Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Discussion of all digital SLR cameras under the Minolta and Konica Minolta brands
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by classiccameras »

Hi
All those who have experience of the KM DSLR's, what camera is worth a look and what isn't, I just fancy an old KM DSLR body to play around with as I have a few KM lenses. Did they ever do FF? I think 6mp was as high as they got before Sony took over or was there another body that had a higher pixel count. any info would be good.
Thanks in advance.
Pete
Eiffel
Initiate
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:49 pm

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by Eiffel »

Your only 'mainstream' KM options are the 5D and 7D, two APS DSLRs.

This being said, you ought to look at the Sony DSLRs which are fully compatible and more up to date. Old KM or Minolta lenses from the film era work equally well on Sony DSLRs (including full frame versions).
Proud owner of DK's dearly missed A900 ;-)
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by classiccameras »

Thanks, I already have a Sony A37 and a couple of KM lenses which work well on it. Not knowing much about the older KM DSLR's prompted my question mainly because they can be picked up for peanuts.

Thanks again
Pete
User avatar
artington
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by artington »

I have a KM7D and can't imagine selling it. The great thing about these is that they were pretty well Minolta Dynax 7 camera bodies made digital. So you have adjustments available to you including exposure compensation (in either 1/3 or 1/2 stops) and flash exposure compensation using top mounted dials - very nice. Image quality is great for 6Mp although don't expect high iso stuff. It seems to have the nice Minolta colours too although that might be down to the glass. Great, very robust, camera.

There is another reason to consider these dirt cheap DSLRs - and few are as well built as this one - and that is to have them converted for infra-red photography. You do need the check the IR sensitivity of the sensor which, in the case of the 7D, is unfortunately very poor.
Last edited by artington on Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by classiccameras »

Thanks Artington

Am I right in thinking that the Sony A-100 was a rebadged Minolta 5 or 7D, but with a higher pixel count.
User avatar
Atgets_Apprentice
Grand Caliph
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:02 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by Atgets_Apprentice »

the a100 was a development of the 5D.

The 7D was my first foray into the DSLR world, and an astonishingly good camera, if used properly. As others have said, not great at higher ISOs, but a fantastic specification for its time otherwise.
XG-1, XD-5, XD-7, X-500, XG1n, X300, 7000i, 700si, 800si, 500si Super, 600si, Dynax 5, KM 7D, a100, a200, a300, a580. And another 600si.....
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Both the 5d and 7d are worth a look, I have my original 5d and picked up another one from a forum member (on another forum)
I sometimes ponder about getting the 7d (used one a few times lovely body)

Yes things do move on tech wise, but in the right hands these cameras are more than capable.
I know someone who lashed out a very significant sum of cash on a Nikon D1 some years ago now, a whopping 2.74 megapixel camera and a huge price at the time. Some ebay sellers are near giving them away and finding them hard to sell.

Somehow people managed back then with those crude cameras!
User avatar
Atgets_Apprentice
Grand Caliph
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:02 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by Atgets_Apprentice »

bfitzgerald wrote: Somehow people managed back then with those crude cameras!

:lol:
XG-1, XD-5, XD-7, X-500, XG1n, X300, 7000i, 700si, 800si, 500si Super, 600si, Dynax 5, KM 7D, a100, a200, a300, a580. And another 600si.....
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6117
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

I am still amazed at the very early attempts at digital photograpy, (if you want to see some crude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS ) but I think they did marvels when you consider the problems they had not only with sensor tech but the available processing in camera (nil) battery power (rubbish by todays standards) and storage (a huge external hd from which you downloaded the b&w image file to a computer, a midframe probably, so you could process it eventually with mind numbing difficulty into something you could see on the tiny CRT's of those days).
By comparison the KM7D and the KM5D are a marvel of technology, I don't know what I will do when my KM5D eventually fails. I like the non hard drive filling 6MP that has plenty of image information for most photography, the only place it falls behind by comparison with more modern cameras is in scenic photos I think.
But there is still the argument that if you reduce photos for the web the larger file will loose more image information in the process than the smaller file will, (also large files can produce posterization during the reduction) so in reality the only place were the large files win convincingly is when printing at huge sizes, or cropping if you have the glass quality.
Greg
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by classiccameras »

