DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

True digital slr in the near future

P

psync

is anyone aware or know if Minolta will be seriously introducing a digital slr in the maxxum line? Over the years, I've invested heavily on lens and don't like the idea of switching to Nikon at the moment. Monday, I'll be ordering a new Fuji S2 body because of price and resolution needs, and considering how much it cost its definetly a better camera than Minolta's DiMage. I own a Maxxum 9xi and love this camera and use it all the time with the 85 f/1.4 lens and my new tamron 28-75 f/2.8; however, I'm moving to digital like most other people I know AND want to use my extensive collection of lenses including the 300 f/2.8. I'm just feeling sick thinking about replacing all those bodies and lenses with Nikons. Understand, this isn't about disliking Minolta but more of my wallet regretting my decision for Minolta over Nikon 15 years ago. If, howver, Minolta will introduce a digital slr in the next few months, that'll be a different story. I'll just consider the Fuji S2 a good investment for the specialized Nikon lens.
 
Except for the 85mm f/1.4, you can go TAMRON all the way for your lenses -- at least you don't have to give ALL you money to only Nikon or Fuji (or Canon for those who like Canon)!

What do you think of the Olympus 4/3rd system - 5 mp in a larger sensor, yet smaller lenses?

Also, tell us WHY digital capture AND interchangeable lenses is important to you.

I do film capture with fixed and interchangeable lenses, and digitization later, especially digitization of older images, yet I have no pressing need for digital capture, and no photography customers to bill for the expense -- a used US$100 Minolta SR T 100 with 50mm f/2 lens can take some fine pictures and I'd have a long way to go in film costs to come close to the neatest digital competitor, price wise.

So please, tell us more -- please explore your dilemma with us, okay?

Peter Blaise Monahon peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/tamronlenses

PS - If any of us KNEW any more than you know about Konica Minolta's future pans ...
 
I am moving in reverse of everyone else. I have been shooting a Nikon Coolpix 885. It cannot give me the resolution I need. When I put the pencil to it, there is no way I can justify the investment in a digital slr. I can use my Minolta 35mm bodies and lenses, buy 2 years of film and developing,and buy a good quality film scanner all for around $2000.00 and have a more versatile system than the digital slr with one lens. I'm going back to film.
Sam
http://samn.chiconet.com
 
Samn. You have hit the nail on the head, I have just recentley brought a Minolta Scan Dual 3. and have been amazed at the quality I can get. this is the way to go, i have a dynex 5 with the 24-105 and a 70-300, and a 50mm 1.7. Lens with this kit I can wonderful pictures. I recently shot two rolls of 36ex films at a village fair and got 72 perfect quality shots some flash and some fill in flash all perfect I have been taking pictures for 50 years and had every camra there is and all formets from 5x4. 120. and 35mm. and I have never had such constistant results as with the Dynex 5 and the Dual 3 scanner. I also have a digatal Fugi but what is not talked about is the depth of field too much of it due to the small sensor size. until this is resolved and full frame size I will never go all the way digital. It is my regret that i never got a film scanner sooner. I am saving up for the new 5400. and maybe a dynex 9 the best SLR in World.
 
>At last, some common sense. Unless your photos really MUST be on your editors screen within minutes of you taking them or you are losing business to other photographers in your area then why do people feel they must have a D-SLR ? Not a pro ? You probably don't need one then. It's just the latest buzzword toy that you tell yourself you have to have. Don't have a film scanner but want scanned images to upload to the web, then get them put onto a CD when you get your film dev'd. Hell they even do that at my local supermarket while I'm doing my weekly shop ! But if you REALLY must get rid of that money that burning such a hole in your pocket throw some of it my way !! Discuss.

Dynax 9 and 20 years in photoprocessing.
 
Right now I am shooting two old Minolta Bodies and 4 lenses, filters and flash. I am getting more quality per image than I did with the digital because I am again stopping to compose and think instead of relying on taking a bunch of digital images and hoping for the best.
I can take my film to my local camera store, have it one hour developed and scanned to an indexed cd at approx 5 megabytes per image and another set of low resolution images for about $13.00. They are scanning with one of the new mega bucks Nikons and will work with me any way I want. Kodak's Photo CD did not work for me as all you get back on it (usually takes 4 days), is images in a resolution of approx 4 X 6 inches, and is slightly more money.
I'll use the Nikon Coolpix from now on as a backup and as a reference camera.
Sam
http://samn.chiconet.com
 
Whilst I agree that Digital technology has plenty of potential for improvement, is has nonetheless already reached a very impressive standard, nearing that of film quality (and I would argue that the differences between the image resulting from each are just that, differences; not necessarily inferior or superior) Even the film industry who demand the highest quality in image recording, show films at most modern cinemas using Digital projectors, which although the reverse process of Digital photography, amounts to the same thing. Putting a time scale on this is very hard, but the end of film is nigh. The only people who will continue using it are those that refused to buy CDs and carried on with Vinyl and those who preferred long division with pen and paper than to use a calculator. The fact that Kodak must have invested the largest sum of money for decades on their DSLR, indicates the inevitable demise of film, and their interest in replacing the resulting revenue loss. I guess I'm not a purist photographer. I enjoy taking good pictures and showing them off, and I enjoy having greater involvement than simply pushing a button. I have owned an SLR camera of one type or another since I was 12 (25 years ago), and understand much of theory in picture taking. But ultimately you learn the most from shooting and seeing what comes out. This learning curve (which never really ends) is expensive and time consuming with film, and in some cases results in failing to capture an unrepeatable event. Maybe this is considered by some as good character building stuff, which makes a good photographer – I don’t. I have triplet 2 year old sons, and trying to capture them in a picture worthy of showing off takes a lot of shots. You simply don’t get the chance to cogitate over exposure, depth of field, composition etc. If you have ever seen a professional photographer take candid pictures of children, he will get through several rolls of film in one session. But he can afford to; his client is paying. I do not want to pay £50 for 4 lots of processing and printing and discover a week later that I have 5 really good shots. Digital photography has arrived and it opens up photography to the masses by allowing experimentation and learning quickly and cheaply.
 
Hello Minoltians! I don't believe film will or is becoming a thing of the past. I for one continue shooting film over digital for now; however, I would love the convenience that digital offers such as a polaroid has. Imagine if the Apple computer system didn't offer networking capabilities such as the PC systems do and your inventory is all Apple based. Sure, you can save to mass storage device and transfer to another system, but how much more of this will you be willing to put up with? Incompatible systems? The analogy would be to buy a scanner, print the file, clean up the noise, purchase an OCR software...(what time is it now?) I just think Minolta is doing a disservice to its customers by not supporting the digital needs compatible with existing line of maxxum lens. The point I'm trying to make is that in this digital age, I want to go directly from camera to PhotoShop and have to drop-it-off; have it developed; pick up the prints; scan the negs; clean the files; etc. By the way have any of you taken portraits of close friends in a studio setup with softboxes, umbrellas...? Its so wonderful to see their faces "light up" to see the images immediately (everyone needs to have some fun)
 
I agree with everything you are saying Steve. My problem is that I cannont justify or afford to update my photo equipment to a system that offers basically the same performance. Film will be around for a long time yet.
Eventually I will have to upgrade, but right now I would have to fork over $3500 low end, $5500. or more top end to get the same performance, lenses, accessories, and memory chips
Just like computers these prices will come down as new digital technology evolves. I'll just have to wait, but I'm not going to stop taking photos in the mean time.
 
You're absolutely right Sam. In my case I needed some of the digital benfits now, and have jumped into Canon's bed. I'm a little sad that I've abandoned Minolta as I always felt that unlike Nikon or Canon they was more empathic with the Enthusiast market. I have actually kept one of the Dynax 7000i bodies and a couple of lenses as they had such a low trade in value, and when my boys are older I will be able to show them "how we used to take pictures". I know that cameras like the Canon 10D will be sub £500 within 3 years and hopefully this will entice Minolta into the arena, allowing the Minolta fans to have the choice of digital without scrapping everything they have got.
 
Back
Top