) - or is it anyone
really good i've missed?
  #5  
Old December 6th 06, 02:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Paul Coen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

David Kilpatrick wrote:
accurate focusing and although the shooting speed is about the same (2.8
frames per second or so, using either JPEG large fine or RAW+JPEG) with
a good card the A100 will shoot 9 or 10 continuous RAW and - I have
tested it.. - over 500 continous JPEGs in a burst! The 7D will lock you
out after a burst of only 3 RAW images or half a dozen JPEGs. There's


Do you have the 1.1 firmware on the 7D? I'm getting significantly better
burst rates than that - at least double on RAW, more on JPEG. This is
with 1GB 80x Lexar WA CF cards, or a Sandisk Ultra 2 CF card of the same
size. I can do a couple of frames per second up to about 8 frames, and
it writes them out pretty quickly and I can start shooting again.

If I remember correctly, the image processing and the CF writes were
both improved in the updated firmware.
  #6  
Old December 6th 06, 03:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

Geir Eivind Mork wrote:
I'm as one might guess a Minolta user with lots of minolta lenses. I'm
at last considering going digital, but Minolta hasn't exactly been
releasing tons of cameras to consider.

I currently have a Minolta 700si which predates the Minolta 7 which the
Minolta 7d is based on. And I really like the build of it compared to
the cheaper 5-series. But the Minolta 7d is still 6 megapixles and goes
for about US$750-up on the used marked (where i know to look at least)
and the 10 mpx a100 do go for US$1000-up.

So, Either the build quality and (in some way) better handling of the
7d, or do the a100 pack that much punch to be prefered at that price point.


Or wait and see what Sony do next. I'm really not impressed with the
A100 as I see it as an upgrade from the 5D to 10 Mpix.

I want to see what they do as an upgrade from the 7D to 10 or more Mpix
before I commit.

The A100 goes for US$900 here. Order it from B&H in New York. I'm not
sure how Norwegian customs are, however...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #7  
Old December 6th 06, 11:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Kilpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 693
Default Used Minolta 7d or Sony A100?

Paul Coen wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:

accurate focusing and although the shooting speed is about the same
(2.8 frames per second or so, using either JPEG large fine or
RAW+JPEG) with a good card the A100 will shoot 9 or 10 continuous RAW
and - I have tested it.. - over 500 continous JPEGs in a burst! The 7D
will lock you out after a burst of only 3 RAW images or half a dozen
JPEGs. There's



Do you have the 1.1 firmware on the 7D? I'm getting significantly better
burst rates than that - at least double on RAW, more on JPEG. This is
with 1GB 80x Lexar WA CF cards, or a Sandisk Ultra 2 CF card of the same
size. I can do a couple of frames per second up to about 8 frames, and
it writes them out pretty quickly and I can start shooting again.

If I remember correctly, the image processing and the CF writes were
both improved in the updated firmware.



Yes, if you don't use continuous you can benefit from the fast buffer
write. I have the latest firmware and the 80X Lexar WA remains one of
the faster cards to use - it's what lives in my 7D. I have SanDisk
Extreme III and Ultra II cards but they don't offer any advantage. I
should have said continuous RAW+JPEG (though there does not seem to be
any penalty compared to RAW only) and that you don't necessarily get
locked out - just a delay - with a suitably fast card.

While the Sony A100 will shoot its recommended 6 RAW+JPEGs using the
MemoryStick Duo Pro adaptor and a Sony Pro card, put this adaptor in the
7D and the write speed is so slow it does lock you out. You can take a
couple of pix and then have to wait, almost like with the Dimage 7/A models.

One point about the Sony is that burst duration depends on the subject.
It uses raw file compression, and a simple subject (skier against sky
for example) can give you twice the number of continuous raw shots,
compared to a complex highly detailed one. You also get more shots and
faster shooting at ISO 100 (less noise) presumably because noisy images
are larger to compress. The 7D doesn't use RAW compression and is
unaffected by ISO choice or the type of subject.

David
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony A100 pics - from the USA JaffaB Digital Photography 1 October 12th 06 08:43 PM
Sony A100 Tests Wayne J. Cosshall Digital SLR Cameras 12 October 4th 06 07:02 PM
Sony A100 Tests Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 0 October 2nd 06 08:25 AM
SONY A100 / MINOLTA LENS CONVERSION DANIEL MURRAY Digital SLR Cameras 3 August 10th 06 12:16 AM
Sony A100 available Stéphane Guillard Digital SLR Cameras 0 July 19th 06 04:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.