Hello All!

I am at the beginning of considering various systems for purchases to be made in about a year. I had a pretty good handle on what was out there, but now with the onslaught of new professional-level cameras from Minolta, Nikon, and Canon, I am once again a bit overwhelmed by the choices. My biggest concern is the glass I put behind the bodies, but I would also like a rugged body. I have searched many sights, including the useless corporate ones, but haven't been able to get a real idea of the intangibles of each system (i.e. quirks, downfalls, hidden talents, etc). I would like the next purchase of a body and some lenses to be my last for a while and want to make an educated decision considering not just shiny brochures and PR. So, if y'all could chime in on some of this it would be very much appreciated:

1. Are the Minolta G lenses comparable to Nikon and Canon (sharpness, contrast, autofocus speed)?

2. Of the three cameras mentioned in the title, which presents the best feature-price-performance value?

3. What drew you to your current system and why?

I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

-- james (jginalbany@aol.com), February 02, 1999

Answers

I would start by narrowing the field down to Nikon or Cannon, because of the higher resale value and greater diversity of lenses. At that point, everything is up in the air. Personally, I am a Nikon user, but that is because it was easier to build a Nikon system with available materials at work.

If you have the money the Image Stabilization technology in the Cannon lenses make them very attractive for newsphotographers that often work in low light situations. These lenses allegedly allow the user to hand hold a couple extra stops, and that would be nice.

If you are looking to do macrophotography, perhaps Nikon would be better. Nikon's flash system is supposed to be better, though one would be hard pressed to find a way to quantify this.

If you can afford the F5, of course go Nikon. This is still the camera body of the 21st century, making all other camera bodies look backwards and antiquated.

You decision will be a difficult one. Go into a store and try both bodies. Shoot a roll of film if you can. Compare the results. Whichever feels better in your hands, buy it. Either way you will be happy.

-- Jason Yoder (Jyoder@kconline.com), February 02, 1999.

Jason,

Yeah, the F5 looks pretty good, and I like the integrated vertical grip, RGB Matrix meetering, and 8 fps. The only thing prohibitive is the price. How difficult is it to truly learn and know the camera? It seems so advanced and "brilliant," that it is daunting. I am definitely attracted to the Nikon glass. My life goal (at the young age of 24) is to end up sitting in the jungle of Africa photographing wild animals, and I am sure the F5 can withstand everything I could give it physically and photographically.

-- james (jginalbany@aol.com), February 02, 1999.

James, I am a canon user. That said, If you are looking to shoot in the most rugged spots of the world, the F5 is pretty nice. If you are looking for a more affordable system, and need fast autofocus on every lens (even the cheaper/older ones) Canon can't be beat. From what I have heard at work (small paper), the EOS-3 is really nice, but all the focus lights are really annoying. I'm sure they can be turned off though. The Nikon F-100 lacks mirror lockup from what I have heard, and that alone is enough to keep me away. I can't imagine a professional camera not having that option! Nikon is also really nice in that you can use older, manual focus lenses. I would agree with the previous posts about Minolta (I used to one a minolta system), it is impossible to find used equipment, especially pro stuff. If you are really serious about going to the jungle, get the F-5, assuming the F-100 doesn't have mirror lockup. It does cost as much as a small car, and it is just a box that keeps light away from your film! But hey, if you are looking for a tough, realiable, workhorse, the F-5 will serve you well. The EOS-3 is the best value for a body except the fact the F-100 can take older lenses, saving money in the long run. Personally, I am waiting for Canon to replace the EOS-1n (I like my A2 more than the EOS-1n! Except for the plastic, not waterproof body). Good luck, try not to break the bank like I have done!

-- colin mcvey (cmcvey@thegrid.net), February 03, 1999.

Jason,

You should try to get your hands on two European photo magazines: Practical Photography from UK and Foto Magazine from Germany.

The March issues of both of those magazines test and compare the three cameras you mentioned in your subject line.