They have certainly come a long way since then.
I only intend to use KM 5D pics on the PC Monitor and send some to friends, may be print the odd one. I hope when I can find a good one to use my KM 17-35 f/2.8 D on the camera for some landscape work.
Is the 6.1mp going to give me good dynamic range and low noise. The reviews say keep below ISO 800! and will definition be below par because of the pixel count?
The Sony A100 was the first Sony DSLR and was basically a re badged KM5D but with 10MP, any views or comparisons on these two cameras.
Pete
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6117
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

classiccameras wrote:They have certainly come a long way since then.
I only intend to use KM 5D pics on the PC Monitor and send some to friends, may be print the odd one. I hope when I can find a good one to use my KM 17-35 f/2.8 D on the camera for some landscape work.
Is the 6.1mp going to give me good dynamic range and low noise. The reviews say keep below ISO 800! and will definition be below par because of the pixel count?
The Sony A100 was the first Sony DSLR and was basically a re badged KM5D but with 10MP, any views or comparisons on these two cameras.
Pete
Pete the 6MP is probably the easiest to downsize for any web or email usage, but the 10MP A100 is not too bad I've found, both use a CCD sensor which might not be as good for low light as new CMOS sensors, but I never really cared as I don't use a camera much in low light, if I need to I can always use a flash for people type phtography, I guess night scenes will show noise but that is to be expected from any camera, the new ones seem pretty good at night scenes from what I've seen.
The A100 can be noisy on occasion so it's a case of using RAW files if you want to tackle poor light situations, but all round it can take some very nice photos, they both take very nice people photos actually.
If you want to do some scenic work occasionally personally of the two I'd go for the A100, the ergonomics of the KM5D is slightly better I think but the A100 is still ok handling wise, it's just the left knob on the A100 kind of annoys me a bit, I never know which way I need to turn it to go to what I'm looking for (without looking at the actual knob...of course) :lol:
Both cameras have MLU via the 2sec. timer, and both work their exposure and AF best if left in segmented metering and focus area select, used in combination with their excellent AEL button you can do just about any shot in the book.
I have the KM17-35/2.8-4 (D) and it's not a bad lens at 30mm and f8 or f11 for scenes, it takes good group people photos at f4 or f5.6.
Greg
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by classiccameras »

Thanks Greg

I checked out a few old reviews on the KM5D and A100. Interestingly, later A200, 350, Etc Etc all started to show more noise and poorer IQ than the original A100 and most reviews said stunning results could be achieved with the A100 if you fit a good prime lens. Apparently Sony trying to be clever, moved the KM goal posts which actually worsened picture quality on later models. It was a case of if it aint broke don't mend it, which Sony chose to ignore according to one review site. They really were thrashing around in the dark in those early days especially after the KM influence had gone.
Pete
User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6117
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by Greg Beetham »

Pete, Barry F was using an A200 for quite a while and thought it wasn't such a bad camera if I remember correctly, (high praise indeed) although Sony removed a couple of features that were present on the A100 for some unknown reason, (I forget what they were now).
Sony were already doing a Sony on the A100, the KM5D had a glass rear screen so it looks just as good as the day I bought it, zero scuffy marks, while the A100 has the Sony plastic junk screen that gets a scuff or a tiny scratch if you even look in it's general direction.
The only thing is the A100 has a much higher resolution screen than the KM5D and you can zoom into an image a lot further because of the extra MP's so I guess you can't win, you lose one thing and gain another, it seems it not possible to retain gained ground you have to go a step back if you want to try to go a step forward.
Greg
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by classiccameras »

Yes Greg

Two steps forward, one step back seems to be how Sony conducts its business.
I have to say at the budget end of their range [which is the only experience I have] they are now doing things almost right with the A37 and A57. Lessons learnt I guess. They now get good reviews and are beating the opposition in certain areas.
There are those reviewers who have to find something to moan about just like they did with the Olympus 4thirds format, and that is the SLT system. Oh dear its half a stop less in light on the sensor than other APS-C cameras, get over it, they take excellent pictures, so what's the problem, thats what I would say to a couple of reviews sites that shall remain nameless. Mind you if its not a Canon or Nikon, they won't listen any way.
Pete
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Konica Minolta DSLR cameras

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Depends what you are looking for. A100 was ok but IMO the images lacked the charm of the Km5d (purely personal but that's my take) there are still quite a few around, and it's a decent enough camera in most ways, many have peeling grips though so keep a look out for that!

The A200 was quite good for what was at the time a super budget DSLR I think it was around £299 difficult to be too harsh at that price point. I quite liked the colours on the A200 more interesting than the A100, overall more refined in some ways than the Km5d, but lacking some of the basic things which for me meant the 5d was my preference but there are loads of them around on ebay it's an inexpensive camera worth a look for penny pincher's. 10 to 6mp was never as dramatic as some made out but it was a useful increase if you were likely to crop more or for bigger prints. If you shoot with care 6mp can still produce good print sizes for most. KM5d is fine at ISO 1600 it takes a hit above that though.

Most of the niggles on the SLT models are not specifically the SLT aspect (my views are well known, and IMO it's fair game to mention the light loss) but simple stuff like decent jpegs, or having buttons that actually do something! Most of my complaints are down to Sony's sloppy firmware for the A57 and some silly oversights in handling, aside from that it's actually quite a good camera even with the EVF, I'm waiting for it to return from service right now. It's not a great awesome camera but "good", still I'm quite likely to not buy another SLT model I'm really not that interested in 24mp on APS-C and we're headed there across the range.

.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests