Camera World of Oregon has the current price for the Maxxuum 9 at $1500, with the MSRP around $2200. $1500 for a camera which falls far short of both the new Canon ($1399) and Nikon ($1299) offerings, and w/vertical grip (+ $229 = $1729), only a few hundred dollars short of the F5 ($1949). What is Minolta thinking? Can they sustain a pro level campaign with such an outrageous price for a glorified HTxi?

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), March 22, 1999

Answers

This is just basic economics. They will charge as much as they think people will pay. This price will only pull from there existing Minolta owners. I expect the price will fall rapidly to around $1100 before they start drawing on a new customer base.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 22, 1999.

I saw it in this months Shutter bug for $1299.00 . I can't remember who advertised it... Most just said call...

This seemed to be about right... I would like it to be a tad bit less (around $1000 would be nice) but if it was there I would want it for a couple of hundred less still.... There is no pleasing me...

Now all minolta needs is a better lens line up...

-- chris bordeleau (chris_bordeleau@lotus.com), March 22, 1999.

Minolta needed this body for current Minolta owners and to add credibility to their line for new buyers. Without a "top of the line" body current owners might start to look elsewhere when they want to "move up". For new buyers it demonstrates Minolta's commitment to being a full line maker; regardless of where a new buyer starts in their line. Pentax doesn't have a body like this, and they are the number one "switched from" brand. Hardly anyone whose invested in the high end of the Nikon or Canon cameras would switch to Minolta, because of this camera and I doubt if Minolta really cares.

-- Bruce Rubenstein (brubenstein@lucent.com), March 22, 1999.

There is finally THE body we Minolta owners were waiting for all these years. It is loaded with all the nice features we were missing so long such as 100% viewfinder, MLU, DOF, rugged body etc. but it comes at a high price.

If I had to start all over, I would get most of the important features out of a Canon ElanIIe which I could get with 28-135 and 75- 300 mm lenses, both IS for the price of one Maxxum 9 body!!!

I agree with the poster who said that Minolta won't draw "new" customers, noone is insane enough to do so unless the price significantly drops. Last but not least Minolta is still lacking a highspeed AF-motor and IS (rumours say IS it's coming soon though, patent pending!).

The former price advantage over Canon and Nikon bodies seems not given anymore. ADIOS Minolta, you've just lost some new customers!

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 22, 1999.

One of the British photo mags just did a review/comparison of the new Minolta, alongside the Nikon F100 and the Canon EOS 3. The Minolta had the most accurate metering and was the overall winner, with Nikon placing second. I would probably put a little more stock into their unbiased tests then I would a Pop Photo test. However, I will remain a dedicated Nikon user.

-- Ron Stecher (stecherr@vafb5a.vafb.af.mil), March 22, 1999.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I have to say it:

My God, are you a bunch of arrogant Canon/ and Nikon snobs! The Minolta 9 is a better camera than either the 100 or the 3 and at a similar price (i.e. in this segment). But it would be foolish for to switch if you've invested heavily in "the other" gear, so this camera will mainly appeal to Minolta-users: before you invest $ 1500 for just a body, you likely will have invested already more than double that in lenses.

Just my 2 cents. Fry me if you feel you need.

Evert

-- Evert Smit (evert.smit@nstarch.com), March 23, 1999.

It's not surprising that the Minolta's metering is so accurate they happen to make one of the most popular hand light meters used by professionals today. As to how good is the Maxxum 9? Only time will tell, not some photo magazines, how it will perform in the field. In a couple of years you will be able to better judge if it is up to pro standards or not.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 23, 1999.

To the original poster of this question, and others who may have similar views, don't judge a camera until you know the facts. There is more than one comparison test of the EOS 3, F100, and Maxxum 9 in which the Minolta is rated the best of the three, which are all admittedly excellent cameras. This includes two British magazines and, I believe, a German and or Swedish magazine. The 9 reportedly has the fastest AF and best metering, not to mention handling and viewfinder. While the differences are small, those are the results (although there is at least one other comparison in a French magazine that did not put the Minolta at the top). The point here is not that one camera is better than another, but that the Minolta is at least the equal of the others. Not to mention that its results are consistent in all the tests, whereas the EOS 3's notoriously inconsistent metering is reflected in several tests, one or two finding it great, others finding it severely underexposing or inconsistent. One test also found inconsistencies in the F100 metering.

The selling price of the 9 is within $100-200 of both the EOS 3 and F100, and at this price range that's not much of a difference. The higher Minolta price is, at least according to a Minolta rep, due to the "full metal jacket" that is the 9's body, compared, for example, to the largely polycarbonate (with some metal) body for the EOS 3. One reviewer of the 9, in Practical Photography (British), who is a Canon user and raved over the EOS 3, apparently raved more about the 9 and said it had him thinking about switching. While I agree that few if any dedicated Canon and Nikon users will switch because of this camera, there are others not yet dedicated to a system or who are just starting out who should certainly consider this camera.

Further, the crack about Minolta lenses also shows ignorance. While Minolta may not have every single lens in the Nikon or Canon line-up (and Nikon and Canon don't have lenses in the Minolta line up, such as the 1-3x macro, the 400/4.5, and the new 135/2.8-4 lens that does amazing things with out of focus backgrounds), Minolta does offer an extensive line and the top of the line lenses (usually designated as the G series) are generally the equal of the other brands. While one focal length from one manufacturer may test out slightly better than the other manufacturers', the pecking order will change for other focal lengths. Examples of some of the superior Minolta lenses (based, at least, on published test reports - for whatever they're worth) are the 200/2.8; 80-200/2.8; 100/2.8 macro; 400/4.5. I know several pros who formerly shot Minolta and switched to Canon or Nikon (largely because of Minolta's poor support for the professional/high end user - which is, unfortunately, an undisputable fact), who have stated that they generally don't see any difference in lens quality. Minolta lenses also reportedly have better "bokeh" (out of focus imaging characteristics). When I showed about 100 images shot with my Minolta equipment (big surprise there?) to a stock agency owner one of her first questions was whether I shoot Canon or Nikon. When I said neither she then asked about Leica. When I said Minolta she was surprised. The point is that she couldn't tell from the images and that is what matters.