-- Ilkka Haapavirta (ilkka.haapavirta@nmp.nokia.com), February 03, 1999.

James,

Looking at the brochures the three cameras are indeed very good. I really don't think there's much difference between them. It would be wiser to have a look at the whole system. And then, as Jason mentiones, Canon and Nikon are the preferred ones, because they both have a complete list of accessoires and lenses. Besides that, Canon and especially Nikon are very easy to find on the second-hand market (VERY important factor). Nikon has the edge when it comes to compability - most of their older lenses work with their profesionnal cameras.

I changed from Minolta to Nikon 2 years ago. The main reason: I was seduced by the quality of Nikon bodies and lenses at Photokina that year - in addition I saw at that same Photokina that Minolta was not really in the market anymore with serious cameras. There was a lack of interest by many photographers towards Minolta. I was afraid that Minolta would slowly loose the grip on the market and stop producing high end material (at that particular moment they promoted very heavely the APS-system).

From that moment I have been in serious doubt between Nikon AND Canon. Then I started calculating. I wanted a fast 80-200, a 50, later a 20 and a 300/4. Nikon proved to be a lot cheaper than Canon (Before the AF-S lenses came out). Nikon had the benefit of compability and conservatism (very interesting for resale value). Nikon has a reputation about slow innovation, but when then do - they do it very good. Minolta likes to change their models all the time, sometimes with disastrous results - remember the Xi-zooms). Another point that influenced my decision was the power supply. The F90X and most top end cameras from Nikon are powered by the easily available (and much more cheaper) AA batteries instead of those expensive lithiums.

I choose Nikon and I have not regretted it for a second. On top of that I found some interesting second-hand material (24-50, 50/1.8, 135/2.8 AIs) at very reasonable prices.

From my personal view Nikon is a winner, with Canon a very close second place. But as I said before: have a look first at the system that suits your needs and then have a look at the camera. Or may'be better; if it is possible try to borrow a Nikon or a Canon camera for a test and decide for yourself.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), February 03, 1999.

If your dream is to be sitting in the jungle shooting wildlife, then an all mechanical F2 may be a better choice :-)

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), February 03, 1999.

Wow, no Minolta defenders in here....

Ok. Minolta G lenses are up there with Nikon and Canon's...and in some cases surpass their quality. In fact, many places rate their 80-200 2.8 higher optically than Nikon's flagship 80-200 2.8! But of course as with anything, the difference is hardly noticable. Sharpness, contrast is all there in Minolta glass....and autofocus speed isn't quite up to Canon's because they have no USM lenses for Minolta...but then again, Nikon's lens line is just now starting to go to USM type lenses...though you'll pay an arm and a leg for them at first.

As for which presents the best feature-price performance value? Well, since the Maxxum 9 hasn't been priced yet, it's hard to say. I would think that it will be priced under both the F100 and the EOS 3...with the EOS 3 being the most expensive. Having said that, then the Maxxum 9 will win in my opinion. Remember, the Maxxum 9 is built as their top of the line camera....100% viewfinder, excellent user interface, solid build, mirror pre-lock, built in bracketing up to 7 shots, silent mode, flash system that STILL beats the others...yet is updated.

Also, it's a MYTH that Minolta doesn't have a great used market...this is simply not true, and there are a TON of accessories for Minolta cameras. They are a full, complete system and Minolta it seems is tired of getting a bad rap as not being considered along with Canon and Nikon...which is one reason why they've developed the Maxxum 9 along with new pro gear coming out soon. They could have just dropped everything and just gone along selling point-and-shoots, but they went out and designed a HELL of a camera.

Why was I drawn to Minolta. I'm one of the few people that switched from Nikon N90s to Minolta...mainly because of it's flash system, body- ergonomics, bang for buck etc etc...and to see if the grass was greener on the other side. And it was! For me at least.

