need advice: d50+sigma17-70 or minolta 5d

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

leonardo - 09 Jul 2006 03:04 GMT

I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
- d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
- minolta 5d with 18-70 kit lens (for 680 euro)
I've read some reviews and realized that d50 is more responsive, has a
better af (faster, accurate, illuminator, af motor in lenses), has a
better flash (sync 1/500!), a better grip, better battery life and
produces better jpegs (contrast, color). I also have a 28-200 f/3.8-5.6
af-d tamron zoom I use with my old nikon f70 that could fit d50 too. On
the other side d50 has a smaller viewfinder and lacks some of minolta
5d features (wb tuning, b&w, antishake(!!!), mirror lock, dof button,
ecc.).
So, 5d is cheaper but I probably would like to buy another zoom (used
70-210?) and minolta 18-70 is a cheap and not so fast lens. Nikon
system has a wider lens park and better value on used market.

I'm particulary concerned about minolta image quality and af
performance.

Which would you choose?

Thanks!

Reply to this Message

Jeroen Wenting - 09 Jul 2006 09:07 GMT

Minolta has closed shop, so no more spare parts and replacement cameras.
When you want a higher spec camera in the future it will not be there.
No more lenses either.

> I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
> - d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Thanks!

Reply to this Message

leonardo - 09 Jul 2006 10:33 GMT

Jeroen Wenting ha scritto:

> Minolta has closed shop, so no more spare parts and replacement cameras.
> When you want a higher spec camera in the future it will not be there.
> No more lenses either.

sony bought minolta and is coming out with alpha. so there will be a
higher spec camera and lenses.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 09 Jul 2006 18:24 GMT

"leonardo" <leonardo.canducci@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
>> - d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
>> - minolta 5d with 18-70 kit lens (for 680 euro)

What about the Nikon D50 with the Nikkor 18-70 lense?

>> the other side d50 has a smaller viewfinder and lacks some of minolta
>> 5d features (wb tuning, b&w, antishake(!!!), mirror lock, dof button,
>> ecc.).

Do you need those features?

If so, then look at the D70s or Sony Alpha or Canon.

>> So, 5d is cheaper but I probably would like to buy another zoom (used
>> 70-210?) and minolta 18-70 is a cheap and not so fast lens. Nikon
>> system has a wider lens park and better value on used market.
>>
>> I'm particulary concerned about minolta image quality and af
>> performance.

Minolta image quality and AF isn't something to be concerned with as
everything I've seen indicate that Minolta was good.

But, I wouldn't buy a Minolta body today only because there will not be
any support for it. Sony has bought the rights to the Minolta line, but
Minolta is dead.

If you're really on the Minolta bandwagon, I'd perhaps wait to see the
Sony Alpha and then make a decision.

>> Which would you choose?

If I was starting off fresh with nothing, I'd buy the Nikon D50 with the
Nikkor 18-70 "kit" lense.

I think it's the best option for an entry level digital SLR. The D50 has
good image quality, ergonomics, and features. The 18-70 has very good
optics and a wide zoom range for a walk around lense. All this at a
reasonable price.

Reply to this Message

David Kilpatrick - 09 Jul 2006 11:45 GMT

> I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
> - d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Which would you choose?

The D50 takes SD/MM cards only and is very lightly built. Having used
the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4, and used the Nikon Silent Wave 17-70mm kit
lens, there's no way I would prefer the Sigma over the Nikon if the same
money could be put towards changing your choice to a D70S. The D70S
takes CF cards, is altogether a more robust and better handling camera
(much more on a level with the KM 5D in terms of weight, build quality).

The Nikon in-camera JPEGs are possibly a touch sharper than Minolta, but
I tend to put this down to different levels of default sharpening. The
Minolta colour is better, not worse; vibrant and very film-like. It's
the one thing the 5D has over pretty well all Nikons, especially for
skin tones. It's going to be missed in the new Sony Alpha, which has
much more Nikon-like colour. The Minolta raw file also has marginally
more highlight headroom when making exposure corrections for overexposed
shots - about 1/3rd of a stop more adjustment before colour clipping hits.

In your case, with existing Nikon gear, I'd aim for the D70S and try to
get the Silent Wave kit lens, forget the D50 and the Sigma, and ignore
the 5D unless you want to change system entirely and have in mind future
Sony high resolution or full frame bodies with Zeiss glass etc.

David

Reply to this Message

leonardo - 09 Jul 2006 12:13 GMT

David Kilpatrick ha scritto:

> The D50 takes SD/MM cards only and is very lightly built. Having used
> the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4, and used the Nikon Silent Wave 17-70mm kit
> lens, there's no way I would prefer the Sigma over the Nikon if the same
> money could be put towards changing your choice to a D70S. The D70S
> takes CF cards, is altogether a more robust and better handling camera
> (much more on a level with the KM 5D in terms of weight, build quality).

I don't care about sd or cf cards. you mean nikkor 18-70 is better,
right?
Sigma is a little cheaper, faster at 17mm and gives me 1 extra mm and
(limited) macro capabilities.
I've read about people preferring sigma 17-70 over nikkor 18-70, for
example:
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/technical

> The Nikon in-camera JPEGs are possibly a touch sharper than Minolta, but
> I tend to put this down to different levels of default sharpening. The
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> more highlight headroom when making exposure corrections for overexposed
> shots - about 1/3rd of a stop more adjustment before colour clipping hits.

I heard d50 color (I'm talking about jpegs) is better:
http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/minolta-5d-vs-nikon-d50.html
Every review I read about d50 told it has wonderful colors and skin
tones. Some 5d reviews instead say colors are a little washed out.

> In your case, with existing Nikon gear, I'd aim for the D70S and try to
> get the Silent Wave kit lens, forget the D50 and the Sigma, and ignore
> the 5D unless you want to change system entirely and have in mind future
> Sony high resolution or full frame bodies with Zeiss glass etc.

I only have one (cheap?) zoom, not an entire set of lenses. It is
something I should consider but I wouldn't base my decison on that.
I understand d70s is better built and has better ergonomics, but some
people still say d50 produces better jpegs than d70s (less artifacts
and noise, better color). D70s is also much more expansive (1100 euro
with kit lens).

> David

thanks for the advices!

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 09 Jul 2006 14:59 GMT

> I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
> - d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 70-210?) and minolta 18-70 is a cheap and not so fast lens. Nikon
> system has a wider lens park and better value on used market.

If you find a 70-210 in good condition, get it.

> I'm particulary concerned about minolta image quality and af
> performance.

Why? It is every bit as good as Nikon. One merely needs to choose ones
lenses carefully. If you have an afinity for Sigma, then it is more
difficult to choose very good lenses for any camera.

I'm not sure where you got the AF performance data for the Minolta as I
find with each camera release that it's faster and faster. The Maxxum 9
is dead quick, and the 7D is a little faster again. In Minolta's the AF
performance is more dependant on the body than the lens since the body
has the AF motor.

You might also simply wait a few more weeks and get the A100. The 5d
(and A100) body is quite small, so if you have large hands you might
find it akward to use. I'm hoping the next Sony body is akin to the 7D
or the Maxxum 9.

The anti-shake in the A100 is supposedly improved over the 7D/5D. It's
pretty good as is, but improvements are always welcome. Further, Sony
will have a sensor dust cover that is anti-static coupled to a "dust
shaker" to remove the dust.

A little patience can go along way.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- 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: Remove FreeLunch.

Reply to this Message

Thomas - 09 Jul 2006 19:12 GMT

> I'm planning to buy a dslr and I've narrowed my choice between:
> - d50+sigma 17-70 macro (it would cost me 840 euro)
> - minolta 5d with 18-70 kit lens (for 680 euro)

The 18-70 is made by Tamron, and it might be slightly superior to the
17-70, although the difference is not big. You certainly should not
expect any wonders at the wide angle side. If you like the slight
telephoto range, you should certainly consider a 50/1.7.

> I've read some reviews and realized that d50 is more responsive, has a
> better af (faster, accurate, illuminator, af motor in lenses), has a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 5d features (wb tuning, b&w, antishake(!!!), mirror lock, dof button,
> ecc.).

I think the 5d is an excellent deal. Especially the anti-shake is
something that you just do not get in this price class from any other
camera. DOF is also something I appreciate (I had it occasionally
before, but usually it was out of my price range).

> I'm particulary concerned about minolta image quality and af
> performance.

I would not worry about that. The image quality is perfectly fine, and
the AF is working very nicely. Since the motor is built into the body,
it can get slow with long telephoto lenses that focus via the front
element. The 70-210/4 is such a case, and apart from the AF speed it is
highly recommended. But for the lenses you named there should be no
difference in AF speed.

Thomas

Reply to this Message