Digital or Film?

If you can afford the difference then digital is they way to go these days but i realy wouldnt go with either of those cameras, Konica Minolta have stopped making cameras so support may be limited in the near future, stick with Nikon or Canon for the safe option.

Andy
 
That's true yeah :(

Basically, I have the following glass for my two Minolta 7000 bodies; 70-210 f4, 50mm f1.7, 35-105 f/3.5-f4.5 It would be a great shame to stop using these, because they are unique, and I'm not going to get that kind of quality for a while from a Canon or Nikon system because it will cost too much.

I'm planning to sell my Canon gear - Canon EOS 300, 28-80mm f3.5-5.6, 80-200, f/5.6 to f/6.7, with the view to either start going for a Canon system or carry on with the Minolta system.

I might add that I was thinking of having my Minolta stuff as my 'film only' stuff, and buy some Canon stuff to become my 'digital only' although, that might be a bad idea since I'll have to buy new everything :(
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it leaves me in a pickle doesn't it :(

Or maybe I should just sell my Canon stuff and wait until my Minolta stuff fails and then think of a new system. I've spent £64 on two spare bodies and a lens for my Minolta 7000 and a lot on various film development costs so I should start saving?

I really don't think it's worth carrying on with buying Minolta bit's and peices really the way things have gone for them.
 
Last edited:
Film, its a lot harder and thus more professional, and you will develop better practises.
You have to take you time, as it not cheap to mess up 20 shots to get 6 good ones. The disadvantages are not disadvantages at all, its just different methods, and more rewarding if you develop yourself.

Without trying to slate the skills of many people, digital photography is far to easy, not sure if thats a good or bad thing.
 
personally i wouldnt worry about minolta withdrawing from camera manufacturing. support will still be around for a long time and when sony release their dslr, it will basically be an updated dynax with the same lens mount and everything.
 
Hmm - I had a thought - what if I bought a modern Minolta film SLR - Like the Dynax 7 - and then practiced up a little more, and save thus getting a bunch of Canon things - lenses - body. But sell my Canon stuff...that I don't use at the moment.
 
I own a Dynax 7, 5, 5000 and a 7D. I really only use the 7 and 7D these days. I like the Minolta interface and the 7 and the 7D handle almost identically from that point of view.

But at the moment, if I was going to buy a Minolta dSLR, I would buy the 5D. It's a cracking little camera and an absolute steal at the moment. The announcement from Minolta was a bit of a shock but quite a few people are looking at this positively as Sony can actually afford to play with the Big Boys....and Sony are the major sensor manufacturer, so who is going to get the latest greatest sensor from Sony? This isn't going to affect Canon who make their own dSLR sensors but it'd be interesting to see the impact on Nikon (and Pentax); I wouldn't expect a huge impact but there is going to be some.
 
Hmm, since there is still a fair bit of life left in my 7000s, I might just save the money it would cost to buy a Dynax 7 (because I'll end up using that one) and put it towards 5D then :) I think that's the best idea.

Plus when the Minolta stuff is obsolete, I can look at other systems:)
 
Last edited:
Well you can pick up a 5D for the same price as a Dynax 7 new; well actually a little less than a Dynax 7.....You've already got the lenses which all suddenly become IS with the 5D. If you hadn't already got the lenses, I would probably suggest you wait until it becomes clear as to what Sony are going to do.
 
|Show| said:
personally this question should be answered with RAW :D

RAW is a digital negative, so is the best of both worlds ;)
Click to expand...

Nice :)

Although I may have to fish out a little extra cash for the Minolta 5D to get some editing software for the RAW files, as I don't think it comes with any.
 
Gamefreak501 said:
Nice :)

Although I may have to fish out a little extra cash for the Minolta 5D to get some editing software for the RAW files, as I don't think it comes with any.
Click to expand...
there are free RAW processors available on the internet, just google :)
 
Actually, it does come with editting software (Dimage Master Lite); however, you might be better off with RSE. You might have to hack it to get it to work with the 5D but there are instructions about to do this.
 
ChroniC said:
Film, its a lot harder and thus more professional, and you will develop better practises.
You have to take you time, as it not cheap to mess up 20 shots to get 6 good ones. The disadvantages are not disadvantages at all, its just different methods, and more rewarding if you develop yourself.

Without trying to slate the skills of many people, digital photography is far to easy, not sure if thats a good or bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think digital has its advantages mainly in terms of running costs and you can see what you've taken almost instantly.. so you can take another snap if its not so good

Film... cheapo 35mm P&S, and had a go with old 35mm SLR.. couldn't take night shots properly with P&S because shutter/aperture didn't open long enough.. used SLR and didn't have a tripod = messed up photos.. only found out when they were developed :o

Always took it to the pharmacy in Walworth Road.. £2.49 for up to 40 6x4 as it was cheaper than Boots!
 
Last edited:
I won't go on about the advantages of film/digital here just a quick word of advice over the backup solution you where looking into.

I would alwas make sure that the film(backup) body I had has compatible lens mounts to the digital solution. So, if you want get a minolta digital at some point, keep a minolta film body, if you think that the Canon digital solution is for you, keep the EOS 300.

Personally, I'm still using film. We will see what the spring brings and if I can be tempted to digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom