KonicaMinolta?

Senor Hound

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
0
Location
La la land...
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
What do you think of a KonicaMinolta camera? I'm looking at it or a Pentax, and I've heard the Konicas are fully compatible with new Sony lenses and old Minolta Lenses. Anyway, the Maxxum 7d has good reviews, has a better performing IS than the Pentaxes do, and seems like a great deal for someone wanting a starter camera. Also I'm not buying a system right now, so upgrading is not an issue. Even if it was, I have no problems with Sony (like many do).

So, does anyone on here have any experience with these? If so, would you recommend them?
 
I've heard they were OK...but unless you are a collector at heart, I'd recommend a newer camera.

The technology increases pretty fast...so I would try to avoid buying a camera that is already several years old. I think you would be much better off with a new, entry level model....whether it's Sony, Pentax, Nikon or Canon.
 
KonicaMinolta/Sony cams are excellent for all the reasons you mention, Senor. Minolta has an impressive pedigree as an SLR manufacturer for decades and introduced many revolutionary technologies, now under the Sony brand name. I wouldn't hesitate to get one.
Minolta always was the no. 3 SLR manufacturer. But with Sony's might behind it now I think Sony are going to attack Nikon's no.2 position. Soon. And I think they have a good chance of succeeding.
So, Big Mike is right: the current Sony Alpha models aren't the state-of-the-art anymore. And I expect a new top-of-the-line dSLR model to be introduced this year as a manifestation of that attack on the no. 2 position. I would wait for that.
 
Sony bought Konika-Minolta.

Sony makes the sensors for Nikon, and several other digital camera manufacturers.

Sony's current product line is absolute state-of-the-art, and a great deal at that price... it's the price they need to pay to acquire some market share as the late-comers to the dSLR game.

Sony has massive resources, and will continue to develop the product until they are considered one of the market leaders. For instance, they will be coming out with the A700, a full-frame camera for the "experienced enthusiast." They recently had a launch event in Istanbul, where they made the point of not wanting to call their SLR gear "Pro" ...yet.
 
I've heard they were OK...but unless you are a collector at heart, I'd recommend a newer camera.

The technology increases pretty fast...so I would try to avoid buying a camera that is already several years old. I think you would be much better off with a new, entry level model....whether it's Sony, Pentax, Nikon or Canon.

Okay, Mike. I've followed your posts for some time, and I think you are really cool, but I'm going to question you on this. The camera I have now is almost 4 years old. Its a point and shoot, and I really think for the price (which is a huge factor) that a used camera 2 or 3 generations old is the best deal I can get. Its still HEAD AND SHOULDERS better than what I have, and its cheap to boot (which is by far the most deciding factor for me). It seems like the best of both worlds, especially since I'm at a point where I don't know what I want yet. Am I going to be a nature photographer? A portrait photographer? I just don't know, and it seems like an inexpensive, versatile (two control wheels on the 7d) and slightly used model would be ideal.

Please enlighten me on your reasoning, because I don't want to overlook anything (and you seem REALLY smart about this stuff, smarter than I am).
 
As it is now, I would opt for the 7D or one of the Sonys over one of he cheap Nikons up to a D80, I think it is. All of the old Maxxum lenses are compatible for the Sony, whereas Nikon went the other way on their cheaper models. The only gripe I have with the Sony is the odd hot shoe mount.
 
I owned the 7D for awhile. Of the 50 or 60 different models I've owned the Maxxum 7D is one of the best in it's class. The company is out of the camera business now but that's the only drawback I can think of.

It's Minolta original CCD-shift type Anti-Shake system is very sweet and better than other (even newer) systems in it's range and many systems several classes above it.

It's abundant external tactile controls make it fast, fun, and intuitive to use! Seriously, whoever designed the body controls is a freek'en genius!

The AF and tracking are also better than other cameras in it's class! Ultra fast and rarely wrong although it does get confused occasionally - but no more or less than other's of similar class.

It's drawbacks in light of current technology are it's small CCD size and res. I think it's a 6mp if I remember right and that it's a CCD and not a CMOS camera. I can't remember if it had a non-standard hot-shoe or if that was a different Konica/Minolta model (I use PC not hot-shoe devices mostly) but that might be a consideration - it's wasn't for me.

All-in-all, an excellent choice in a used camera and I would imagine they are dirt cheap these days too. What are you finding them at?
 
Okay, Mike. I've followed your posts for some time, and I think you are really cool, but I'm going to question you on this. The camera I have now is almost 4 years old. Its a point and shoot, and I really think for the price (which is a huge factor) that a used camera 2 or 3 generations old is the best deal I can get. Its still HEAD AND SHOULDERS better than what I have, and its cheap to boot (which is by far the most deciding factor for me). It seems like the best of both worlds, especially since I'm at a point where I don't know what I want yet. Am I going to be a nature photographer? A portrait photographer? I just don't know, and it seems like an inexpensive, versatile (two control wheels on the 7d) and slightly used model would be ideal.

Please enlighten me on your reasoning, because I don't want to overlook anything (and you seem REALLY smart about this stuff, smarter than I am).

I do agree that any DSLR will probably be a nice big step up from an old P&S digicam. And if your budget is really that tight, then I guess you have to go with what you can find.

However, I've seen it time and time again where people by the cheapest thing (whether it's cameras, lenses, electronics, cars etc.) and they they end up having to replace it sooner, rather than later. Maybe it's because it breaks on them or maybe it's because they feel they have outgrown it and want to move on. So when they have the money, they rush out and buy the next model, and then maybe the next one. If they had bought a something better in the first place, they may not have wanted to upgrade so soon...and therefore saved themselves some money. This might not directly apply to you...but do you get the point I'm trying to make?

I don't have anything against Sony or KM. Their cameras are pretty good and they are getting better. But I think it's clear that Nikon & Canon are the leaders in DLSR cameras. That's why I recommend buying into either one of those systems. As mentioned, Nikon does have a bit of a lens compatibility with it's entry level DSLR models...but that's OK if you stick with the G lenses (I think). I'd recommend having a look at Canon's Rebel series cameras. They should be fairly cheap on the used market.
 
I do agree that any DSLR will probably be a nice big step up from an old P&S digicam. And if your budget is really that tight, then I guess you have to go with what you can find.

However, I've seen it time and time again where people by the cheapest thing (whether it's cameras, lenses, electronics, cars etc.) and they they end up having to replace it sooner, rather than later. Maybe it's because it breaks on them or maybe it's because they feel they have outgrown it and want to move on. So when they have the money, they rush out and buy the next model, and then maybe the next one. If they had bought a something better in the first place, they may not have wanted to upgrade so soon...and therefore saved themselves some money. This might not directly apply to you...but do you get the point I'm trying to make?

I don't have anything against Sony or KM. Their cameras are pretty good and they are getting better. But I think it's clear that Nikon & Canon are the leaders in DLSR cameras. That's why I recommend buying into either one of those systems. As mentioned, Nikon does have a bit of a lens compatibility with it's entry level DSLR models...but that's OK if you stick with the G lenses (I think). I'd recommend having a look at Canon's Rebel series cameras. They should be fairly cheap on the used market.

Thank you. I keep telling myself, "I'm not like that!" But no one ever is until you get that camera and aren't satisfied. What is it about us photographers and having this insatiable urge to buy tons of stuff?

Once again, than you so much for the response! :) Your advice is greatly appreciated, and I'm sure whatever I do, it will now be with your opinion in consideration.
 
Thank you. I keep telling myself, "I'm not like that!" But no one ever is until you get that camera and aren't satisfied. What is it about us photographers and having this insatiable urge to buy tons of stuff?

It also depends largely on what you want to do; if you're planning to buy only a fisheye lens and PP your shots to simulate a 500mm tele, then you need a $35k Hasselblad. OTOH, there have been a lot of great shots made with cameras that aren't the super-duper-newest on the market things that make Mike's Nikon stock more valuable.

Come to think of it, all the shots made before January of this year were made with last year's technology or less.

What you want to decide is, will it improve your capabilities, and does it have the basic features and reliability to remain a part of your camera-harem for a while. There are photographers who have the latest models, but still take some of their best shots with an old D1x or similar because they're not willing to take $2k worth of shiny new gear on a ten mile hike through the woods.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top