-- Scott Gant (sgant@interaccess.com), February 03, 1999.

'many places rate their (Minolta)80-200 2.8 higher optically than Nikon's'... Scott, I guess we hang out at different places.

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), February 03, 1999.

I find this question interesting as I am now in the process of deciding which 35mm SLR system to buy into. In my case it will be either Canon or Nikon.

Here are the plusses for Canon:

Good variety of USM lenses Some IC lenses (though they are expensive critters) Teleconvertors work full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies Extension tubes work full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies

Here are the plusses for Nikon:

RBG metering on the F5 Excellent flash system Bodies take AA batteries, available anywhere AF-S lenses and their Teleconvertors are very modern (finally catching up with Canon)

Note that I do not consider the availablity of manual focus lenses a Nikon advantage since I don't plan on purchasing any. I also don't consider the eye control focusing of Canon an advantage since it seems rather gimiky to me and another thing to break down.

-- Stanley McManus (stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 03, 1999.

Ron, I guess we do! I've had both lenses and to my eye, the Minolta is sharper and more contrasty. But hey, don't take my word for it.

Color Foto, Popular Photography and Chasseur d'Image all rate the Minolta 80-200 2.8 APO G higher than both the Canon and Nikon. I would love to point you to the web page that listed all the ratings, but sadly Chasseur d'Image told the web master that housed them that they were in copyright violation. But I happened to have snagged it before they took it down!

Of course, it's almost standard that when a lens test doesn't favor ones lens, then the test is flawed...if it does favor it, it get's quoted often.

-- Scott Gant (sgant@interaccess.com), February 03, 1999.

If you want the most bang for your buck then you can't beat the Canon Elan II/IIe. It is packed with just about every feature you would probably need or want with the exception of interchangeable prisms. I myself am a Nikon user. My weapons of choice are the FE-2 and FM2n, both are manual focus cameras. What drew me to Nikon was the durability of their products and also the lens compatability from manual through autofocus. I know there are exceptions to the "compatability" issue but that's another debate altogether. I doubt you would ever be able to tell the difference between the brands mentioned above when it comes to optics. Each company has it's "prizewinners" as well as a few "dogs", but overall Canon and Nikon give the most choices and so most pro's will opt for either of those based on those merits. Of the three cameras you mentioned, none of them has had sufficient time to be put to any kind of test, so I personaly would hold off until all of the kinks are worked out. If Nikon follows suit, there will most likely be an F100s or F-5s in the works. The same can be said of Canon. My advice would be to try each one out or at least handle them to get a feel for what you are most comfortable with. Whatever you decide you can't go wrong.

-- Ron Stecher (stecherr@vafb5a.vafb.af.mil), February 03, 1999.

stanley lists the following as a canon advantage "Teleconvertors work full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies"

that's not quite true. while canon's tcs do provide full function (AF, IS, metering, etc.) with lenses they work with, the list of EOS lenses that the TCs work with is pretty small. for the most part the TCs work with prime lenses >= 135mm. there are a couple of exceptions (70-200 f2.8) but probably 99% of EOS lenses purchased (zooms, 35, 50, 85, 100 primes) are NOT compatable with canon's TCs.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), February 03, 1999.

I am going to disagree with Scott on one point, used Minolta stuff. There is none, well, almost. I wish there was more stuff out there, but all it takes is a trip to Photo.net used equipment forum to see the lack of used Minolta equipment. I don't dispute Minolta's quality (I had a 600si and really miss it), but when you have to buy just about every lens new, things go toward Canon/Nikon. I could not afford $1279 (B&H) for the 80-200 2.8, especially with the slow AF. I never have once seen that lens used. I will say that if Minolta had USM and more availability, I would be a "9" user. I sure wish I could use a Minolta body with Canon big glass and micro-nikkors'...

-- colin mcvey (cmcvey@thegrid.net), February 03, 1999.

