Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 10, 2007, 5:52 PM   #1
Yno
Junior Member
 
Yno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
Default

I just upgraded myself from a Konica/Minolta system to a Canon 40D. I am in the process of getting new lenses for my normal shooting and plan to get rid of the old lenses. I do have a very nice Sigma 500 mm lens that didn't get much use, and I really can't see ever replacing it. But if there were an adapter that could be used, I might keep it. I wouldn't care about auto-focus or anything. Does anyone make this type of adapter?
Yno is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 11, 2007, 8:32 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Yno wrote:
Quote:
I just upgraded myself from a Konica/Minolta system to a Canon 40D.
If you're already got Minolta AF lenses, why didn't you just upgrade to the new Sony DSLR-A700? From most reviews I've seen so far, it's better in a number of areas compared to the EOS-40D (higher resolution sensor, resolves more detail on charts, higher available ISO speeds).

It's AF system is also superb (much faster compared to the KM 7D/5D or Sony DSLR-A100), as is it's Dynamic Range (I've been very impressed). It's only slightly higher in cost compared to the 40D (Circuitcity.com has the A700 body for $1299 right now).

That way, you could use your existing lenses with it (and have stabilization with all of them). It's a nice camera. Of course, I'm biased, since I recently bought the Sony DSLR-A700.

Quote:
I am in the process of getting new lenses for my normal shooting and plan to get rid of the old lenses. I do have a very nice Sigma 500 mm lens that didn't get much use, and I really can't see ever replacing it. But if there were an adapter that could be used, I might keep it. I wouldn't care about auto-focus or anything. Does anyone make this type of adapter?
Not that I'm aware of. Autofocus lenses for KM and Sony DSLR models use an electronic interface to control the aperture and most adapters will not have that kind of intelligence built in.

You can find adapters for older MC/MD Mount Minolta lenses to a Canon EF Mount Body (since these lens types have an aperture ring on the lens). But, I'm unaware of any adapters that let you use Minolta AF mount lenses on a different body.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2007, 9:59 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Sony DSLR-A700 has more sealings than 40D(just the battery compartment and CF card compartment)

Sony DSLR-A700 has Body IS- Big plus over the 40D. Ur 500mm will be IS enabled.

And i have used the sony A100 the in body IS works very well

And if ur not a big time HIGH ISO shooter, meaning if u dont shoot anything above ISO 800, Sony DSLR-A700 will fit ur needs perfectly. And i could be absolutely wrong here...since the sensor is exactly the same as the Nikon D300, even the high ISO performance could chase the 40 D away...:blah:

The difference in cost is around 100 dollars

The one thing u will loose/gain:Gis the live view.

If i am right the body is similar built to the KM 7D which is way way better than the A100 or the KM5D(Plastic bodies).
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2007, 10:33 AM   #4
Yno
Junior Member
 
Yno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Yno wrote:
Quote:
I just upgraded myself from a Konica/Minolta system to a Canon 40D.
If you're already got Minolta AF lenses, why didn't you just upgrade to the new Sony DSLR-A700? From most reviews I've seen so far, it's better in a number of areas compared to the EOS-40D (higher resolution sensor, resolves more detail on charts, higher available ISO speeds).

It's AF system is also superb (much faster compared to the KM 7D/5D or Sony DSLR-A100), as is it's Dynamic Range (I've been very impressed). It's only slightly higher in cost compared to the 40D (Circuitcity.com has the A700 body for $1299 right now).

That way, you could use your existing lenses with it (and have stabilization with all of them). It's a nice camera. Of course, I'm biased, since I recently bought the Sony DSLR-A700.

Quote:
I am in the process of getting new lenses for my normal shooting and plan to get rid of the old lenses. I do have a very nice Sigma 500 mm lens that didn't get much use, and I really can't see ever replacing it. But if there were an adapter that could be used, I might keep it. I wouldn't care about auto-focus or anything. Does anyone make this type of adapter?
Not that I'm aware of. Autofocus lenses for KM and Sony DSLR models use an electronic interface to control the aperture and most adapters will not have that kind of intelligence built in.

