Lens

[txcoach]

I have an old (2002) Minolta 35mm camera with a couple of nice telescopic lenses. Can I use those on Konica Minolta digital cameras?

[coldrain]

It really will help if you actually bother to tell what camera and what lenses you have. Else, it is impossible to be sure about what you have and what you need.

[txcoach]

It really will help if you actually bother to tell what camera and what lenses you have. Else, it is impossible to be sure about what you have and what you need.


I have a Minolta Dynax 404si Maxxum STsi with an AF 35-80 lens and an AF 75-300 lens. I am looking for a digital camera that I might could use those with. If I can't use those, I want a camera that will give good quality pictures, especially at night during football games. I'm a coach, and my wife loves taking pictures.

[coldrain]

So basically your lenses are of the nothing special very cheap variety.
Yes, they will work on a DSLR from Konica Minolta and on the new DSLR from Sony.

But they are nothing special, and their shortcomings will show up on a DSLR in image quality.

Since they are very cheap, you can also just decide to either get an ultrazoom "compact" digital camera like the Sony H2 or H5 or the Canon S3 IS. The Sonys perform a little bit better than the Canon in high ISO. The Fuji S-9000 is the best UZ camera when high ISO performance is important.

But, night game photography means not optimum light, so neither the stated 75-300 lens or an ultrazoom is ideal.

So, what I would recommend is to get a Canon EOS 350D/Digital Rebel XT or a Nikon D50 with a better, more light sensitive lens, like a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens. This will be more expensive (lens around 700$), but it will be needed for good indoor or night sports shots.

[brianman1]

Looking for a cheap outfit for shooting football myself, I opted in 2004 to get a Digital Rebel for about $700 and invested in a slightly used lens (70-200, I think it was, f2.8) for another $700. A good flash would cost you about $300 new from Sigma or Canon. Alas, I find myself shopping again this year after accepting a position at another location that is dedicated in the Nikon line. I wanted something others could use and that could use other lenses we had here, so I grabbed a D50 from www.butterflyphoto.com for about $600 after shipping. I also picked up a Sigma lens (70-200, 2.8) for about $700. Again, grabbed the flash for another $300. Both of these outfits shoot very well. I understand the higher end ones perform better (Nikon D200, Canon EOS 30D, etc.)but I promise you can get very satisfactory football shots with a cheaper rig. I understand Pentax and Olympus SLRs may also perform on a satisfactory level. One word of advice. Pay attention to the sync speed of any camera you narrow your selection down to. Anything less than 1/180th of a second is not acceptable and 1/200th or better is preferred.

Good luck.

[DonSchap]

Only have around $2,000 for a dSLR?

Try this:


SONY A100K (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/) {~$999} comes with 18-70mm lens (55mm filter)
TAmROn SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2875_28_nikon/index.htm)XR Di LD (67mm filter) ~{$379} A-mount
TAmROn AF 70~300mm f/4-5.6 (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70300_di_a017.asp) Di LD Macro 1:2 (62mm filter) ~{$189} A-mount
SONY HVL-F36AM Digital Camera Flash (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_style_dslr&ProductSKU=DSLRA100K&TabName=acc&var2=) ~{$299} SONY has an additional 15% off on "accessories", right now.

It has a few variations from the usual Canon recommendations and by no means, top o' the line, but it is (IMHO) still a "rock-steady & kick-butt" bag, to be sure. It should cover MOST of the bases. You also get "Image Stabilization" or as they like to call it, "Super SteadyShot" through the body... so, in effect, every lens gets it too! That represents an "Anti-Quake" savings on nearly $300 on each lens. Just awesome! :D

You can easily use all your old Minolta lenses with this camera, but realize digitals tend to be a little more demanding of their glass than the average 35mm film shot. Your Image Quality may need some improvement, with the older glass. But, for a cheap & quick fix, though, you can slap them on and try 'em out. Can't beat the price, that's for sure! :D

Total approximate price (minus the bag, batteries, filters, shipping and any taxes) = $1866 then minus the additional 15% SONY has off on "accessories", at this time... (that's $45 off the flash... reducing it all to a total of:

$1821

ALSO.... if you do not want the kit lens, you can save another $100... reducing it to a final total price of:

$1721

The entire package should be available from...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[coldrain]

Odd... I did not see any mention of a 2000$ figure.
Which... makes this another shamless and senseless plug for DonShap's Sony?KM/Tamron fetish. Odd.:confused:

[FishFace]

The samples of the A100 looked rather poor in quality... It didn't seem to perform well next to Canon or Nikon in terms of high-ISO, and IIRC there was some aberration and so on.

[DonSchap]

You're right, she's right, he's right... and what's left?

I'm quite sure SONY believes they've made a big mistake releasing a camera with such a dubious track record. Come on... a re-wrapped K/M 5D with a 10 MP APS-C sensor and anti-quake. Startling stupidity, right?

What were they thinking? :eek:

I guess we will see how sales go and who is laughing to make their deposits in the bank. There in lies the truth of the matter... anything else is pure conjecture and ignorance. The old lenses the OP has can be initially used on the SONY and then he can improve to better glass as money permits. It's not brain-surgery.

Step up and take a ticket...
14876

line forms to the... right, uh right? :confused:

The bottom line in all this is that if you want the initial bang for your buck, you'll buy a SONY A100, if you have significant resources for IS or VR-based lensing, you will wind up changing course with a Canon or a Nikon... it doesn't take a calculator to figure it out, despite what the following post may lead you to believe.

[coldrain]

Very strange Don, you posts seem to be not related to this thread at all. Are you just typing random posts to imaginative posts? Or do they happen to land in the wrong threads or forums?