DSLR q's, or 'How Do I Move into the Digital Era?'

[sirenmoses]

Found a [STRIKE]Canon 10D fs locally w/acces & 2 lens (28-105 & 70-210) for a reasonable amount of moola[/STRIKE]. EDIT: no return call after leaving msg.

Some years back I used to shoot action photography on spec, and invested in Minolta, to the tune of [Edit: specs]

2 Maxxum 600si bodies
Minolta lens's: AF 28-80 4.5-6
" AF 75-300 1.45-5.6
" AF 80-300 2.8
" 3500xi remote flash
Manfrotto by Bogen 3249 monopod
Pelican 1450 case w/padded insert
+ accessories for all above.

When digi was becoming the future I was busy with other things, and just last year picked up a pocket digicam here on Mudbay.

So, I'd like to go dig w/my SLR, but brief research a few years ago says Minolta is outta the game. I'm not looking to shoot pro/on spec again (says I), but I'm enjoying the little camera so much I'd love to see what a big boy can do.

2 q's: [STRIKE]is the 10D worth any kind of money?[/STRIKE] and
is there any way to integrate components from my Minolta system into a digital capture?

[STRIKE]I know, you'll need lens specs, and I'll post 'em up in a few days,[/STRIKE] so put your thinking caps on folks.

when I asked the local/go-to shop [STRIKE]where I got my monopod[/STRIKE], they basically wanted me to start over. I don't wanna start over, I got as much money in the Minoltas as my 1st cruiser cost.

Thanks in advance...

 

[SimonInAustralia]

Sony took over Minolta and use the Minolta autofocus lens/flash systems in their Sony Alpha digital SLR products.

So, if your Minolta gear is autofocus, it should work with the new Sony Alpha cameras.

Though this is just from information I have read, I do not have any experience with this gear at all, so do some searching for more detailed info.

 

[sirenmoses]

Sony took over Minolta and use the Minolta autofocus lens/flash systems in their Sony Alpha digital SLR products.

exactly the information I needed to figure out where to begin searching, thank you.

 

[Filmpros]

Minolta lenses with an adapter will not work well on most cameras. The Sony Alpha is the only one that I know of that may take the lenses you have.

Canon is nice as well. However, they are just not built like a Nikon.

The Sony cameras are OK as well. If you already own very expensive pro lenses, this may be the best route for you.

However, at the end of the day, I agree with the local shop. Start over. The latest generation of cameras and lenses are much improved over what you could buy even just a few years ago.


If it were me, I would go out and buy a Nikon and research the best lenses they make for your application. For example, the best inexpensive walk around lens is their 18-200mm. This lens is rated 4 out 5 for performance which is impressive

It is the lens that makes the biggest difference in the end. Buy the best glass you can afford if you want the best results. Nikon's new 14-24 and 24-70 G Series Lenses are pro lenses rated a 5 out of 5 for performance.

This is a good website for critical reviews of Nikon lenses.

NRFOTO Bjrn Rrslett

 

[unclegit]

Canon is nice as well. However, they are just not built like a Nikon.

Not really true - both manufacture top rate gear - the difference is mostly ergonomics with minor differences that 99.99% of people won't be able to tell looking at a print / web image stripped of EXIF data.

It's the final result that matters - and that's all the nut that holds the wheel

Canon Vs Nikon is like PC Vs Mac - pick what works for you and go with it.

 

[zebrabeefj40]

'Nother way to keep the old stuff is to keep shooting film and scan it in after. Nikon scanners work well and are not very expensive. Nikon still supports them too (recently upgraded the software for mine...for free from Nikon's website).

Nick

 

[siglo]

I would suggest visting Dyxum.com - home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer
it's one of the largest Minolta/Sony SLR community online with very useful information. If you still have your minolta auto focus glass you can just mount them to any sony DSLR.

Sony currently have in body image stabilization that will work with any lens. So all you lenses would work with it unlike Canon or Nikon where you have to pay a premium for the lenses with image stabilization.

 

[Godwin]

I recently made the move from film to digital. My film equipment was Nikon and the only piece of equipment that has changed has been the camera body. My lenses are all AIS Nikons and thus are compatible with the newer digital body. One disadvantage in using the older manual lenses is a lack of autofocus and some other automated functions but for what I do that is not a hindrance. Used manual lenses, often in very good condition, can be had fairly cheaply so this is one more available option for transitioning from film to digital.

 

[d0ubledown]

list your minolta lenses? if theve worked awesome for you..go with the sony alpha. i disagree with starting over, even more so if youve got a stable of decent glass. i wouldnt buy a 2nd hand dslr if i were to switch mounts. especially one of the earlier generations like the 10D...and the lenses you mention with it dont seem to be to great unless they're both F4 or faster. if you can get that deal for $100 or so...go for it. otherwise, youll be better off finding a used sony cam. if you're on a tight budget.


sonys got some decent cameras.

 

[sirenmoses]

Great info folks, thanks. Sounds like a new Sony Alpha might be the cost effective way to go.

Listed my goodies, scanner's not my style [still have film costs plus scanner purchase], and I'll check out that website.

 

[d0ubledown]

of the lenses you listed...the 80-200 2.8 (im guessing the black one?) is worth staying with sony. if your 70-300 is the all metal one, big brother to the 'beercan' 70-210 F4, thats a decent one too, but redundant as youve got the faster 80-200. unfortunately the flash wont work unless the body has manual flash control and you can use the hi/lo button on the flash along with manual exposure on the body.

but yes...getting a sony or even a maxxum 5D (7D's are problematic...ask me how i know ) will get your feet wet with digital. the standard 18-70 kit lenses are decent, unless youve got the $$ to spring for a CZ 16-80.

im hoping to replace my 7D with an A700...but they're still a bit out of my budget

 

[sirenmoses]

Actually, the flash is IR and can stand alone, which lets the on-board flash take care of fill while it gives highlights (or lets black dogs be more than a blur when going over a jump), so I think I'll be okay there.

Yep, the 2.8 cost as much as a film body, so hoping to move it over. Nice to have the other larger lens so I'd always have film ready to shoot, but going digi makes that a moot point.

 

[Bogo]

Just a few semi random observations and comments.

Canon Vs Nikon is like PC Vs Mac - pick what works for you and go with it.

Except that the differences are much less except for the sensors. Canon is out ahead there. Sony and Nikon use the same sensors in their top end cameras. I don't know about the cheaper ones. I really don't follow this anymore as I bought into Canon predigital and have stayed with them. Lenses are forever. I sometimes still use a 22 year old EF 50/1.8 lens. I Now tend to prefer to use the EF 50/1.4 I have as it has full time manual focus override.

Canon seams to emphasize capturing real life accurately while Nikon looks to be trying to make their captures like film captures the light. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. In the end if you use RAW files you can go any way you want with either.

list your minolta lenses? if theve worked awesome for you..go with the sony alpha. i disagree with starting over, even more so if youve got a stable of decent glass. i wouldnt buy a 2nd hand dslr if i were to switch mounts. especially one of the earlier generations like the 10D...and the lenses you mention with it dont seem to be to great unless they're both F4 or faster. if you can get that deal for $100 or so...go for it. otherwise, youll be better off finding a used sony cam. if you're on a tight budget.


sonys got some decent cameras.

For used bodies, 20D or later from Canon, or any 1 or 5 series Canon. I don't follow Nikon.

Lenses are what makes and breaks a photography kit. Lenses are also forever like tripods and studio lights. The current crop of image sensors are stressing and exceeding all but the best older lens designs. This doesn't mean that the images are blurry when blown up to 8x10. It just means that many lenses are not as sharp as what the sensor can capture. It is causing both Canon and Nikon to have to revamp their lens lineups. Any lens design over 10 years old, except a very small few, is at a severe disadvantage. 35mm film just doesn't have anywhere near the usable optical resolution of a modern image sensor. Those old lenses were designed to be good enough for film. If anything this is the reason to dump the old lenses. With my better lenses on my 20D with an 8MP crop sensor it is easy to get shots that can be blown up to 11"x14". That was rare with 35mm film. The crop sensor is 1/2 the area of the 35mm negative.