Sean, Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the EOS TC's. Next time I shoot with my Canon owning buddy, I will have to bang him around a bit with my over weight camera bag.

Another negative for Canon is the lack of a 500mm f/4 telephoto lens that will autofocus with a 1.4TC. Yes, I know that the EOS3 will autofocus at f/8 with the 500mm f/4.5, but only that body will and only with some of the autofocus sensors as I understand it.

Another negative for Nikon is the lack of a modern 400mm f/5.6 lens.

Maybe we should design our own photo.net 35mm system to our own standards. Sometimes I think we could do a better job than the experts. We could name the bodies after the three moderators, the Philip, the Don and the Bob body. We can let them fight it out to see whose name goes on the flagship and whose on the entry-level body.

-- Stanley McManus (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 04, 1999.

Could it be that one of the reasons why less Minolta stuff is on the used market is that the owners are truely satisfied??? That Minolta buyers buy there stuff to use it rather to show up with name brand high tech gear???

Anyway, I have to admit that I felt a little bit unhappy in the past because no Minolta body would/could offer all the features a Canon or Nikon would offer. Now I am sure that I can stick to the Maxxum line for the future because with the new body there is incorporated all I can think off for my style of photography with one exeption: HSM/USM capability which I am sure will come pretty soon, too. I am not sure how much of a difference HSM/USM in real life will be. On the other hand Minolta seems to have a slightly, at times even a significant, slower sales tag. The better ergonomics and function handling were already mentioned.

I guess it needs to be a "hands on" decision to find out which route is the best to go. What do you want to do, just howling with the wolves or find your own way and stick out of the mass....

-- Marcus Erne (MErne@herberts-us.com), February 05, 1999.

Scott, your assumption on the price is wrong. In Japan, Suggested Retail Price for the EOS-3, F100, and Maxxum 9 are 185,000yen, 190,000yen, and 250,000yen (about $1,640; $1,690; and $2,215) respectively. So the Maxxum 9 is the most expensive in the three. Actually, by being the top of the Minolta line of SLR, Maxxum 9's SRP is more like F5's. I don't know how this SRP will affect the actual selling price in the USA, but I can expect Maxxum 9 being rather expensive in the US, too. Now, the question is whether you would rather get a F5 or a Maxxum 9 if the price is about the same. In other words, would you rather pay more to get a Minolta for simmilar or less function as EOS-3 or F100 ?

I know that whatever your choice is it is your personal preferance, and that Minolta makes excellent SLR system. However, Maxxum 9's price seems rather too expensive to me.

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), February 06, 1999.

WOW! I had no idea the Maxxum 9 would be that expensive. Every article I had read said it would be priced somewhere between the EOS A2 and 1n, so I figured it to be right around $1000 or so. If the price is that high it is definitely not worth it.

-- james (jginalbany@aol.com), February 06, 1999.

James - your question seems to have inspired many different opinions and answers. I'm often ammused at the brand wars that ensue when someone asks about "which" system should they buy. One of the questions I usually ask is what kind of photography do you plan on getting into? Each system is capable of taking outstanding photos if the user does his/her job. They all have different features that might help in various situations. If you don't ever plan on using a tripod (I wouldn't reccommend) then you might want to look into Canon and it's IS lenses. If you're more focussed on macro photography then you might want to consider Nikon. Minolta has really lost ground in the professional photography market. I used to own a Minolta system and I called their corporation a couple years ago and asked about their support of a professional body. I loved the big knobs and dials of the 600si, but was hoping for something more rugged, well, the Minolta rep told me they were no longer going to support their pro line and were focussing more on the point and shoot market, etc. I decided to buy into Canon, mostly for it's cost vs. features, especially with it's USM lenses. Now Nikon has USM lenses and if I had to make the choice again, it would be much more difficult! I don't think you can really go wrong, they are all excellent. Nikon now has USM and Canon now has E-TTL... Good luck.