Finally, many people read these Q&A's to get useful information for their own buying decisions. It would be nice if people would limit their comments to matters about which they are knowledgeable and not offer their own biased opinions without at least acknowledging they are such. While most answers posted here are individual opinions, people should at least be honest about where they're coming from. Yes, I'm a Minolta user. I'm not knocking the EOS 3 or the F100, which are both fine cameras. Which camera is best for any one person is a subjective matter depending on that person's individual needs and desires, not to mention ergonomic likes and dislikes. For many, Minoltas are the "best" camera, and the 9 is indeed a superlative product (not perfect mind you, but nothing is) that deserves consideration in this price range. People shouldn't denigrate a product they know little or nothing about.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for taking the time read this.

-- Mark Van Bergh (vanbergh@arterhadden.com), March 23, 1999.

For the record, I am a Minolta user as well (manual equipment though), and am looking objectively at all the systems (see an early post of mine in the archives). As such, I was truly drawn to the Minolta body because of the stated benefits and the early reports that it would be priced under the F100 and EOS 3. If the tests pan out and the AF is faster and as accurate (with only 3 sensors and one cross), and the meter is as accurate as stated (which I don't dispute and put the most weight on in looking at the cameras), then the Minolta will jump to the top of the list. I don't have access to any of the British Mags, so I haven't had a chance to see a review other than the one in Pop Photo (which I read only to see the 9's features). If someone can point me to a URL with a synopsis of the British reviews or would care to post a synopsis, I would be very appreciative.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), March 23, 1999.

One poster asked for a synopsis of the British reviews. Let me quote the last paragraph of a comparison test of the Nikon F100, the Canon EOS-3, and the Dynax [Maxxum to us USA folks] 9 in the March 1999 issue of Photo Technique (which can be gotten now in US bookstores). "Who does this Dynax 9 bloke think he is? Sliding in the back way and bashing the good guys. Before the test I knew that the Dynax was going to be good, but I really didn't expect it to scratch the paintwork of the EOS-3 or the F100. It has. And more. These are all excellent cameras, and are so close in quality that there is no reason for a serious Canon user to switch to Nikon just to get the F100, or for a Nikon user to dump his whole kit in favour of the Dynax 9, but the serious enthusiast upgrading from an entry level machine might well be tempted. I am surprised at the EOS-3's exposure problems, and that will lose it points. The F100 is a fantastic camera, and will rightly occupy the daydreams of those unable to afford the F5, but for me the Minolta Dynax 9 is the winner. It's the combination of great handling, super fast AF and unbeatable exposures that makes me feel funny all over."

-- Tom Jackson (tjackson@db6.cc.rochester.edu), March 23, 1999.

Minolta is thinking clearly and wisely. Their 9 is a superb camera that will be a fine compliment to their excellent line of higher end optics. Contrary to the beliefs of some out there, Minolta's AF lens line-up is not inferior to their Nikon or Canon counterparts, unless you happen to need a perspective control lens or an AF 400mm f2.8. Of course, if you happen to need a superb AF 400mm f4.5 lens, then you're out of luck if you own Nikon or Canon.

-- George Rhodes (betsy@colormewell.com), March 23, 1999.

I think Nikon/Canon/Minolta wars are a waste of time. All the major manufacturers have their pros and cons, and they are all different. We should be glad we have options! Pick whatever system best meets your needs (and don't slam someone else's system just because it doesn't meet your needs). The price of the new Minolta is sure to drop, just like all new cameras do after awhile. If it seems like too much money right now, just wait! For those who can't wait, it is obviously worth the higher cost to get one now...

-- Bruce (brideout@sunstroke.sdsu.edu), March 23, 1999.

$1,500.00 isn't a bad price at all in my opinion. Does anyone remember the Minolta XKM from the 70's?. That thing cost $2,200 US dollars back then!! I can't wait to buy the new Minolta 9. Another thing, if somebody wanted to trade me a Nikon F5 with matching lenses I have in my arsenal for my Minolta gear I simply wouldn't do it. I work with a staff of 18 photographers & a few freelancers. 2 of us have used the Minolta 9xi since it first appeared. (My first Minolta!!) I can tell you that it is on a par with every thing the Nikon & Canon users have. In many cases, better: Wireless Remote flash , been using it flawlessly for many years. Superior meter. Lens sharpness & contrast superior. Repair frequency & turn around time far quicker, much less need of repairs. Don't give me any crap about not knowing what I am talking about because I have seen the comparisons every day for the past 8 or 9 years, side by side results on film.

-- Gary Walts (waltsman@imcnet.net), March 24, 1999.

I just handled the 9 for an extended period in a dealer's shop today. In terms of design, construction, build quality, ergonomics, feel, viewfinder brightness, ergonomics and handling simplicity, it is peerless. I've handled and used Canons, Nikons, Leicas and Contaxes, nothing comes close to the kind of user controllability and speed which the 9 offers on all critical camera settings. AF speed, lens quality, metering are all very important, but if the camera does not allow the user to change controls and settings quickly and easily when conditions are less than ideal, then, IMHO, the rest are secondary. As I hv developed my photo skills, I have come to realise that ergonomics and handling are probably the most important factors to getting a good picture for the kind of photography I like to do. For me, the 9 is a compelling proposition because, all other things being equal (and by and large, they are), using the 9 is easy, quick and downright fun. And I hvn't even run film thru it yet!! USD1,500 expensive...for best handling and viewfinder, ultimate customising capability, some truly unique practical features and the potential of something interesting happening with the data back memory chip facility...maybe not!

-- T C Khoo (gracedieu1@pacific.net.sg), March 25, 1999.

Having only owned the camera for 11 days now (and it's been cold and rainy here for most of it), my first impressions are first rate. One hell of a camera in feel/build/ergonomics. Tools of any sort are a "personal" thing -- what you like perhaps I don't, (as someone else said, great to have choices!) but for even THOSE die-hard C/N users out there -- you really should give your loyalty a rest for a few minutes and test drive one. I think you'll be very surprised. Definately worth the bucks.

-- Keven Fedirko (altered@imag.net), March 26, 1999.

I hv used the 9 and put film thru it. It is an incredible picture taking machine and the images are excellent. All the reports from the British Mags are now easy to concur with. Excellent handling, tank-like construction, faultless exposure, great flash shots, still the most convenient off camera flash capability, the brightest viewfinder anywhere, very fast and quiet AF and lots of other convenient features. The built in flash, data memory recall and mid roll rewind have all come in handy so far.

Showed it to a Nikon friend who has an F5 and was going to buy an F100. He was very psyched about it. Liked the design, handling, build and viewfinder; admitted it was brighter than his F5. Could see or hear no discernible difference in AF speed and noise. He was most impressed with handling and ergonomics, confessed that he preferred the knobs and dials simplicity over the his F5's buttons. But of course, he would not/could not switch...had too much invested in the Nikon system. In the end though, we concurred that the differences between the machines were so marginal, they are both truly excellent. It would probably be our own skill and experience sets which would be the most severe limiting factor!!

-- T C Khoo (gracedieu1@pacific.net.sg), April 04, 1999.

To the original poster: I suppose after reading the last several replies to your message, you can see the error of your statement, that you didn't think enough to look at tests and reviews before blowing off your steam. The EOS-3 has its drawbacks, an AP reviewer complained that it seemed a bit plasticy for a camera that cost 1000 UKP (they weren't even sure that it would last as long under pro use as the other two). Photo Technique's review complained of serious exposure problems. And both magazines rated its AF as slower than either the F100 or the Maxxum 9 (although AP thought it was marginally more accurate). And AP had given the EOS-3 their Camera of the Year award the week before, which they mentioned in the first line of their explanation of why the Maxxum 9 was the best of the three cameras. On the other hand, the F100 seemed to fair very well in the tests, and it was knocked for more of what it lacked in comparison to the Maxxum 9, like mirror lock up and a very bright 100% viewfinder, than any sort of performance issues (although AP thought the Max 9 was faster at AF). Of course the F100 lacks those things, if it had them no one would really need the F5 (as far as metering, the F100 seemed to do as good as the 9 in the AP test, they liked a result between the two cameras, and in the Photo Technique review it was rated as just behind the 9 in exposures). The Max 9 is not a glorified HTsi. It is a great camera, more than the equal of either the F100 or the EOS-3. $200 over the price of the F100 isn't that much of a premium, considering the differences.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@gmu.edu), April 05, 1999.

Well, my inability to research the 9 is no more short-sighted than your inability to read my later post which stated that I did not have access to any reviews and that I would sure love to read them (a very kind poster to this thread sent me a stack of reviews of all the cameras). Nonetheless, yes, the 9 is an incredible camera. But, to take your $200 premium logic a step further...at only $200 less than the F5 (with the vertical grip), it isn't much of a bargain. Further, yes, it is a glorified conglomeration of the HTsi, 600, and 7000. Minolta drew its best features together, put them in a tank shell, and gave it a 100% viewfinder. It is a wonderful idea, and has proven to be as practical in use as it was in theory, but it is still nothing new.

I wrote the "headline" out of disappointment. Press statements put the price of the 9 equal to or less than the F100 or EOS 3. Instead the price was higher than both. (Canon pulled this with the 3 and pissed a lot of people off too) I was not trying to bash the 9, but was bluntly stating that for all my prior exuberance over Minolta's reemergence into the pro market, they over priced the camera, and have since under-marketed it as well. I want Minolta to succeed, and if I have the money in a year when I am finally going to upgrade from my SRT101 (yeah, a MINOLTA), I will most definitely buy the 9.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 05, 1999.

The Maxxum 9 has flash metering and built in wireless flash and a 100% viwefinder and a kind of MLU. F5's, as far as I remember, don't have flash metering or built in wireless. When I add those features to the price of an F5, I see that it has climbed quite a bit ($400 or so). The F100 doesn't have any of these features.

And the viewfinder is important! I am constantly surprised going back and forth between an F3 and an N90 how big a difference it makes, confidently framing for 8x10 proportions rather than hoping. What would surprise me is paying $1300 for a camera without the big viewfinder. Toss in an extra meter and wireless control, and while you might not have a better deal -- a lot of people need neither of these -- you have a competitive camera. Certainly more competitive than the F100: its only big improvements over the N90 are CF4, faster AF, and a UI without the moronic picture programs. More like a crippled F5 or an N90ss rather than a new camera. The EOS 3 seems to be a better deal than the F100, but I'd have a 1N first. Why not take true MLU for less money?

I think the Maxxum 9 is a great entry... if the glass is there to mount to it. Perhaps all those Minolta users who think their lenses should have as excellent reputations as some of C's or N's will get their chance now.

-- John O'Connell (oconnell@siam.org), April 06, 1999.

True, the F5 is lacking flash metering and wireless flash, but it has its own type of uniqueness which makes it an F5. Each pro-level camera has a unique feature which is a "decider": EOS 3 - 45 point eye control; F5 - 1005 pixel metering and 8fps; Maxxum 9 - flash metering and wireless flash. These are the features which help delineate the cameras from one another and also play to the marketing of each company. Thus, it is not prudent to pick one feature and compare all others against that marker. And, while the 100% viewfinder is excellent, it has been done without by probably 95% of the market and with little effect. Note that the picture of the year (or a derivation something thereof) in pop photo was made with a point and shoot. A 100% viewfinder is a luxury beyond most others and has the utility, for most people, equivalent of having the 8fps that the F5 offers -- hence, not much. Nonetheless, I love what the 9 brings to the market because it widens the competition, forces the Canon and Nikon camps to expand their definitions of acceptable, and gives a wonderful alternative to people willing to take the chance with a company that has ebbed and flowed quite a bit.

My final note, to those championing the statements made by the British Mags, is that many of those same British publications stated that the 9's price was prohibitive considering the latest offerings by Canon and Nikon. Basically, each article I have read has said much the same thing I did: Minolta is broaching the pro market for the first time in 7 years and priced its camera beyond the competition and has none of the glory or ingenuity of the Canon or Nikon offerings, aside from two basic pro level features -- metal chasis and 100% viewfinder. No doubt the camera is incredible, but Minolta did do itself a disservice pricing it as it did...and undermarketing it as it usually does with its goods.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 06, 1999.

I had been in the market for a 35 mm system for a very long time. N or C? Perhaps the small C (ontax)? or the L? Price was no object. I was ready to go for the Nikon F5 about last month because its price has become very tempting. Then one day I read about the Minolta Max 9. Monolta was the furthest thing in my mind. What swung it for me were its steel chassis, and 100% viewfinder. As Minolta's flagship camera it is not overpriced. In terms of build quality and features , it is not overpriced. I guess objections from those who associate the name Minolta with cheap cameras because for the longest time all they had were cheap cameras while N and C had their field day with the F5 and the 1N, respectively.

I wish it were cheaper so that more can afford it but it is not for a good reason: Minolta can't be selling too many of these to spread the cost of manuafacturing the steel chassis. At its current build level I don't think a lower price is possible. When the F5 debuted in the US it was going for about $2895, it debuted at about $2000 in Asia at the same time. Today, the F5 costs about $1850-$1950; it's about $1900 in Asia, may be $1800 on a good day. The Dynax 9 debuted at about US$1500 in Singapore and Japan. Its doppelganger, the Max 9 costs about $1500 Stateside. Too expensive? I don't think so. Contrary to what James believes, I don't think Minolta goofed with their marketing.

Heft a Max 9 if you have a chance and compare it to the EOS 3 and F100, and then to the F5. Use it if you have a chance, and forget about all the techno-whiz-gizz of USM, AF-S, 1005-matrix metering, 45- eye-point... If you believe what your fingers and senses tell you and not the marketing hype that you read you'll determine for yourself whether the Max 9 is any good and worth the money. If Minolta had released the Max 9 right next to the F5 when that made its appearance, I wonder whether the comments would flow the other way and say that Minolta priced it too low and no-one will take it seriously now as a pro camera.

You get what you pay for, you pay for what you get. It'll never be cheap enough for some. There ain't no free lunch. I put my money where my mouth is and after delibarating two long years, I finally have a pro camera with its G-glass to start me on my career.

Cheers...Rene

-- rene (renequan@bigfoot.com), April 06, 1999.

To James about the Brit reviews: You need to read the Amateur Photographer group test of the the 9/F100/EOS-3. In the last section about the results, AP considered the price issue and said that the 300 UKP more for the Dynax 9 was a non-issue considering the price of a kit as a whole. The Photo Technique test didn't mention price at all, and the 9 won that comparison as well. And the difference in price here is even less.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@gmu.edu), April 06, 1999.

To James: Well hell, what in photography is new recently? The eye-control focus of the EOS-3? No, that isn't new. The five point focus of the F100? No, that isn't new. Doesn't that mean that the EOS-3 is a glorified A2 and the F100 just a crippled F5 (and if you add the price of the vertical grip to it, it gets pretty damn close to the F5's price as well)? The 9 has things not on any Maxxum previous to it, 100% viewfinder, 4 segment flash metering, MLU, the data back with removable smart cards, as well as the things that were improved upon from the 9xi, like motor drive speed, custom features and customizablity, body build, and AF performance. Of course the most important thing, much more than what parts it might or might not share with any other camera, is how it performs. And 9 owners who posted to the MML have raved about the camera, how it feels and works. One owner even said that the AF performance was about twice that of the 9xi. Try and get that out of a HTsi.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@gmu.edu), April 06, 1999.

I think we are to the point of arguing semantics. You make some very good points and my initial assertion of a shot to the foot was a bit heavy-handed. I am most impressed by the Practial Photography article which had the exposures compared between the 3, 9, and F100. That truly showed what is most important (at least to me). I wish more reviews would approach it from the standpoint of showing actual exposures, rather than potificating about intangibles or inconsequentials. I truly hope the price of the 9 comes down just a bit, because I will likely buy it then.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 06, 1999.

I'm think I'm the chappie who posted that the 9 was/is twice as fast as the 9xi, and that was not the only piece of good news, as we have all so rightly pointed out in all the posts.

It's interesting, if u look at all the threads here, I think we are all in agreement that the 9 is a great camera with certain special features which make it unique in its own right. The price issue...well, it really depends on how u look at it. Against the F100 and EOS3, 20-30% more, but it appears that this may be a non issue for the intended target market for Minolta with regards to the 9, ie. the pro, aspiring pro, or advanced amateur (who I'm sure M has figured will probably have the means anyway). Besides, by most counts, it seems to be the best camera amongst the latest 3 offerings.

Versus the 1N and F5, feature for feature, the 9 holds its own and probably offers better value than both. Performance wise, there will probably be very little in it...and it will still in all likelihood come down to the "soft" factors: brand equity, loyalty, handling etc.

Point being, whether or not it's expensive is really dependent on each individual's unique circumstances and perspective of the situation. For myself, it took me quite a while to decide, cos I could not rationalise why I should be paying 2.5x more than an 800SI for a camera which, on the surface, did not seem to offer that much more. Than I went to try it out....and realised that for me, this is not only about the construction, the handling, the AF speed, etc, I am paying a premium cos I am buying a piece of engineering which is Minolta's attempt at perfection in AF photographic engineering in practical terms, and they've come damned close. It does not matter to me that it does not appear to have the most leading edge technology; in practical photo taking terms and usage, very few, if any cameras come close to it for making high level creative photography intuitive and fun. I've got it now, and it's the first camera I have owned (Contax and Leica included) that makes me want to experiment freely and stretch myself photographically. For that alone, it is worth me shelling out the extra dosh. (Besides, I've saved for it for 6 mths!)

By the way, since quite a few of us have bought, or are thinking of buying it, we should probably start figuring out how we can get the most out of it. Like proper daylight fill flash comp, any sercret functions etc. MML here I come!

-- T C Khoo (gracedieu1@pacific.net.sg), April 08, 1999.

> Each pro-level camera has a unique feature which is a "decider": [snip] > F5 - 1005 pixel metering

Which, of course, is a non-issue and just a marketing ploy, as Minolta's 14-zone fuzzy logic matrix metering still is referred to as "the best in the world". More zones isn't necessarily better (as EOS3's meter, which according to ALL tests underexposes, proves).

> and 8fps;

Yup, this is more of a deciding factor, I admit that.

-- Magnus Gustafson (mg@9000.org), April 19, 1999.

The reason all of us have such a problem is that there are great cameras out there. If one of them was the right choice we could all order it. Not so. My hands on and research shows the following. 1) The cost should not be the main factor. 2) The EOS3 is an overdesigned FLAWED product. 3) The same report that is quoted with facts that the "9" is the best exposure camera gives the nod to the F100 as dead on; the "9" as 1/3 under and the EOS3 as 2/3 to 1 1/2 under. 4) The F100 gets the nod as best for focus acquision. 5) The report is from Photo Technique (English). 6) They talk of the "9" burning the other two but never mention an area that it does it in. 7) Only in "feel" is it better. 8) I seem to sense a feeling that the "9" was destined for third place prior to the report. When it did well and the EOS3 was found flawed it created its own fudge factor and seemed greater than it is. 9) Speak to Minolta and they tell you it is all their best past technology, "tweeaked" and iron clad. 10) Look at the PT report. You will find it fair, very accurate and intelligent. I read the report as being too forgiving to the EOS3. I know I owned that "dog" for 2 months and returened all Canon wequipment because the company would not fess up to its 2/3-1 1/2 underexposure.

The solution seems to be that you take the F100 innards and place it in the "(' body. Add that grat VC-9 grip and you got it!

Summation: Can't go wrong with "9" of F100. Can go very wrong with the EOS 3. Pro it ain't. A triumph it ain't. Minolta or Nikon? I went both. Burt

-- Burt Yust (MacBurt@AOL.com), April 19, 1999.

The german photo mag "Foto", just out, supposedly has a review/ comparison of the 9/100/3. Has anyone read this? Results? When living in Germany, I put more credence in this mag than any other photo source, and its print and content quality is unsurpassed. Unfortunately, it is terribly expensive to subscribe to it in the "Real World".

-- Paul G. Dougherty (pgalvind@bellatlantic.net), April 19, 1999.

To Paul: I haven't read the results of the Foto magazine test myself, but they were summarized and posted to the Minolta Mailing List. A summary of the summary is as follows: 1. handling: the 9 had the best handling, with the best vertical grip. 2. exposure: Minolta and Nikon had the best, but there was little difference between all of them. 3. Minolta nd Canon were best because of their way of showing the active focus sensor. 4. AF: Minolta was the fastest focusing with a 28-105mm lens, needing only .28 seconds to focus from infinity to 2 meters at 28mm and .31 seconds at 105mm (Canon needed .35 seconds and .58 seconds respectively, Nikon needed .35 and .41). 5. Flash: Minolta was the best, but there was little difference between it and Nikon. The final conclusion was that all three are great cameras, and which every choice you make would be a good choice.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@erols.com), April 19, 1999.

i wonder how long canon will be crying because the EOS-3 that was tested first had a calibration error and was in need of repair. that initial test seems to have persuaded many people (at least many people here) to believe that the eos-3 is worthless. of course that's a silly conclusion to reach, but people will reach it nonetheless. and they'll tell people who will tell people who will tell people who will tell people who will tell people, etc... pretty soon a single broken camera means the EOS-3 is "an overdesigned FLAWED product." and "{You} can go very wrong with the EOS 3. Pro it ain't. A triumph it ain't."

of course if that camera so consistantly underexposes, it's pretty common logic to conclude that it needs to be adjusted, and then will then consistantly expose correctly. if it was right sometimes, over sometimes, under sometimes i'd be a little worried, but since everyone is adamant that it CONSISTANTLY underexposed, then i'm not worried. adjust it and it'll CONSISTANTLY be right. a simple fix.

the funny thing is that this may have a silver lining for canon. eventually the EOS-3 will be one of those cameras that "had a few bugs when initially released, that were eventually worked out" then more and more people will buy them. but until then canon will be able to keep the price high, and the people smart enough to realize it's a good camera and just can't wait to have one will have to pay the higher price. i'll wait for the dust to settle and the price to come down though. just like i will for the minolta 9.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 19, 1999.

