Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 30, 2005, 8:08 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Purchased the Maxxum 7D because I have Minolta-compatible Quantaray lenses. But I am considering returning it for the Rebel XT. I am a novice, not familiar (yet) with anything other than automatic settings. I want the best picture I can get, sharpness, color, etc, and I don't care which camera gives it to me, I will get it. I have TWO DAYS left to return the 7D! Is there anyone who can talk me into keeping the 7D, or into getting the Rebel XT?
Jacqueaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 31, 2005, 9:06 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

If you prefer your advice from strangers on the Internet, then here goes. I see only a few points worth considering. There are other minor +/- aspects of both cameras, but none are deal breakers.

1. Keep the 7D. All your lenses will now be image stabilized. If you have long lenses--135mm or more, especially--the Minolta anti-shake will work near miracles for hand-held photography.

Presumably, you had a Minolta film SLR before this, so much about the camera and its controls should seem familiar. Everything about the Canon will seem alien to you, at least at first.

2. Take back the 7D and get the Rebel XT. It has 8MP.

You didn't specify how many and what focal length lenses you have, so it is impossible to judge their value in this equation. If it were a bunch of Minolta lenses, that would be one thing. However, Quantaray isn't exactly Mercedes Benz of optical brands, so your lost investment may not be that much, if you switched to Canon.

You state you are a novice, yet you have SLR lenses. How long have you been a novice? If more than a year or so, then you may be a more-or-less permanent novice (in the SLR world), in which case, a high end digicam--rather than a DSLR--may be a better bet for you. Many people are shocked when they learn how much post-processing is necessary in order to get pretty pictures from their new DSLRs. On the other hand, regular digicams do most of that "post-processing" for you right in the camera.
wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 1:03 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Thanks for the input. Lenses are 28-80 and 75-300, but again, Quantaray, so the quality is not great. I am not going to let lens concerns enter into the decision. Whichever camera I end up with, I'll get appropriate lenses.

Interesting point about being a novice. I do have desires to exit that stage and get serious about it, but you raise an excellent point. I've looked at high end digicams, the optical zoom is less than desirable, and I don't like the EVF. Being used to my film QTSi, I want the SLR functionality, even if I don't USE it all yet.

Internet research tells me the Canon is sharper than the 7D, but I want more thoughts from those who are more knowledgeable than myself.
Jacqueaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 9:25 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

both are good cameras and will more than suit your needs.. i would think that you would be better of keeping the 7d just because you are familiar with minolta control layouts and such.. the thing that will benefit you most will be a new lens.. when it comes to dslrs... the camera is only as good as the lens that is mounted to it.. so if you stick with your 7d.. i would just sell those two lenses and pick up one nice lens to start w/... i would suggest the minolta 28-75 2.8.. or the sigma 24-70 2.8.. both a little under 400USD and are professional quality lenses.. then save your money for a nice telephoto such as the sigma 70-200 2.8 or 100-300 2.8 or comparable models from minolta..

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 9:37 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Thanks, Dustin.

What about selling my lenses and getting this package? You mentioned Sigma lenses, are these good ones, in your opinion? Anyone else want to sound in?

http://www.wolfcamera.com/webapp/wcs...1022%3Bc914962
Jacqueaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 10:03 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 65
Default

I note that some lenses with the same focal length will have a different number after that, such as 70-200 2,8 or 28-80 3.5. What do these additional designations indicate? And is, say, a 28-80 2.8 better than a 28-80 3.5, or a 70-300 2.8 better than a 70-300 3.5? Or am I just making up numbers that make no sense!:lol:
Jacqueaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 10:08 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

unfortunately those are the very same lenses you already own.. sigma acutally makes the lenses for quantaray.. and they are of the same low quality..

there is a big difference between the sigma consumer line, which is the line that is comparable to the quantaray.. and their professional line, designated by the EX, of which the lenses i mentioned are all "EX" series.. in my opinion, for the most part, the EX line is the only ones worth getting..

the same holds true with any manufacturer, whether it be sigma, canon, minolta, nikon, any of them.. they all make very good lenses and they also make very bad lenses.. and its tough to know which is which.. so that makes these forumns a valuable tool for you at this time..

so while it may be tempting to get a 2 lens set and think you have it made.. it is really not a good bargain, as the quality is just not there, and therefore, you have robbed your expensive digital slr from reaching its potential.. the camera is only the "film" to capture the image, and therefore its only as good as the glass that produces that image..

so it is my advice to buy a high quality medium length zoom right now.. and use that for the next few months as you learn to use your camera.. then when your budget allows you can see what lens you will need.. maybe you don't need anything else.. my medium zoom is on my camera 95% of the time.. but you will know that your lens is producing the best image that it can.. and that the results you see are a direct result of your talents as a photographer..

let me know if there is anything else i can do...

regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 10:12 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the numbers following the focal length is the aperature.. so that determines how much light can get in... the smaller the number the more the light can get in.. for a lens to let that much light in, it generally will be of higher quality.. so you can get a rough estimate of the quality of the glass by how small the number is.. so in general a 24-70 2.8 will be much better quality than a 28-80 3.4-4.5 and a 70-200 2.8 will be better than a 70-300 4.5-5.6..or whatever.. and also by allowing more light in, they are better for low light situations.. there is a downfall however, in that for a lens to be able to let more light in, it must use more glass and therefore will be bigger and heavier.. so its a tradeoff.. but a worthwhile tradeoff if you care about your image quality..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2005, 10:20 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

The Sigma 28 - 80 macro is surpisingly good for the price. However, it's not a top of the line lens andit's wide end is only about 40 mm on a dSLR.

You seem to be somewhat confused, because you are considering switching cameras so soon after buying a new one. Did you do your homework? If you decide to switch, you'd be better off getting a 20D. The size and feel of the rebel XT probably won't match that of the Maxium 7D. Think about your reasons for buying the 7D in the first place and whether giving up the option of making every lens you use the equivalent of an IS lens is worth the 2 mega-pixel advantage you will get with the Rebel XT? The other thing I noticed is that you are looking atlow-end lenses. You will be much better served getting better glass. If you say this isn't important, then it's probably pointless to change cameras because changing brands won't give you as much improvement as getting better lenses would.

The only reason I would consider switching given the circumstances you mentioned is if you are shooting a lot of fast moving sports. The 7D is relatively slow.

This is only my opinion. Others may have different, but just as compelling reasons for what they think you should do. Good luck!
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2005, 9:08 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Undoubtedly, the XT has sharper resolution that the 7D, confirmed by more than one reviewer (Steve's Digicams, dpreview). But, form what I read, there is something to be said for being TOO sharp straight out of the camera, that the "softer" picture of the 7D is more easily manipulated in post-production, so to speak.

So would you say that the net result is that I will end up with a BETTER picture that what the XT can produce? What about after the XT photo goes through post production?


Jacqueaux 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 11:36 AM.