Konica Minolta 5D DSLR - does it still cut it?

[stevemorg]

I've had my 5D for a couple of years now - I don't use it a lot but I do enjoy it and it produces what I consider to be pretty good pictures.

I'm in a position where I could spend a bit of money and I'm wondering if I shouls buy a "better" DSLR - I've only got a couple of lenses and Minolta f/gun so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to sell it all to go to a different brand - though of course I could always buy a Sony.

What would I have to spend to see a big improvement? - I've looked at the Sony 350 but it didn't seem to be that much of an upgrade

[KevinBarrett]

The general concensus around here is that the only way to go from the D5D is to an a700. My impression is that camera you own now was a higher caliber of offering in its day than the current entry-level DSLRs. That's not to say you won't enjoy some unique benefits and functionality with an a350, but I would recommend the a700. It's very hard to outgrow this camera and it's a real joy to use.

That's if you wish to stay with Minolta/Sony. I'd encourage you to look around and consider the other systems; Nikon, Four Thirds, etc... to see what will suit you and your needs. Think about the first three or four lenses and accessories you'd like to own and assemble a kit with a budget in mind. Don't take too long, though--prices are expected to spike this summer.

[bossel]

Going from KM5D to A700 is fun, you won't regret it. My 5D is pretty unused since I have the A700 (anybody needs a 2nd hand 5D?)

[David Kilpatrick]

The Alpha 350 is a bit of a dark horse. It does not seem to be an upgrade, more a sideways bit of evolution, but after doing a week's shot with A900 and A700, then returning to process these alongside a much worse week's shoot (weather conditions) done our daughter on the A350 - I got my A350 out again and started using it. OK, it has a small finder; ISO only in full steps; fairly limited control over many things compared to the A900 or A700. But - it has absolutely superb colours, more like the 5D especially for skin tones, and its white balance and metering when shooting with live view put the more expensive cameras to shame. Also, at my output size (Alamy, 5120 pixels wide from raw) the ISO 100 to 400 A350 files are less noisy than the A900 downsized, especially in blue skies where the A900 and 700 can both be very rough even down at ISO 200.

I knew the A350 was good, which I why we bought a second one for our daughter to use for her shoots. I also know I do not enjoy the small viewfinder! But, all done, I've decided to use the A350/16-80CZ as my permanent walkabout/car camera rather than use the A900. At ISO 100 the images can be extremely sharp and detailed even when enlarged from 14 megapixels to the 17 megapixel equivalent I need. I would rate them slightly better than the A700 (as I did in April 2008 when I used it in place of the A700 for a trip), even after the v4 firmware upgrade to the A700.

What it does not do so well is low light shooting, but you already have a D5D, and that is unmatched for robust image quality (admittedly at only 6 megapixels) at high ISO. So, if I was in your shoes, I would not sell the D5D and buy an A700 - I would keep the D5D, get an A350, and have two very different types of camera which work really well as a pair. The jump from 6 to 14 megapixels gives a real choice, the live view has its uses (especially in mixed or difficult light, where the metering and WB outstrip any of the non-live-view models), and you could spend the difference on getting a really good lens which would transform both cameras - the 16-80mm CZ if you don't already have it.

David

[artington]

and the 7D?

[David Kilpatrick]

The 7D offers no image quality advantage over the 5D, it was earlier and the 5D image is slightly improved (esp. high ISO). But the camera itself is amazing - fairly light, wonderful controls, good viewfinder. 6mp is a bit outdated now but I still keep my 7D and it does all my studio still life work, the sharpness can't be faulted - even with the Sigma 28-105mm I use (it proved better than any other 'disposable' lens I had round, including my macros and standard 50mm, for still life work- mainly due to lack of sensor reflection problems with white backgrounds).

David

[bfitzgerald]

I still like the 5d, it has it's weak points..no question. I got the A200 as it was too cheap to say no to. Overall both cameras are very different..and better suited to their own types of work.
Whatever the OP does, don't bother selling the 5d..as second hand prices are so cheap, it really is not worth it.

I would consider your options with care though, the A700 might be more appealing on feature set, and the price is not bad at all. A350 does nothing for me on a tonal level (and prior to that the A100 didn't either), that might seem odd to some people, but I have always said image quality is far more than just pure resolution alone. What you shoot subject wise is going to matter a lot too, the 5d is still a bit of a champ in that dept..but the newer ones are possible better options for lower ISO work.

[David Kilpatrick]

Barry, the A350 is something unique. It has the most exceptional shadow detail and neutral shades, lovely skin tones, and massive dynamic range. If this sensor had been made in full frame, it would have been considered the best sensor ever made for fashion, portrait, wedding etc.

Here's a snap from our daughter Ailsa, family shot in effect, her boyfriend's relatives (boyfriend? they own two properties and have been together for years!).



I have been editing a stack of her files, underexposed in many cases, awful dull weather in Wales wide open and on the limits of hand held even with SSS - really, the A350 has turned in results she never got from the Canon 400D (which I now have in exchange for a new A350 - I do need to have a Canon around, but I would never use it except for lens testing - not fanboyism, it's no match for any current Sony model).

David

[Dusty]

Going from KM5D to A700 is fun, you won't regret it. My 5D is pretty unused since I have the A700 (anybody needs a 2nd hand 5D?)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..... you have a price on that thing? I never like to shoot a wedding without a second camera of the same system at hand, just in case.
Since I'm trying to work my way back into doing that, it would fit the bill.