I hate to pick this up Sean, but I do not see why a consumer should be doing a consistent adjustment on exposure for a camera he paid USD1000 for when it should not have the problem in the first place. Which brings me to an interesting observation about first production run EOS3, F100s and 9s hitting the market.

I was checking around some dealers and users on their experiences with the 3, F100 and 9. Feedback was: 3 - complaints about underexposure, F100 - first production run appears to have a problem with the mid roll rewind function, ie. it could not. Should be fixed by now. 9...no issues yet, appears to be the best put together. There is a growing legion of Canon and Nikon users out there who appear to be discovering the 9. We r talking F5s and 1N owners, many of whom can afford to hv multiple systems. They seem to be very impressed with the construction, ergonomics and the viewfinder. And they have not even put film thru the camera. Many of them have severe brand loyalty, but this does not cloud their judgement when they see a good product. They appear to think the 9 has what it takes, but maybe appeared just a little late.

Well, better late than never...I guess.

-- T C Khoo (gracedieu1@pacific.neet.sg), April 19, 1999.

> the EOS-3 that was tested first had a calibration error and was in > need of repair

Isn't it strange that EVERY SINGLE REVIEW in the US, GB, Germany and Sweden mentions that EOS3 underexposes compared to Maxxum 9 and F100? Hmm. I guess the very same faulty sample must have been sent all around the world. Seriously, it's quite clear to me that it is designed that way.

> price to come down though. just like i will for the minolta 9

It's not likely that the price will come down much, as it is harder than most cameras to manufacture -- I have also heard that it's partly hand-assembled. You can't push the prices much in that case...

-- Magnus Gustafson (mg@9000.org), April 20, 1999.

t c. i didn't mean to imply that the user should deal with that problem. i meant that canon should fix it, and if you got one of the ones that is underexposing then canon should fix yours (or better yet send you a new one in exchange)

magnus. i don't read magazine reviews of camera equipment because they are largely worthless, so i wasn't aware of this being a consistant problem, not just a sample variation. but if it IS a consistant problem with all of the cameras, then that makes me feel EVEN BETTER about buying one in a year or so. it's obviously something canon will change (or "fix" if you like that word better) and then they'll all be consistantly correct. if it were only a few samples that were wrong, i'd be forever worried that i'd end up with one of the "bad" ones. but since they are all "bad", soon they'll all be fixed.

----------

it's sad to admit, but it seems that initial testing of almost all products (cameras, computer software, etc.) these days sucks. they give them to us (consumers) to test, then they fix the problems we find. but... be that as it may, the products will eventually work, we just have to wait a year. oh well...

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 20, 1999.

What worries me about the EOS-3 saga is this: it apparently exposes correctly with its 550EX flash but underexposes under natural light. What does this imply? That the 'fix' may not be as simple as it sounds. It is not a matter of bad calibration but an issue of a fundamentally flawed design. Iw ish that Canon will have more respect for its consumers than to release flawed products and make consumers pay to be its testbed. Explaining it away under first production run glitches simply won't cut the mustard with me. Consumers who are too kind are asking to be abused at a price.

-- rene (renequan@bigfoot.com), April 20, 1999.

um... the flash meter and the ambient light meter are completly different systems. at least they are on my eos-5. it uses completly different sensors, and i assume a different algorithm for figuring out the exposure. it seems pretty easy for one system to be calibrated differently then the other.

i do agree that it's bad business for canon to make consumers test their stuff. but i still think that by the time i want to buy an eos-3 (early next year?) all the "bugs" will be worked out.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 21, 1999.

To Sean: I think what Rene was concerned about when mentioning that the flash metering was doing better than the ambient metering is that the flash meter is a simpler system, without the 21 zone system that ambient metering is using. And regarding the consistant metering problem reported in magazine reviews, the two reviews that I've read (AP and Photo Technique) did point out a consistant problem with the EOS-3, but it was only consistant in that it had a problem (its photos were darker - some incredibly so). The exposures themselves varied rather than ending up all a certain EV value off. That doesn't sound like something Canon could just adjust, at least not the way that a consistant 2/3 under could be adjusted. Thing is, in both reviews neither the Minolta nor the Nikon had any sort of problem (the reviewers liked both camera's metering systems equally, although Photo Technique leaned toward the Minolta). However, in Practical Photographer's review of the 9 the reviewer commented that the 9 was almost as good at exposure as the EOS-3 (which the same reviewer had given a perfect score to), and it was the F100 that had the serious problem. Maybe there ought to be some consistant standards for judging exposures in reviews (I didn't see any pictures showing where the 9 had failed in exposure in PP's review, unlike either the AP test or the PT test), so we can at least try to compare reviews.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@erols.com), April 22, 1999.

