Photoclubalpha

I have Minolta AF 28-85, AF 50, and AF 70-210 in perfect condition. What camera is best for these lenses? I've been reading this forum for a while now and have it down to the A500, A550, and A700 (Maybe the A750?) For the money the A500 sounds like the better deal for price and IQ. The A700 sounds good too since most of my subjects are outside. Not sure if the lenses would work on a FF A750 if it comes out. Not in a hurry to buy, I need to hear from the forum on what you all know. I understand the guts of DSLR's in this price range are pretty much the same and all we hear in America is Nikon this and Canon that ... one or the other. I want a better deal and I already have great glass in the CZ's

Minolta AF 28-85, AF 50, and AF 70-210 aren't CZs ...
they are all FF lenses though.

what's your main photographic areas of interest & what's your budget?

Oh, the things I learn every day. Good to know I can use them on a FF. Are those at least good quality lenses? I take lots of landscapes, city, B&W for old West Texas look, macro flowers, gardens, wine country, beach and coastal photos, and I love twilight photography with all the colors. So, mostly outdoor use. No studio stuff since I don't have one.

You may use all the mentioned lenses on any Alpha DSLR, but mind that you won't have wide angle on APS-C format, as the widest that you have is the 28mm on your 28-85 which becomes 42mm (angle of coverage).
So if you opt for an APS-C DSLR (e.g. A500) then my advice would be to include with it the DT 18-55 SAM.

Ooops I forgot... (Birma's gonna hang me )
Welcome to the forum

Welcome to forum Christmasbaby! (Doc, you're forgiven, of course .)

As the Doc said the lenses you have would be fine on any Sony dslr which has an APS-C sized sensor (A500/550/700), but you have to multiply the focal lengths by 1.5 for this smaller sensor, so your 50 becomes a 75, your 70-210 becomes a 105-315, etc. Also APS-C sensors will make use of the cnetral parts of the lenses which tend to be sharper. The lenses will also work on Full Frame cameras (A850/A900).

I think the choice between A500/550 and A700 comes down to some of critical features. I have not used a A500/550 but reading the reviews they seem to have good high ISO ability and they also have very good live-view features. The A700 has a brighter viewfinder, a tougher body, and some features which are key to some people Depth of Field (DOF) preview and Mirror Lock Up (MLU) facilities. The A700 is becoming more difficult to find (it is over 2 years old and "discontinued") so you may have to act fast if you want one.

Christmasbaby wrote:Are those at least good quality lenses?

if the 70-210 is the constant f4 ("beercan") then yes, they are all prtty decent.
As mentioned already on APS-C none of them is very wide though (the 28mm will give you the same image on APS-C as a 42mm would on 35mm/FF) so you probably will want to add something to cover that.

Thanks for all the input. I do have the 70-210 F4 Beercan and will see to it I get a DT 18-55 SAM for my kit. I'll snoop around the Sony Metrion in San Franscisco and ask around about a A750, I will take a look at the 500/550/700 and make sure they fit my hands. All three will fit my wallet.

Happy New Year and I welcome any users out there with my same situation to add to this post.

If you indeed have "old CZ lenses," that is, un-chipped manual focus lenses, then the a700 may be your only logical choice. It was the last camera Sony made that can provide automatic exposure metering without a modern "chipped" lens attatched.

Now, if you called your old Minolta lenses "CZ" lenses by mistake, then any of these cameras will do, but I'd still recommend the a700. In addition, I'd recommend a Tamron 17-50/2.8 over the 18-55 SAM kit lens, as long as you're buying them separately anyway. It is faster, sharper, and provides a more useful zoom range than the kit lens. Also, while it is more expensive than the kit lens, it isn't as costly as Sony's own upgrades (16-105 or 16-80), and it sounds like your budget is flexible enough to cover it.

You were right about them not being CZ's, I had the Mrs. back home double check for me. And my trip to the Metreon to go to the Sony store was also a BUST since Sony is no longer there and all the Camera stores around San Franscico don't even have Sony DSLR's The only thing good about the trip to town was seeing Avatar in I-Max 3-D. Great special effects but a little preachy, otherwise, a cool movie.

Well, now what to do ... is there any site that has a side by side and totally unbiased review of IQ's between Canon, Nikon, and Sony's in the Mid price range of the 500/550/700 ... say the $750 to $1200 range? I just hate to waste those lenses and end up starting all over again with Canikon as my only choice. Consumer Reports never has DSLR Sony listed as a top contender, even to older models on Canikon. But, that was before the 380, 550, and 850's came out and it does sound like a 750 is on the way. Maybe I should just wait and see what does come out. Those lenses have been sitting there since 1986, what's a few more months!

Christmasbaby wrote:You were right about them not being CZ's, I had the Mrs. back home double check for me. And my trip to the Metreon to go to the Sony store was also a BUST since Sony is no longer there and all the Camera stores around San Franscico don't even have Sony DSLR's The only thing good about the trip to town was seeing Avatar in I-Max 3-D. Great special effects but a little preachy, otherwise, a cool movie.

Well, now what to do ... is there any site that has a side by side and totally unbiased review of IQ's between Canon, Nikon, and Sony's in the Mid price range of the 500/550/700 ... say the $750 to $1200 range? I just hate to waste those lenses and end up starting all over again with Canikon as my only choice. Consumer Reports never has DSLR Sony listed as a top contender, even to older models on Canikon. But, that was before the 380, 550, and 850's came out and it does sound like a 750 is on the way. Maybe I should just wait and see what does come out. Those lenses have been sitting there since 1986, what's a few more months!

Why don't you just buy an A850 from Sony -- Last time I looked, you could get them to finance it with no interest for two years, or no interest and no payments for a year -- and the price is the same you will pay anywhere. It will make full use of your lens, and you are getting a first class camera that you won't out grow. In fact you'll go off checking ebay for other Minolta lenes.

As to consumer Reports, they have gone down a steep hill in recent years. I use to trust them, but much of what they say is off the wall. For example, last march I paid for a special report telling me the "real" costs on a new car. They promised it was the best information anywhere, and I really needed it. -- Well I bought one for less then they claimed I possibly could. I've seen other nonsense from them on computers and other products too.

Christmasbaby wrote:I have Minolta AF 28-85, AF 50, and AF 70-210 in perfect condition. What camera is best for these lenses? I've been reading this forum for a while now and have it down to the A500, A550, and A700 (Maybe the A750?) For the money the A500 sounds like the better deal for price and IQ. The A700 sounds good too since most of my subjects are outside. Not sure if the lenses would work on a FF A750 if it comes out. Not in a hurry to buy, I need to hear from the forum on what you all know. I understand the guts of DSLR's in this price range are pretty much the same and all we hear in America is Nikon this and Canon that ... one or the other. I want a better deal and I already have great glass in the CZ's

What other Minolta lenses do you have? I have working 70-210/4. My damaged 24-85 refuses to work and Sony told me not to attempt to use it. Any of other my alpha mount lenses (some twenty I guess) all work with A100, A700 and A850. I will advise at least an a850 or an A900 because the IQ difference is huge

Consumer Reports is not a good source for such higher end products as a DSLR. I'm sorry to hear that the stores you went to don't carry Sony, that does not bode well. I would love to have those lenses for my a850, but I had a "bridge" camera before and before that a Minolta x700 mf with lenses.

I think its a waste of money to get any less than a a700 because of the quality of those lenses. I would get an a850 because I'm hung up on ff and the lenses are for ff. I would probably wait a couple of months and get the replacement for the a700. Otherwise, you can't lose if you got an a850, except for cost. From what I have read the build quality of the cameras lower in Sony's line than the a700 have a "toy," plasticky quality. You are investing a lot of money and I wouldn't spend hard to come by money on a "plastic" camera.

I'm in the holding pattern now and waiting to see whats coming out 750 wise. I'm setting aside about 2k and making the purchase in early spring in time for the mustard blooms in Napa Valley.