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

The only thing to say with regards the A350 and other cameras in the image appeal department. Is it's purely down to taste.
I was thinking more of landscapes and scenic, than skin tones. But opinions here will vary. Being dead honest, some appeal more than others. For skintones I remember trying a 40d, and I thought it was rubbish in that dept, the tones were just not good to my eyes. The Km5d is good for people, but you can run into big problems with the reds at times, A200 not bad so far, too early to comment in depth. I have a few portrait films to try out, when I get around to it, IMO even a bog standard roll of film delivers nice skin tones, hard to say the same on some digital cameras.

Landscape wise, I still have not yet found what I am looking for, not at the moment..I have not really tried the A200 much, so again, need to report back on that one. 5d isn't bad, but I have a new found intense dislike for digital on scenic shots, in some cases that is not all.

The A350 just reminds me of the A100 in some ways, "cool" is the word I am looking for, not sure if this is a WB thing..or simply the colour renderings. Not really anything to do with saturations and punch, I would tend to be more reserved than most anyway. But you can feel free to ignore my ramblings, as I am having a bit of a "tonal crisis" at the moment, nothing seems to please me!

Here is an example of skin tones. This was a donated roll of jessops ISO 200 diamond

Colour negative film skintones

[Greg Beetham]

Thing is BF just how real is the skin tone? seeing as how the image is now digitized, when film processing became digitized I sort of gave up and bought a digital camera, (kind of, if you can't beat em join em philosophy)....what I'm saying is, where can you actually now get wet print processing..ie. develop the film, then project the image through the negative onto photographic paper with an actual lens, and then process the paper (print) with chemicals. Most labs now just process the film and then digitize the negative with a scanner, thus bypassing the main reason for using film in the first place....the only answer I think is get them to process the film (beats the hell out of processing it yourself) and then do the wet prints in your own darkroom...if you can still find the paper and chemicals that is, then I would agree (if you have done careful colour filter settings on the enlarger) you would get a representative "film" print without any digitization involved.
Then you're still faced with the challenge of how to get that "film" print onto everyone's screen/monitor and have it agree with the real thing....
Greg

[01af]

... IMO even a bog standard roll of film delivers nice skin tones ...

Nice, yes. Natural, no.

Here is an example of skin tones. This was a donated roll of Jessops ISO 200 Diamond.

This is the typical look of modern cheap colour negative film's 'Bigger Than Life' colours ... very saturated, very warm, very red, very nice to look at. But far from natural or accurate.

With regard to photographic colour rendering, 'nice' and 'accurate' are two different things. Most people don't like natural colours.

-- Olaf

[bfitzgerald]

To the comments above.

Greg I am in the process of setting up a wet darkroom with a friend, as a joint venture. But it will be for B&W work, not colour.
But it is simply wrong to suggest, and some have..that film suddenly looks "just like digital" when you scan and print it, it looks completely different to any digital capture. I know, I print! But sure a real optical print is hard to beat..but still, it's not pointless using film even with a scanner.

01af, I find the skin tones pleasing and they look fine to me, maybe your monitor is off or something?? BTW if you use the portrait films, esp the neutral colour ones, you will find erm..well very neutral tones! Vivid colour I have yet to try..even that is far from "pentax bright" jpeg mode. Most consumer films are somewhat warmer...though you can influence things in the scan of course. I wouldn't knock cheap neg film, I remember reading the mag DK sent me, did I not see some kodak gold shots in there, aka horse shots??

I was of course talking about "tonality" and film looks different and more separation in subtle tones. It's pointless talking about "natural" so much depends on what you use and how you process. Accuracy is rather hard to say again..I express a personal taste, and appreciate the film days are over for some, but they are far from retired around these parts. It just looks nicer to me..

[Greg Beetham]

Yes Barry I agree the allure of B&W is strong, why not get a roll film camera, you could maybe scare up a good bargain now that digital has taken over in the studio, and even an enlarger capable of MF should be easily got now, only thing is, MF lenses are probably still holding their value...but you probably would only need a 40mm wide angle and maybe one around 80mm or 100mm.
Regarding the scanning of negatives, I will agree that the softer shadows in a negative (much more so than a positive and possible more shadow detail than a digital...maybe, but digital's are getting very good) would make the scanned negative distinctive, but I'm not convinced any more that 35mm is actually better than a good digital, and could easily be not even as good if the weak link in the process (the scanner) is not up to the task, also you can post process the dang digital to do whatever 'look' you want really....provided one is good at PP of course.
Greg
ps We've been wandering off the topic a little, so for what it's worth, I wouldn't part with my KM5D, it still takes a very good photo....even after I replace it one day I'll just put it with my X700's as a memento...it's Minolta's last DSLR after all.

[bfitzgerald]

Greg I have a 120 roll film camera, but it's from the 30's I have yet to run a roll of film through it. There was some talk of a 645 based system from a few friends, again as a sort of expanded film mission. Might look into that one, though really we do need the darkroom up and running ist.

The obvious advantage of the film bodies to me is that they integrate fully with the digital stuff I have lenses and accessories etc, bar a few oddball choices aka the 60's not got a wired remote socket. I have never been a massive poster sized printer myself, so I find 35mm pretty good for my own needs, albeit non instant results.

You can adjust a good bit on a film scan too, from WB to even individual hues if you want to, so that kind of brings film users up to the modern age. We can "if we want" do things that were never possible back when I ist started shooting film. I won't deny there is a romantic connection too, and doing things differently that partly appeals. Have to say last few weeks I have not once picked up either digital body. The increased DR of neg film is very real, in situations where you would almost have to use fill in flash...neg film can handle it, that is one example. You worry a lot less about highlights being blown out, a particular problem for some shots and skin tones.