I would suggest visting Dyxum.com - home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer
it's one of the largest Minolta/Sony SLR community online with very useful information. If you still have your minolta auto focus glass you can just mount them to any sony DSLR.

Sony currently have in body image stabilization that will work with any lens. So all you lenses would work with it unlike Canon or Nikon where you have to pay a premium for the lenses with image stabilization.

In the lens image stabilization is the only way to go. It performs much better over a wider range of types of vibrations that influence image quality. Plus you get to see a stabilized image in the viewfinder and that helps you focus better.

• If you want to do allot of flash photography, Nikon is the way to go.
• If you want to do allot of sports or wildlife photography then Canon is the way to go.
• For architecture the nod is to Canon with the three tilt-shift lenses in their lineup. Otherwise they are roughly equivalent for architecture.

If none of those is a priority for you, then look at the lenses they have that cover what you want to do.

Again and again I see lots of people tout the 18-200 from Nikon as an excellent lens. Sorry, it isn't. It's above average, but that's it. All 10x+ range zoom lenses suck in one way or another. For the casual photographer it is a fine walk around. From Photozone's reviews it looks like Canon's 18-200 is a bit better optically than Nikon's. I'm not surprised as Canon was the first company to make a usable 10X+ zoom lens.

Unless the lens rating site objectively checks the lens against optical standards, take the ratings with a big handful of salt. End users never really rate a bad lens bad. Look at what the lens is actually able to resolve. How good is it's contrast? Are the out of focus highlights pleasing? The less you have to fix in post processing, the happier you will be.

If you want to capture non flash images around dusk and campfires, good solid high ISO and fast lenses are a must. The Canon 5D is the first camera to properly do this. It can do the low light photography while maintaining detail in the images. The 20D was the first crop sensor camera to do this well but it still isn't in the league that the 5D is in. This is an area where how the image is processed means allot. The lower the noise floor in the camera, the less processing is needed to get a usable image. Use to much noise filtering and detail is lost.

 

[sirenmoses]

wow, great comments Bogo.

I used to shoot dog agility photos, and never went past 8x10 for enlargements (though I did go up to 11x14 for a couple of arty model shots).

One of my buddies is into professional roping, so I've been thinking about shooting that, and maybe agility again.

But that's kinda like getting my trailer build going: easier to dream about than to do. Gonna put my pondering cap on, and will hit ya'll back up w/more q's when buying time gets closer...

 

[siglo]

In the lens image stabilization is the only way to go. It performs much better over a wider range of types of vibrations that influence image quality. Plus you get to see a stabilized image in the viewfinder and that helps you focus better.

My initial post about in body image stabilization advantages to sirenmoses since he already has old minolta glass. For him clearly an in body image stabilization would save him lots of money.

I never implied that in body stabilization is superior to optical, or the other way around. The argument about one stabilization being better than the other is pointless. To each its advantages and disadvantages. It depends on the photographer preference and his/her budget.

// Begin Rant //

I have never understood why people seem to be usually obsessed with promoting the type of brand/option they use. I am a minolta/sony simply because I have invested in their glass they same way you invested in canon. I am amateur not a pro, so replacing my systems now will be very expensive even if I wanted to.

In the past year, I had three friends wanting to upgrade to DSLR. I recommended canon to one, sony to the other and nikon to the third. The type of photography they wanted to explore is different and it just happened that different brands provided what suited them.

I face the same thing with my other hobbies as well. The fight between Jeeps, Cruiser, Patrols, Land rovers for 4x4s. Then it's canon, nikon and those "others". and finally, it's the Mac vs. PC thing.

I personally enjoy wheeling with my land rover and patrol buddies. I like going out photographing with my canon friend. And I enjoy talking with my cousins about their Macs even though "I'm a PC". Can't we all just get along?

// End Rant //

sorry about the rant, I just had to get it out of my system

 

[sirenmoses]

sorry about the rant, I just had to get it out of my system

No worries.

In the motorcycling world, your rant is summarized with the concept of

"It's not What you ride, it's That you ride".

and then there are the Harley people...