"However, in Practical Photographer's review of the 9 the reviewer commented that the 9 was almost as good at exposure as the EOS-3 (which the same reviewer had given a perfect score to), and it was the F100 that had the serious problem. Maybe there ought to be some consistant standards for judging exposures in reviews"

first let me say i haven't read any of these reviews, so i'm taking it on face value that what people are saying here is true. as far as i can tell the eos-3 metering did pretty poorly on two big tests and scored perfect (beating the other two) on one test. what do you make of that? do you go with the majority? do you take an average?

it's things like this that make me pretty much ignore the subjective reviews of camera bodies. (or lenses, or flashes, or stereos, or almost anything) lack of standards, wildly different results from test to test (even in the same publication), and the fact that the reviews are written based on not losing advertising, all make them pretty much worthless in my opinion.

i read the reviews to get easier to read feature lists then you can get from the marketing literature (nikon doesn't put "NO mirror lockup" in it's feature list for the f100 so i might miss that if i didn't read a review where the reviewer was likely to point it out) but as far as "this is better, that is better" i ignore it. if i want to do a comparison i will, but i usually don't.

i find it hard to believe that canon or nikon or ANYONE would release a camera to market an 1999 that was designed so poorly that it couldn't meter correctly. call me trusting (or naive) but i figure that the products will function. all i look for in reviews is what functions the equipment is supposed to do.

so... as far as the eos-3, 9, and f100 go... apparently depending on how lucky you are the camera you get might be perfect or it might be very bad. (i bought an eos-5 that had the shutter fail on the VERY FIRST time i tripped it, so luck plays a pretty big part) that leaves me with this conclusion.

"get whichever camera you like. they're all good. (better then any i own) if it performs poorly send it back for another copy or to get it fixed."

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 22, 1999.

Coming into this thread late, so I won't repeat the obvious. While debating last fall what to add to my Pentax MF, to get AF and state-of-the-art metering & flash control, my options were wide open. Pentax doesn't have an entry worth considering. (They wouldn't have a buttet hole in their foot if they'd realised the necessity of replacing the LX, not just retiring it.) Then along came the 9, and reading the initial reports and Minolta's Euro site spec post made the choice obvious. Simply put, the 9 does everything a pro needs, and rather than try to break new ground, Minolta offers a single body with proven features. Then came EOS 3 and F100, and although they may be cheaper, they are not well-rounded, and in the case of the 3, it turns out the metering's flawed. I'd rather be stuck with 2 fps than a funky metering algorithm. The F100 may have the best user interface since the FM2, but it doesn't pretend to be a pro caliber camera. As for lenses, Minolta's recent additions and upgrades clearly demonstrate their commitment to superlative optics. The extra $200 +/- for the 9, considering how much the camera is expected to produce, is inconsequential. If cost matters, get a 600si, which might be the best choice for a backup to the 9.

-- Michael Moon (mfhmoon@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

To Sean: You should take a look at the Photo Technique and Amatuer Photographer reviews of the three cameras. They include pictures that the cameras took. I haven't actually seen the AP photos, but in the Photo Technique review you can clearly see the exposure differences between the cameras. The F100 has the brightest exposures, in at least one instance seems too bright, the Dynax 9 is a little darker than the F100, and the EOS-3's pictures are all darker than either of the other two. One picture done with the EOS-3 is far too dark. I thought about printing problems, but it isn't just one EOS-3 photo that is dark, it is each and every one that is significantly darker. And I believe Photo Technique more than Practical Photographer, which had nothing but great shots by the 9 in its review. So, not all reviews are alike. Of course it is hard to judge without reading them and seeing the pictures yourself. But from what I've seen the 9 and the F100 are both quite good at exposures, and the EOS-3 (at least the one they tested) was horrible.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@erols.com), April 30, 1999.

Michael Moon wrote:

"The F100 may have the best user interface since the FM2, but it doesn't pretend to be a pro caliber camera."

This is just plain wrong. The F100 is advertised as a pro level camera and has similar construction to the F5. I don't understand what makes you feel that it is not a pro-level camera in contrast to the Minolta or the Canon.

As far as I am concerned, only the F5 is clearly a better body than the F100 (and everything elese of course). I also think that the E0S-1n is right now a better deal for someone that wants to buy only USM/SWM lenses along with his body. Many people will disagree, but I think that most should agree that the F100 is indeed a pro-caliber body regardless of it's relative position to the competion.

-- Costas Dimitropoulos (costas@udel.edu), April 30, 1999.

My mistake, it is built for and aimed at the pro and serious amateur market. My point was that the 9 is a serious contender, and does not appeal only to existing Minolta users. Reviews, considered in the aggregate, give it a slight edge over the F100. The EOS 3 needs to get that exposure problem fixed. All three are nonetheless good enough to deserve to keep photographers who have already invested in the brand. But, for anyone who puts brand loyalty aside or hasn't bought into a system yet, the 9 has the edge, however slight.

-- Michael Moon (mfhmoon@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

I think Minolta HAS put a good hole in one of their feet.

Minoltas have always been regarded as the best bang for the buck sort of camera. Delivering cameras with innovations that have real world use. (They Invited the AF SLR, They were the first to use more than one metering cell, they have had remote TTL control in their cameras as long as I've been a minolta owner [400si, 3 years ago, and this was the BOTTOM of the line that Minolta was making])

They are *NOT* known for their *ULTRA* pro spec bodies... their pro- spec bodies have been comprable to 2nd tier pro-spec cameras from other makers, but at lower costs. Now they have made a 2nd tier pro- spec SLR, that cost more than the other two of the "big three".

Minolta could have gone with a viewfinder that's less than 100% (and all if the VERY CRITICAL QC checks and precision assembly techniques...it's not easy to make the viewfinder match the film gates exactly, and still line up so that the viewinder isn't out-of- line with the film gate's view of the world. With a viewfinder of 96% x94%, it would be reasonable to expect the exact same camera to cost closer to $1250 than the $1499 that it currently sale for.

Minolta, at this point, has the best 2nd tier Pro-Spec SLR out there...it's not an F5, and it wasn't meant to be. It's an F100 competetior, and an N-90 Killer. It is unfortunately priced more than the F100. For the improved egronomics and faster AF, the extra price MIGHT not be worth it to some. Definately not worth switching over from one system to another (Imagine the losses you'd take, selling all your Nikon or Canon stuff, then buying the same stuff to fit the Maxxum cameras.)

The best thing Minolta (or any camera maker) could do with a camera in this 2nd tier, is to keep new SLR buyers out of their competitors systems. With a higher price the 9 will not be as effective as it could have been. How many new photographers will be too upset with a less than 100% viewfinder? So what, the AF is faster, N,C, and M all AF very fast at this level. So what if the metering was the most accurate (the F100 won't be wrong often enough to impress the new camera buyer...although I've heard terrible things about the new EOS body and underexposure.) What they will see is 3 cameras that are not- so diffrent than eachother, but with diffrent prices. Without the usual price advantage Minolta usualy enjoys, it will not enjoy it's usual marketshare of people buying into their first AF SLR system.

All in all, 2 GREAT Cameras, 1 not as great (Sorry Canon fans, no one is perfect...afterall Minolta did, thankfully only for a little while, play with motorized zoom lenses in their bodies.)

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

I agree with the poster who said that Minolta won't draw "new" customers, noone is insane enough to do so unless the price significantly drops. Last but not least Minolta is still lacking a highspeed AF-motor and IS (rumours say IS it's coming soon though, patent pending!).

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 22, 1999.

uhm...Minotla is NOT lacking HIGHSPEED AF MOTORS, it focused faster than the F100 and the new EOS in multiple tests by various magazines. Although, all the cameras were fast. Just because the motor isn't built into the lens, dosen't mean it's slow. Not putting a motor into a lens makes the lens more affordable, or of better quality, or of lighter weight..or a little bit of everything better. It's all about the KISS principle.. Keep It Simple Stupid.

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

It should be noted I wasn't calling anyone stupid. But, lord, it sure as hell looks like I did.

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

The 9 has it where it counts: specs, capability, performance, build quality. As for not drawing in new users - threads are appearing from people who *are* changing from other brands and they're not sorry in the least. Also, although everyone else has the 9 prices at $1499, Camera World of Oregon has advertised it at $1399. Minolta is the best camera of the 3 and now the price gap is smaller. And the used stuff *is* out there - just check Keh. Canon vs. Nikon is not the only comparison to make any more.

-- Michael Moon (mfhmoon@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

To Roseblood: About Minolta not putting out ultra spec'd pro bodies, I think you need to reconsider what ultra spec you're talking about. The XK/Motor, while lacking the 100% viewfinder, was a high spec'd pro body with interchangable finders and a version with a high speed motor drive. The body offered nearly everything that its competitors offered at the time, except for the 100% viewfinder - it was 98%. There were plenty of accessories, and the camera had a heavy duty build, and it came at a heavy duty price. The two things that the 9000 lacked compared to its competitors were a 100% viewfinder and MLU. It could use a fast motor drive, but it was about the only mass produced AF camera I've seen with manual film advance. It had a fast shutter and fast flash sync, and was introduced with such things as the first auto-zoom flash head and a program back that is still a much used accessory because of its versitility. There was also an accessory for programing the camera's shutter and aperture using a handheld meter, something I haven't seen since. The camera is still being used today by many people, and the camera is still recommended as a solid workhorse camera - not bad for something discontinued about ten years ago. The 9xi was the first camera not requiring a booster to have a AF tracking speed of 4.5 fps, the first (and one of only two cameras) to have a 1/300 normal flash sync, and with the card system it had something Canon users are making a big deal about with the EOS-3, multispot metering. The 9 is the first pro camera with a built in flash (which is best used for triggering off camera flashes), it has three different flash metering modes - along with pre-flash metering with the 5400HS, it has exposure data recording which no EOS has, mirror pre-fire which the F100 lacks, and an accessory back to record 400 rolls of information as well as imprint info between frames (something that few camera backs can do - there is something like it for the F5), not to mention it is the only camera from the big three to have body shell made mostly of stainless steel - with the rest being die cast zinc. The two features that it really lacks compared to the F5 are the 8 fps motor drive and 5 AF points (three if you want to include true MLU instead of mirror prefire). But the 9 can be set to automatically rewind film at the end of the roll (no extra buttons to press), which it can do in about 6 seconds for a 36 exp roll, it can be set to leave the leader out, which the F5 needs to be reprogrammed to do, it can do high speed sync up to 1/12000th, its vertical control grip has control dials and AEL and AF buttons rather than just the shutter release and AF button, the 9's finder illuminates the AF sensor being used, and it has a large +-3 EV meter index which can be used to compare the locked exposure with the exposure in the spot meter circle, and it has about the brightest viewfinder available in an AF SLR. What it lacks in extreme specs - like an 8 fps drive, the 9 makes up in usuablity functions. It may not be an F5 killer, but it is certainly not a 2nd tier body. Compared to either the EOS-3 or the F100, the 9 wins on a number of areas, such as build construction, handling, bracketing (7 frame bracketing built-in, neither can compete), and flash functions. And at most it is $100 more than the EOS-3 and $200 more than the F100. That's hardly a difference at this level. You can make it up by not having to buy a wireless controller for the EOS-3 to use wireless flash, or not having to buy an extra back to extend the bracketing range on the F100 - when one comes out. For something you say is 2nd tier, it seems to have a lot that the competition's second tier doesn't - things that only their top tier cameras offer.

PS - Canon did make a power zoom lens.

-- William Lowe (wlowe@erols.com), May 18, 1999.

> and with the card system it had something Canon users are making a > big deal about with the EOS-3, multispot metering.

Please note that you got this feature on a Minolta 9000 with the Program Back Super 90 also -- and that camera was released FIFTEEN YEARS ago!

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

My God, what a can of worms this original question brought forth. There used to be an old saying and it may or may not be true today...

"Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon makes the best compromise". Whaddea think....onward with more posts....HO HUM!!!

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), September 02, 1999.