Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (
More info?)
Douglas wrote:
> "
>
>>>http
/www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/BF/PICT0710a.JPG
>>
>>Although the target is in focus, it's not centrally focused. There is
>>more behind it in focus than there is in front of it. At first glance,
>>this appears to be very slight back focus.
>>
>
> ------------------------
> Discovering that KM's idea of "specifications" and autofocus accuracy is a
> little different to what the rest of the world expect, are we? This comment
> from KM Australia (the horses mouth) might shed some light on the matter:
> "These are not really professional cameras so you can't expect them to have
> the same focus tolerance as a pro camera". The fact Konica-Minolta don't
> make a Professional DSLR probably allows them to use such comments to slide
> out from under a real concern a potential customer had.
1.. I thought I was plonked Dougie?
2.. Just about every camera out there has had some mention of back focus
issues, including the Canon 10D and 20D.
"With the 10D and even with the 20D there are reports of people having
problems with "back focus" (i.e. the camera focusing behind the
subject)." http
/www.photo.net/equipment/canon/20D/
3.. the 100 mm f/2.8 focuses just fine... as this image (and many others
show).
http/www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/ColBill_FD.U.jpg
(3000 x 2000 pixels, 2.5 MB).
4. Owamanga's comment above, is in fact wrong. The image is correctly
focussed with the right about of focuse on each side of the focus plane
(1/3 on near side, 2/3 on far side).
>
> The discussion was about the God awful autofocus of their flagship DSLR no
> less. It seems that a "non professional" autofocus camera (according to KM)
I can assure you that not only is Maxxum 7D AF accurate, but it is fast
as hell (with the 100 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8). OTOH, I don't use MF very
much in any case.
>
> If KM Canada's attitude to fixing your camera's focus problem (presuming
> they can - which I doubt) is anything like KM Australia's attitude to having
> had 7 attempts in 5 months to fix some of their gear in my shop and, when it
> was finally decided they couldn't fix it, refund my $7500 purchase price...
The only Minolta item I've ever had break, was repaired for no charge
.... despite the warranty having expired. (Replaced tube and other
components in a high end flash (5400HS)).
>
> You could save yourself a lot future disappointment by taking it back to the
> store you bought it from and swapping it for a Canon DSLR. Trade your
> Minolta lenses in on a 24 ~ 70 f2.8 and get on with your photography. If you
> can't afford the glass, put up with not too shabby kit lenses until you can.
> You might complain about the cost but you'll never complain about the
> quality of your pictures.
I have a 300 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8, 50 f/1.7, 20 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8 and
80-200 f/2.8. All Minolta. Three of those lenses are sharper or as
sharp as their Canon counterpart.
> At the end of the line is the overwhelming fact that fewer and fewer
> Professional Photographers are choosing anything else but Canon. Sure the
> 'D' series has had some adverse publicity about lock ups and focus issues
> but considering the number sold, they are few and far between. I've looked
> at every option I can to avoid Canon cameras in the past 6 months. There are
> none, Canon rules.
If I were starting from scratch, it would most likely be Canon. But
that's not the case...
> Konica Minolta cameras are in the same class as Sigma cameras. I have a
Bullshit.
> Sigma and it gets me out of a bind now and then but I'd no sooner use it as
> my working camera than I would fly to the moon.
http/www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/ColBill_FD.U.jpg
Maxxum 7D with 100 f/2.8 macro. Be sure to zoom in, this is 3000 x 2000
pixels.
Sigma? Forget it. 10D or 20D with a Canon 100 f/2.8, almost.
10D or 20D with a Tamron 90 f/2.8, certainly.
>
> I started my Photographic career with Minolta cameras. I shot thousands of
> frames with SRT 101s. They got dropped, abused, wet and still took good
> pictures. After the fiasco I had with Minolta over their gear and the
> bullshit they fed me about their camera, I will never own another Minolta
> product as long as my bum points to the ground. Am I biased? Yes and with
> good reason. You never took my advise last time, do yourself a favour and
> take it now.
What advice? I've had Minolta's since the ealry 90's. I've had
consumer lenses, of which 1 out of 3 was actually very, very good, and
one that is quite good. Now, all of my lenses except one are pro, and
the only one that is not *great* is the 300 f/2.8. It is weak in flare,
but reasonably sharp.
I'm not sure who pisses you off more, Dougie, me or K-M, but you should
just keep posting your rants, they show you to be exactly what you are.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource:
http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems:
http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz:
http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.