Re: Which lens for Konica Minolta 7D?

Hi,

> - Sigma and Tamron catalogues say that some of the lenses
> are ADI- (or D-) compatible, some are not. Which functions
> do I lose when using not compatible lens? I assume that
> one of them is the distance information passed to the
> (external) flash (I have 3600HS). Do I lose something else?

The 'D' qualifier mostly means two things (below items are generic, and
apply to any brand) :

1 - the digital sensor size is smaller than the 35 mm film size, thus the
'D' lenses are optimized for the (smaller) area. Means that their picture
quality is not necessarily good outside that area. Means that they are
probably not suitable for film cameras. In other words, you can use a
regular or a D lens on a digital body, but you should not use a D lens on a
film body.

2 - the digital sensor is more sensitive to infrared noise than film. This
means, usually the 'D' lenses have a specific surface processing on their
back lens to limit this. This characteristic is not a problem with a film
body, tho.

> - Are all original Konica Minolta AF lenses D-compatible?

Yes they are. I'm using my Minolta AF 28-105, my Sigma 28/70 f/2.8, my Sigma
70/210 f/2.8 that I used for years with my 600si & my 9xi without a problem
on the 7D.

Note, you probably already heard about the "cropping factor". Its another
lyric variation on the fact that the sensor size is smaller than the film.
In the case of the 7D, the factor is 1.5 (which is not that bad, better than
the 1.67 factor of a 350D for example). This means, a 28 focal "becomes a 28
* 1.5" in terms of captured picture area. Thus, you gain on the long end,
and you loose on the short end (wide angle). Thus, it might make sense to
consider a 18-xx instead of a 28-xx, typically.

> Does the following makes sense?

> - body only (no kit lens)
> - Tamron SP AF 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di Apherical IF Macro
> - Sigma AF 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG APO IF (this one is _not_ ADI-compatible)
> - Tamron AF17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF (later if necessary)

Yes.

> Reasons for the Konica Minolta:
> - antishake built in

I could not live without it now that I've taken so many pictures without any
tripod nor flash, which would simply not be possible otherwise (try to shoot
at 0.5s without IS nor tripod :-) (I admit this is a bit excessive, but
trust me its doable).

You can also have IS with other brands, but you'll pay for it with each
lens, so its clearly a + for the 7D (and the new 5D).

> - low noise at higher ISOs according to reviews

Probably similar as what you can expect from other similar cameras (350D,
D70 etc), no discriminating factor in favor of the 7D here imo.

> - reviews I have read are OK

Reviews are always nice : you usually cannot find a negative rating, just
because the reviewed items come from companies that (directly or indirectly)
pay the ads, or any other twisted reason.

I guess the only review that is worth is yours : try the camera (and others)
if possible. You could even consider my points twisted here, since I myself
chose a 7D...

> - price is OK

Well, its still on the expensive end in the eyes of many, if you dont take
into account the value of the builtin stabilizer... which is a major mistake
imho. Anyway the 5D might fix this, it really removes very little in terms
of features, while saving a lot of $...

But there is another benefit of the 7D (and some other cameras from KM, but
not all), which is *my* primary reason for going KM : it is the very
straightforward ergonomics : one function, one button.

The camera looks hairy when compared to a menu driven one à la Nikon or
Canon, but it is *so* much simpler to press the right dedicated, non
ambiguously labelled button when you want to change from AF to MF, switch
white balance, change ISO, change exposure compensation for flash, or for no
flash, activate bracketing, etc etc.

When I bought my 600si years ago, I went into a trustable camera shop with
my stone age film SLR, without having *any* pre made idea of what I was
going to end up with (I would not even have been able to list the mainstream
manufacturers at that time), and asked for something that, similar to my
older toy, I would be able to use without even looking at the manual, for
selecting full auto, aperture priority, speed priority, fully manual, and
then with independant rollers for speed / aperture selection, and so on. The
guy told me back in time, something in the lines of "the current trend is to
do all settings with menus, to have a clean body layout with just a couple
of buttons and a wheel ; there is a single camera that does not go that way,
its the 600si, try it, if you like it you buy it". I went that way, and
never regretted it. In fact I value that ergonomic smartness so much that I
am really not worried at the idea of paying for it, given you live with it
everyday.

In contrast, I bought later a 2nd hand 9xi, only because I was crazy at that
time, and was attracted like a bee by a honey pot by the magic words of
shutter speed, pictures per second etc, where the 9xi is one of the fastest
ever made. This machine has a cryptic menu / few buttons type ergonomy, and
I find it totally unusable from that point of view. I still have it, but
shot way less pictures with it than with my 600si.

> My preferences:
>
> - I don't need wide-angle too much, but I often use the
> telephoto end. 200 mm-equivalent was acceptable on the 7Hi,
> 300 would be nice - so I want +- 200 mm on the 7D,
> but in no case less than 135 mm.

Remember that a 200 for 35 mm film "becomes a 300" (= 200 x 1.5) on the 7D
thanks to the crop factor, so you win on this end (but loose on the wide
angle end).

> - I want good quality for acceptable price (who doesn't? :)) -
> the abovementioned 70-200 is already at the top of the
> acceptable price for this kind of lens

It is super cool. Mine is the previous version (70/210 f/2.8 APO), it
already rocked in terms of picture sharpness and general quality (for the
price, heh, we are not talking about a multi-1000$'er), even tho AF speed is
slow because of neverending spinning screw from one end to the other ;) An
ultrasonic version of that lens would be so nice... KM has one but you'd
have to sell your house to buy it (their 70/200 f/2.8 "SSM").

> - I don't want to buy lenses that can't be used with 35 mm
> later, in the case I'll want to buy such body later

Then better avoid the 'D' versions for the reason 1 above.

> - the f/2.8 is not really a must, f/4 would be also OK
> and maybe even preferred because of size and weight,
> but I was not able to find this kind of zoom lens
> in the quality/price range

Imho, the 2.8 lenses (at least mine) are good... at f/4 :) cause the picture
is too soft at 2.8, and the depth of field is really ridiculous at 2.8 when
close focusing ;)

> My other candidate is Canon EOS 20D or maybe 350D - but
> I want the image stabilizer for the 100+ mm range and
> this gets too expensive with the better Canon lenses...

Plus, you'll have to pay IS for each lens, since its not in the body.

Regards,
--
Stéphane Guillard


.