-- Bill Meyer (william_meyer@stortek.com), February 09, 1999.

stan... we probably could design an "ideal" camera system. but there are some problems.

1. companies produce products that SELL, and sell at prices as far above their cost as possible. not necissarily ones that are technically perfect. so even if we did design the perfect system, noone may want to make it, and noone may even want to buy it.

2. ideal would be different in 2-3 months.

3. we might not agree on ideal. for instance... i like light plastic bodies (because i'm lazy and have the money to replace them every few years) but most people seem to like heavy rugged metal bodies that will last.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), February 09, 1999.

Well, I think we've seen all the usual shots at Minolta (lack of pro support, lack of used equipment, lack of USM lenses, and so on). But to get back to the original questions.

1. Minolta lenses are comparable to Nikon and Canon lenses (sure, some are worse and some are better, just take a look at the Photozone site - they have their lens tests back up and the Maxxum 80-200 f2.8 is better than either the Nikon or Canon)

And as for focusing speeds, the Sweedish magazine Foto did a comparison of the three cameras with a 28-105 lens and found that the Minolta was faster focusing throughout the lens's range (the 28-105 in all mounts is a variable aperture lens). Not only that, but it maintained that focusing speed better at the slower end of the lens (it was only .03 seconds slower, while the Canon EOS-3 with USM lens was .17 seconds slower). The F100 was in between the EOS-3 and the Dynax 9. Autofocus speed does vary from lens to lens, but I've hardly been disappointed with my 650si, and by Minolta standards it is third from the top in AF speed (with the new 9 being first of course).

2. Of the three cameras mentioned, I think the Dynax/Maxxum 9 is the best feature-price-performance value, if it comes in at $1600-1700 (which is the best guess price right now).

Most people seem to stop at the AF sensors and declare the 9 a loser (at least that's what I've seen). However, the 9's AF system has so far proven itself at the least the equal in speed and efficiency, and the camera is far more than AF sensors alone. There is the built in flash. I know, no one would suggest using the built in flash for serious flash photography when a shoe mounted is better. But the flash is there for a more important reason, triggering wireless TTL flashes. See, instead of requiring either another shoe mounted flash or wireless controller like the EOS-3, the 9 can trigger wireless TTL flashes with the built in flash.

Then there is the metering systems. Rather than introduce a new fangled, and untested and unknown system, Minolta used their well broken in matrix system. It has proven itself quite adequate for slide photography (My 650si has the same setup and it works wonderfully with slide and print film, you just have to know when to use spot metering, but that only takes common sense). So, those of us with Minolta equipment won't have to worry about relearning how the camera will handle exposure. Also, the flash metering system has been upgraded to a 4 segment evaluative meter with option averaging and local focus point spot metering, and it also includes distance information (available with current lenses) and pre-flash metering with the current top of the line 5400HS.

The camera has mirror pre-fire, better than the F100's total lack but somewhat worse than the EOS-3's setup (somewhat because I've yet to notice mirror vibration in my shots with my 650si, so I doubt I'll see any in a camera that weighs more than 300 grams more).

It also has a 100% viewfinder, perhaps not that important but more than either the Canon or the Nikon.

There are various other features, like customized control setups and and vertical grip options and an optional data back that stores 400 rolls worth of exposure information and imprints info between frames, but going into all of those would take much more space than I already have.

Finally there is the body construction. It features an aluminum shutter box, stainless steel front, top, and back plates, and zinc bottom and sides. It is sealed against moisture and sand, and is covered in a UV resistant polymer. The controls, such as the exposure mode selector and exposure compensation dial, are metal also and sealed. There is a thick rubber pad to protect the bottom of the camera, and even the flash is housed in stainless steel. Consequentially, the camera weighs more than a EOS-1n (910 grams vs. 855 grams). The optional vertical grip is die cast zinc, and the two optional backs are stainless steel.

