Digital SLR decision: Minolta 7D vs. Canon Digital Rebel XT

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Paul McElligott, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. Paul McElligott

    Paul McElligott Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Paul McElligott
    I'm trying to decide between the Minolta 7D and the Rebel XT. I already have a Minolta film SLR with two lenses, including a 80-300 zoon. Right now the 7D body without lenses is about the same price, after rebate, as the Rebel XT kit, around $900.

    Minolta Pros:
    • Already own lenses, saving money up front.
    • Built-in anti-shake feature. Don't need expensive stabilized lenses
    Minolta Cons:
    • Lower resolution
    • Don't already own extra batteries.
    • Accessories seem to be more expensive
    Canon Pros:
    • Uses same battery as S60, which I have.
    • Accessories seem cheaper.
    • Higher resolution 8 vs 6.1 megapixels
    Canon Cons:
    • Need to buy new long lens to equal cability of Minolta
    • Camera body seems a little small for my hands.
     
  2. Rob Gillespie

    Rob Gillespie Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1998
    Messages:
    3,632
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remember that the kit lens with the Canon is 'average' at best (and 'poor' by some standards). The 2 extra mp wont make much difference unless you're in the habit of cropping your images right down or printing BIG.

    In that price range you may want to think about the Nikon D70s too (I just bought one after agonising between it and the Canon). Kit lens is a lot better than the Canon's and the grip will be more to your liking.

    The Minolta looks a really good camera - I know the viewfinder especially is supposed to be excellent. I would have considered it but it just wasn't in my price range at the time.
     
  3. Thomas Newton

    Thomas Newton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    The Minolta 5D kit ($900) and Nikon D50 kit ($800) are two others to consider. They're somewhat scaled-down versions of the 7D and D70/D70s.
     
  4. Paul McElligott

    Paul McElligott Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Paul McElligott
    I was looking at the 5D too. About the only difference from the 7D I can find is that:
    • The 5D is lighter (meaning probably less metal and more plastic)
    • The 7D can do RAW+JPEG while the 5D can't.
    Other than that, I can't see much of a difference. Same resolution, similar permormance.
     
  5. ManW_TheUncool

    ManW_TheUncool Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    6,610
    Location:
    The BK
    Real Name:
    ManW
    When you're factoring in your existing Minolta lenses, just remember that they will no longer provide the same FOV on the DSLR body. The ~1.6x crop factor will effectively turn your wide-zoom to a norm-to-tele zoom and your tele-zoom will effectively become longer as well. So either way, you're probably gonna need at least one new lens to cover the wideangle end.

    Also, while it's nice to have IS built into the body, from what I understand, it doesn't work quite as well as IS built into the lenses though I could be wrong about that. You should do some homework to be sure, if this is a selling point for you. And while it's nice to add IS feature for all lenses, in practice, you probably won't need it for all lenses.

    Also, when the 7D was announced last year, I took a look at Minolta lens prices, and some of their lenses are very expensive compared to the competition. For instance, their 80-200 f/2.8 tele-zoom was about as expensive as Canon's and Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR -- and the Nikon lens is actually ~$150 cheaper these days due to their on-going rebate deal. IOW, in some instances, Minolta lenses are so expensive that you could pay the same for the IS version of the same lens from Canon and Nikon. And if you don't need IS, the non-IS version from Canon and Nikon could be much less expensive, eg. Nikon's non-APS 80-200 f/2.8 runs ~$700 (or ~1/2 the price) while Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 HSM runs ~$750 -- APS, HSM and (Canon) USM designate silent wave motor for faster, silent focusing. So depending on what your actual needs are/will be, you may not save anything (or might actually pay more) by going w/ Minolta and getting IS built into the body.

    FWIW, it seems that one selling point not mentioned for the Minolta is the general ergonomics of the 7D. From what I hear, it's got the best ergo amongst DSLRs at this level -- and that includes the viewfinder advantage of course. And if you're used to Minolta ergo, this might be significant for you. Certainly, you should them all a hands-on try to see for yourself. You just might hate the XT relative to the 7D beyond merely the handgrip size. [​IMG]

    _Man_
     

Share This Page