You can find adapters for older MC/MD Mount Minolta lenses to a Canon EF Mount Body (since these lens types have an aperture ring on the lens). But, I'm unaware of any adapters that let you use Minolta AF mount lenses on a different body.
Quite a tangent you went to there! I appreciate the info, but most of that had nothing to do with my question. The lenses I have for the Minolta are not all that good. They were entry level to mid grade when purchased, and they are not FULLY compatible with the Sony camera. I wanted to upgrade my lens collection as well as the camera, and had I bought the Sony, I would have bought new glass anyway. So it really didn't matter what brand I went with. That being the case, most of my friends shoot with Canons, so I can share information and equipment with them. I don't know anyone else who uses the Sony system. Anyway, I would probably not ever buy a new 500 mm (BIG BUCKS!!!)lens, but if I could adapt the old one for the 10 or so shots I take a year, I would have kept it. I take it the MC/MD adapter wouldn't work with the AF lenses, even in full manual?

Knowing that it is hard to read expression in forum posts, this is not meant to be sarcastic. I do appreciate the info given.


Yno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2007, 10:45 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I didn't mean for it to sound like a "tangent". ;-)

If your lenses were not very good to begin with, then I can understand you wanting to switch. Canon does have a better lens lineup compared to Sony right now and the premium Sony glass is pricey.

No, the adapters for MC/MD lenses will not work, and I am unaware of any adapter that would let you use Minolta AF mount lenses on another camera body.

P.S.

I'd keep your KM 5D just to use with that 500mm lens if nothing else (given
the cost of a new 500mm lens for a Canon body, especially if you want stabilization), unless you can get a good price for it.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2007, 11:19 AM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
And i have used the sony A100 the in body IS works very well
The A700 is much better in this area. I've been very impressed with it (getting reasonably sharp photos using shutter speeds of around 1/6 second with a kit lens zoomed in). Sony improved it significantly with this new model (up to 4 stops now). It's noticeably better than my Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D.

Quote:
And if ur not a big time HIGH ISO shooter, meaning if u dont shoot anything above ISO 800, Sony DSLR-A700 will fit ur needs perfectly. And i could be absolutely wrong here...since the sensor is exactly the same as the Nikon D300, even the high ISO performance could chase the 40 D away...:blah:
Higher ISO speed performance + stabilization is the main reason I bought the Sony DSLR-A700. ;-)

Here's an example of an ISO 3200 shot with a link to a full size image.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=84

Here are some ISO 3200 shots I took in very low light with the original Version 1 firmware (before they improved higher ISO speed performance with the new firmware):

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=84

It's nice to be able to get photos in very low light without using a tripod or monopod (not really practical to use while eating dinner in a restaurant), thanks to stabilization with a brighter prime like my 100mm f/2 (and stabilized primes this bright is something not offered by Nikon or Canon yet). ;-)

As for the D300, I personally think the A700 (with the latest V2 firmware) has better image processing from what I've seen so far. It's also a less expensive camera and has stabilization built in for use with every lens (including bright primes). Of course, you don't get the faster frame rate of the D300 or Live View (if that matters to you).

Here's one D300 review with some comparisons between the A700, D300 and Canon 5D. Click on the menus at the top for different types of images (still life, studio, noise tests, etc.). The A700 even resolves more detail on resolution charts compared to the D300 (with less in the way of artifacts like Moiré from what i can see with my eyes). I think Sony has a real winner here. Again, I'm biased (since I bought one). lol It's a very nice camera. The main area of weakness is lens choice (not up to par with Nikon and Canon lens selection yet).

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ni...solution.shtml

The D300 might have a slight advantage at the highest ISO speeds shooting jpeg (where Sony is using a more aggresive noise reduction system that does smear some detail). But, then again, I think the Sony may be more sensitive at a given ISO speed setting from what I've seen so far (I saw one test where the Sony appeared to have approximately 2/3 stop advantage, getting shutter speeds roughly twice as fast as a D300 with the same subjects, ISO speed and aperture settiings.

If I had to guess (just speculation), Nikon's decision to use a separate A/D converter probably hurt them more than it helped them (except for marketing purposes, since 14 bits sounds better than 12 bits).

We'll need to wait for more tests to find out for sure.

But, you are really "splitting hairs" between any of these new camera models. They are all very, very nice. We're becoming rather spoiled with all of this new technology. :-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2007, 3:04 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

i like the shots of the singers. The white balance is also good if its straight from the camera. Not too warm or too blue..its almost the right white balance.

hope the technology just dont improve in the noise area. Having more DR and using in camera HDR's and other DR related improvement could be more attractive.

More DR is a better buyer i guess!
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2007, 3:19 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
i like the shots of the singers. The white balance is also good if its straight from the camera. Not too warm or too blue..its almost the right white balance.
Those were straight from the camera except for downsizing. I used manual exposure with a tungsten white balance (one of the presets), taking the photos while eating dinner at a local restaurant.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:04 AM.