What two lenses? Probably Tamron or something.  Nikon VR (antishake) is
expensive. The lens is the camera with DSLR's, I think it makes sense to
go with the Minolta though I know nothing about it.

I see no reason to buy a D70 if you already own Minolta AF lenses.
I have owned Minoltas and Nikons for many years and there is no difference
in quality between these brands overall.
I own a D70 and I believe it is possibly the most over-hyped camera ever
made. It is not a bad camera but there is no substantial reason to buy a D70
rather than the new Minolta dSLR if you already have an investment in
Minolta lenses that you like.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/

summarized:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/page20.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/page26.asp

If you have Minolta lenses, then it's likely a good idea to stay in system.  If
you have a 3600 or 5600 flash (Minolta) plus those lenses, then moreso.

If you forsee building a system, Nikon has advantages lenswise.  There are a
bunch of Minolta lenses that beat their Nikon counterpart, but overall Nikon
just has a greater variety of very good lenses.

Personally, were I to jump away from Minolta for DSLR migration it would be to
Canon, not Nikon.

Cheers,
Alan

if yout dont got for the Minolta, just go with Canon 20D. Forget the D70.

Hi,

So did I a few weeks ago :)

My motivations were the same.

I only considered the Dynax 7D, because additionnally to being anti shake &
lens compatible, it had the simple & efficient ergonomy of my 600 Si.

So I bought a 7D.

I can only tell from my few weeks of experience with the 7D (nota bene, this
is my first digital camera).

- overall, all is very much ok and well thought, and very consistant with my
Minolta habits (I have a 600si and a 9xi but I find the 600 much easier to
use thanks to its 'one feature, one button' approach, which luckily is the
same on the 7D). Most pictures I shot were as I expected them to be. The
menu system is not overloaded, and I find it well thought too. The camera
body feels rugged although heavier than you'd expect. I like this camera a
lot.

- anti shake is pure magic. I take pictures in low light condition, where
you'd need a flash with a non stabilized camera, and they are sharp even at
1/15th s (of course, only if subject not in motion).

- the ergonomy being the same as the 600si, the 7D has the few things which
i wished to have on the 600si. Main item (for my taste of course) is "DMF" :
after you activate this option, the camera autofocuses, and then retracts
the AF mechanism so you can manually retouch the focus.

- the pictures taken feel very "natural colors", to some extent, more than
with the films i was used to on the 600si (usually Kodak royal gold 200).
The default settings don't enhance neither sharpness nor color saturation,
and this is a good thing. You can retouch the settings ("natural+" and
"sharpen++" seem to be widely suggested settings if you seek for a bit more
impact).

- the camera looks a bit faster than the 600si in terms of general
operation, it is ok by my tastes, although you hear here and there that it
is slower than the canon & nikon counterparts.

- the only annoying thing so far with my 7D is that mine exposes a
consistent habit of underexposing pictures taken with flash. Of course you
can correct this using the flash exposure dedicated offset dial setup, but I
wonder why they set it up like that.

Kind regards,

I am not a Minolta expert but I faced the similar decision when I
wanted a DSLR but the camera brand I use (Pentax) didn't make one.  It
is very tempting to buy one from the "Big Two" (Nikon/Canon) but I am
happy I waited for Pentax.  I waited until there was trustworthy
reviews of the *ist D.  In fact I waited too long and my reward was
getting the even cheaper "bargain" *ist DS ...

I think you should wait a little.  The Minolta 7D price will lower.  Or
maybe Minolta will announce cheaper 5D without expensive (but useful!)
anti-skahe.

Like Pentax, Minolta makes very good lenses with excellent "look".  The
results might be made with German design lenses (Leica, Zeiss) which
all have this "look".   Canon and Nikon lenses are sharp, maybe very
sharp, but only a few lenses have the "look".

Many Nikon lenses made in last few years are no better than junk glass,
looking sharp in the centre but with soft edges, big distortion and
dark at corners.  Wide angle zooms at lower prices have been *very* bad
in these ways - and this is not good for digital as we need the wider
lenses more.

I think Pentax and Minolta lenses are very superior to Canon and Nikon,
except for Canon L and top Nikkors which are good but expensive.  Even
cheap Pentax and Minolta lenses are good and have the "look".

So my advice - stay with your brand (Minolta) and wait until price
drops.  It will.

(Believe me!  It will.)

So you can keep your excellent Minolta glass and buy a new wide angle,
knowing it will be better than a Nikkor or Canon (except for expensive
ones).  Maybe buy wide angle now and enjoy using, while you are waiting?

Joe,

I guess I'll add my two cents' worth to the conversation, although by
my math, the kitty already contains almost two bits' worth of good
information.

I'm a fellow Minolta owner.  Though I lusted for the 7000 when it was
first introduced (I was in high school then), when I could finally
afford to take the plunge, it was the 7xi that I bought.

Like you, I've acquired several excellent Minolta lenses for it
(though I committed the minor blasphemy of choosing some Sigma and
Tamron lenses as well -- hey, I was on a budget!!!)

When I made the move to digital a few years ago, I decided to try the
Minolta RD-175 because it used Maxxum lenses.  However, I also bought
the RD3000 because it had a higher image resolution.  (I bought them
both used, which is why I ended up with two cameras, released several
years apart, over the span of a single weekend!)

The RD3000 uses the Minolta Vectis lenses, and although they are
probably fine for their intended purpose (projecting an image onto the
inferior Advantix film), THEY DON'T HOLD A CANDLE TO THE MAXXUM
LENSES.  Obviously, this is true for many other camera/lens brands as
well!

I am now planning to buy the new 7D.  It's the camera that I should
have saved my money for instead of buying the RD3000.  (Who knew that
Minolta would revisit their "old" Maxxum lenses with a new, kick-a.s
digital???  Live and learn.)  I'll probably still keep the RD3000, to
use as a knockabout second-string camera for places that I would NOT
take the 7D (like a beach).  Also, adding the 7D to my arsenal would
give me the entire historical ensemble of Minolta digital SLRs.

Anyway, here's some stuff that was told to me by the sales guy at my
WONDERFUL local camera shop.  Yeah, I know he's there to SELL CAMERAS
(period!) but I tend to believe what he was telling me.  First, he
doesn't figure that the price will drop on the 7D.  At least not
significantly.  He pointed to other DSLRs that have remained within
10-20% of their inital price, and said that a DSLR is more likely to
be withdrawn from the market (and replaced with newer model) before
its price cools significantly.  But so what?  At some point you have
to say that "I could've saved $400 by waiting two years, but look at
the great pictures I took for that $200-per-year!!!"

Second, and perhaps far more significant to those of us who HAVE and
LOVE Minolta Maxxum lenses and the cameras that they work with, the
new partnership with Konica has resulted in plans for a series of
Konica Hexanon lenses to be released (probably before year end) for
the Maxxum platform!  Now, if you're a more well-rounded camera buff
than I am, you'll appreciate the significance of this.  (I had to be
told that the Konica Hexanon lenses are ranked among the VERY BEST
lenses in the world, and many feel that they rival the top stuff from
legends such as Leica and Zeiss.)

Now, I'll temper these remarks by saying that I read a side-by-side
comparison of the 7D with the D70, and I did find myself saying "Gee,
I wish Minolta had copied that" on more than one occasion.  Such as
their feeble idea to replace "hot" pixels with blackened pixels
instead of average the ones around it.  Or the "anti-noise" algorithms
that tend to rob more sharpness than the Nikon version.  Little stuff
like that.

But in my final analysis, anyone owning Maxxum lenses would be crazy
to consider buying a camera that required a new batch of
far-more-expensive "antishake-included" lenses instead of using the
gems they already own!

Good luck.

HD

What changed?

Have you held and handled either of them? I suggest you do that first.
After all you have to use it, and you're not buying it to put on a
shelf to look pretty and brag about it's features to friends, right?

For me it wasn't really an issue. Lots of Minolta glass and I've got
very much used to the handling of my Dynax 7. I haven't even looked my
7D's manual because of that.
Just buy the tool that fits YOUR needs and way of working, and not
those of a sales guy or Minolta/Nikon/Canon fanatic.

Cheers.

M.

I would go with the 7D. The 7D is more in the "prosumer" class of the Canon
20D, while the Nikon D70 is more in the amateur class.

The 7D has mirror lock-up, an available vertical grip, and better noise
characteristics at ISO 800. Of course at a net cost of around $1300*, it is
also about $500 more expensive for body only!

*Amazon has a $100 promotional certificate on purchases in Electronics over
$1000 right now (when I got my 20D is was $150). Plus you can get another
$75 off if you open an Amazon Visa account ($30 credit, plus 3% in gift
certificates ($45) later). http://tinylink.com/?ZDCe88SJYL