3. I got into Minolta because that's what I dad used. He has a srT-101 that he bought new, and has used extensively (although the meter went bad, the camera itself is in very good condition still). I learned a lot using that camera, and when I decided to get an AF camera I naturally to look at Minolta. Although the 5000i I got wasn't exactly a srT, it did well enough for me for nearly 9 years. It was a pain in the ass to use in manual unless it was on a tripod, but it was the best I could afford. Just last year I upgraded to a 650si, which has, IMHO, about the best control layout of any AF camera. Wonderful camera to use. So when Minolta introduced a camera with the same handling, only in stainless steel (and with a much faster AF system), I knew this was the perfect camera for me (and I'm not a gear junkie or else I'd have bought a 9xi years ago).

To answer some of the complaints about the lack of Minolta gear availablity, B&H carries nearly everything available for Maxxums. Between their on-line catalog and the ones printed in photo mags, if there is something available that they don't carry, I don't know what it is (they even have drop in diopters for cameras like the 700si). And their prices have always been better than local shops I've been to, so if you need Minolta gear why not buy from them (everyone else seems to)? Used gear? KEH has an extensive range of used Minolta gear, lenses, flashes, the works. They even have a couple of 300 f2.8s there right now. I guess the big problem with used Minolta gear is that they don't change their lenses as often as Nikon and Canon, so people aren't compelled to upgrade as often. The moment Minolta releases new versions of lenses like their 80-200 f2.8, there will be an upsurge in used Minolta lenses available. Rental gear is a problem. Basically, there is none. But if there is a lens you need to use, an extra $50 and a deposit will probably cover the cost of a Nikon or Canon body to attach to the end of it. Their cameras aren't designed so differently that you can't figure out how to use the AF and exposure systems quickly.

All that said, if you already have a system, none of these cameras is a compelling reason to switch systems. For each, Canon, Nikon and Minolta, their top of the line camera is more than enough reason to stick with what you got and buy the pro model.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@erols.com), February 23, 1999.

If you think you might eventually use digital technology, you should consider that Nikon has unofically previewed a digital body based on what appeard to be the F100. This is not the super expensive body recently announced but a less expensive 2,000,000 pixel body that supposedly will list for less than $3000. Nikon seems to have made the commitmemt to produce digital bodies that will use its current lens systems and mounts. Good for them.

-- Stanley McManus (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 23, 1999.

Actually, since Nikon showed the digital F5/F100 at the PMA show earlier this month, I guess the preview was less unofficial than I thought. Of course, since nobody could acutally touch the body it can't be totaly official. Or can it?

-- Stan McManus (stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 23, 1999.

In other words, would you rather pay more to get a Minolta for simmilar or less function as EOS-3 or F100 ?

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), February 06, 1999.

Uhm, I'm afraid to say, that the 9 has been repoted by the photographic press, to be the best of the three cameras. Usualy the three are ranked like this - 9 - F100 - EOS3

To the gent thinking about getting any of these bodies, I'd recomend a trip to the magazine rack, a little research will go along way.

In the meantime, going to http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and- a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000dbO (Forgive my lack of HTML skills.)

That is a link to another photo-discussion regarding these three bodies...titled : Minolta shoots self in foot -- $1500 for Maxxuum 9

You might find a few suprizes in there.

-- Roseblood (kyller@annex.com), May 12, 1999.

> I am going to disagree with Scott on one point, used Minolta stuff. > There is none, well, almost. I wish there was more stuff out there, > but all it takes is a trip to Photo.net used equipment forum to see > the lack of used Minolta equipment.

This is somewhat of a circular argument, as most Minolta users tend to stay away from photo.net as the general atmosphere isn't exactly Minolta-friendly (just look at Philip's comments on the "first camera"-pages). What I'm saying is: Don't judge the market for used Minolta stuff from photo.net alone. Where I live (in wonderful Sweden -- the land of moose and reindeers ;-) Minolta equipment is fairly common. What is apparent though is that you have to keep your eyes open -- a good lens will disappear very fast from the dealer! I have no idea why, as good Canon/Nikon lenses can sit on the shelves for eons, but it's a fact. OTOH, Pentax equipment (especially AF) is almost non-existant. And in the case of Minolta, you can easily find good older "prosumer" lenses for a very low price (for example the wonderful 70-210/4 constant aperture zoom).

-- Magnus Gustafson (mg@9000.org), June 02, 1999.

I owned an F5 for almost two years, an F100 for two months and an EOS3 for two days. I now own the Maxxum (Dynax) 9 and I like it the best of the four. The EOS 3 is annoyingly LOUD (the shutter and mirror "clack" and the motor has an obtrusive high-pitched whine). I simply could not adjust to the noise (which is slightly worse than the already loud EOS 1n). The EOS 3 also feels rather "plasticky" and larger than the F100 and Maxxum 9 (although the EOS handgrip is very well contoured). For me, the ECF simply would not work consistently, despite repeated efforts at calibration and cumulative calibration. Apparently my eyeglasses are detrimental to the ECF's function and decrease my ability to place my eye in exactly the same place each time behind the eyepiece, as required. Also, my EOS 3 (purchased a few weeks ago with a date code indicating April 99 manufacture) consistently underexposed by about 1/2 stop. This problem, reported by many of the European magazines and EOS 3 users, apparently has not been completely rectified. I really wanted to like the Canon because I love the 28-135 IS lens, but I simply could not live with how loud and annoying it sounded. I could tolerate manual control of a diminished number of focusing points (11) and I could live with the need to send the EOS 3 in for adjustment of the exposure problem. I could even live with the less than solid feel. The F100 is truly excellent; it is reasonably solid (but NOT as solid as an F5 or the Maxxum 9), and very compact and quiet. Nikon's five focusing point sytem and joypad selector are extremely quick, well designed and easy to use. Nikon's three cross-sensors are usable to 5.6, unlike Canon's. In my experience, Nikon's 3-D matrix metering is the best in the business, with little or no difference between the F100 and the F5, notwithstanding the latter's RGB sensor. Unfortunately, Nikon's 50 mm lenses are flimsy and their rendition of out-of-focus backgrounds ("bokeh") is hard and angular (sunlight on tree leaves is particuarly annoying). As a group, Nikkors are often poor or mediocre in this regard (the 135 DC is a notable exception), although they usually excell in brilliance and color rendition. The Maxxum 9 feels like a little tank (much like the larger and heavier F5) and I find the controls to be particularly smooth, intuitive and quick. All in all, the "feel" of the Maxxum 9 (a combination of superb ergonomics, solidity, density, and smooth operating feel) is the best or tied for the best I have experienced in a 35mm SLR. To my hands, only the Leica M3, M2 and (most) M4's are better. The Maxxum also has the best viewfinder of all four of the cameras and, indeed, the best I have seen on ANY 35mm SLR. It is extremely bright, contrasty and large, and eye-relief is superb (the EOS 3 is the worst for eyeglass wearers). I also really like the NEW 50mm 1.4 Minolta lens; it's very compact and solid (I think the barrel is made of metal) with an excellent bayonet lens hood. It is somewhat soft at 1.4 but turns very good at 2 and is first-rate from 2.8 on. Of great importance to me is the extremely smooth and natural bokeh of this lens - in contrast to the Nikkors - Minolta even made the aperture blades more curved to further improve this quality. In general, as a group Minolta lenses have some of the best bokeh in the business. I consider the Maxxum 9 to be a superb, beautifully constructed, highly evolved camera, while the EOS 3 is a work in progress where, to a certain extent, technological prowess took precedence over real world reliability and practicality. The F100 is an excellent camera and a very close second to the 9, with the Nikon's slightly a less solid construction and the bokeh problem giving the advantage to the Minolta. The F5 is superb but it is too HEAVY and too BIG to be enjoyable to use. Now if only Minolta had an AF sensor configuration and control like Nikon's and a 28-135 IS lens that was sharper at the long end than Canon's :)

Tony Cheh

-- Tony Cheh (tonycheh@aol.com), June 14, 1999.

AS for Minolta I didn't see anyone mention that both the Maxxum 7 and 9 has 1/12,000 second shutter speed that neither Cannon or Nikon can keep up with. If you want to do any really fast shooting then it's nice. Also, for the price the Maxxum 7 seems very nice. It comes in at under $800 on the internet if you look and it has better AF than the 9.

I have to admit that I have been considering switching systems because of lenses, but what I've found is that the lenses are out there, you just have to look a little harder, and since there is less interest in the Minolta used equipment the prices are lower.

I'll probably try to pick up a used Maxxum 7 for my next body.

-- Michael Conlen (meconlen@obfuscated.net), January 03, 2001.

well, guys, i've read all your comments, and i'm sure that all of you are right - but at the end, its your own preferences that count. i'm a (getting-there) professional photojournalist form amman, jordan, and now i'm in the same spot as you, james... my (toy of a camera) EOS 300 (rebel 2000) got stolen a few months ago, so i've been out of work ever since!! so after a lot of reading and emailing pros all over the place just to be able to make up my mind on what new system to go for, i have to say, none of the big three is perfect... that said, i decided to go for the system that "helps me take better pictures" (if and when i get the money of course!!!). it doesnt matter (to me at least) what the white letters printed above the lens mount spell... and i dont really lend much consideration to the used market, because after all, you buy your equipment in order to use it for years, and even if it gets older, you should be able to take the same quality pics all along... you dont go and buy a lens just because you found a cheep used one!!! (do you really need that extra lens after all?? if you need it so badly, buy a new one!!!) although (i said a few lines up) my EOS 300 was a "toy" (all plastic, even the lens mount), i took my greatest pics with it, using a couple of "budget" (i.e. cheep) Canon lenses (28-80mm f/3.5-5.6, and 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM and 380EX flash) when i first bought it, it had a defect, and i couldnt get it to work, so i had to send it back to the UAE for replacement!!! later on, i learned from several people that all Canon EOS had similar problems!!! besides, keep in mind that you cannot learn much about photography as an art with canon - it is not a "learner's" camera. as for nikon, great, but too expensive, for no obviour reason!!! my confession: i have an overwhelming inclination towards Minolta (the underdog of the three). everyone told me the dynax 9 is the ultimate camera, but to tell you the truth, the only thing that is scaring me off is the built-in focusing motor (that is, the motor that moves the lens to focus is inside the body itself, not the lens, and it moves the lens via a series od gears and drive shafts) - what if it breaks down??? (highly unlikely, i know) i would end up with a manual-focus camera... nut nevertheless, the price alone is a magnet!!! at the end, its not the camera that counts - its the person peeping into its viewfinder that counts!!!

-- Shady Janzeir (six_wheeler@hotmail.com), September 01, 2001.

Shady,

I imagine that you would be able to take many fine pictures with a manual focus only Maxxum 9 until you could get it repaired. Perhaps in your region that could take some time -- maybe have a very inexpensive (used) backup Maxxum body?

I'm now married to the Canon EOS system (reason: lenses, & many of the EOS body features), but still love Nikon & Minolta gear (my first camera was the X-700). Nikon for their toughness, Spot & RGB metering (I guess Canon doesn't think it's important enough to emulate) & Minolta for their user friendly ergonomics. I must confess that I know next to nothing about the 9, but the 7 is beautiful (I wish Canon would slap a big LCD on the back -- with that command dial AND custom functions in English (French/Spanish/German...perhaps languages could be downloaded off the net?), DoF zone readings, etc.

One thing, though...all 3 manufacturers a continually updating & innovating their systems.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 01, 2001.