I still have my Minolta 7000i there is some problem with it internally where if I take it out of program it wont go back into program unless I take the battery out. I really like the feel of the body and it always worked well for me. I even tinkered with those silly cards tha minolta used to have. Only large prints I ever made were some floral shots which my father has framed.

My thoughts are either a Nikon D50 or the Minolta 5D. I have a pair of lenses for the minolta body which are sigma 28-70 and 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 & f4-5.6. They are meh, alright lenses, nothing spectactular, however I'm a meh photographer so its not like I deserve to have pro lenses.

I can buy the Minolta 5D body and a CF card and be shooting right away with my okay lenses and be good for a while. I will buy better lenses later, but for now I have something to experiment with. The 5D body has image stabilization and a nice 2.5" monitor and 3FPS capability, all of which the nikon D50 lacks. I'd also have to buy new lenses for the nikon and I doubt the freebie lens is a whole lot to write home about.

The only part of the D50 which I wish the 5D had is the 137 frame sequential capability. The 5D can only do 10 sequential frames. I am trying to think of when I've ever wanted more than 10 frames... and well I doubt I ever have.

I'd like to handle a Minolta 5D before I order one.

Does anybody know a reputable source to get either from online. I dont want to order it and be billed then not see it for 5 weeks and have conversations on the phone that start out with... OH we have it in stock and end weeks later with me having to go through Visa and open a case regarding my card being billed for an item never delivered and the retailer dragging it out as long as possible to punish me for being a difficult customer *wanting what I bought*. I am not at all trusing when it comes to camera stores... The only one I'd trust might be the place I used to work at. Speaking of which I think I should drop by and see if they will get me the body at a discount.

Test the camera out in the store if you can. 10 frames sounds a little odd...most decent camera have a larger buffer than that. Really speaking, I doubt you would need to capture more than 10 consecutive frames (if you do, get a video camera). I've never had a need...but the frame rate is another matter. Not a significant difference between 2.5 and 3. I would say it's okay, 5 is good, and 8 is a machine gun.

B&H in NYC is one of the better places to buy equipment. They are a huge outfit, but one nice thing about them is you can return goods within 14 days for any reason at all. Not many shops will give you that kind of return policy. They are customer friendly in a "big shop" kind of way. If you have time on a Sunday, take a trip into the city and visit their store (34th and 9th). If you decide to buy there, you can have it shipped to your house to avoid sales tax (though it's hard not to walk out of the store with your new toy once you've played with it). Most of their salesman are very knowledgable and friendly too...not at all pushy like some shops.

I dread NYC, If they take returns I might just order the body and a 512mb CF card. If I like it I'll keep it if not I'll return it for a D50.

What is with the CF media, there are "write accelerated" cards and regular cards. I wonder if there are there any tangiable benefits of the faster rate memory with the 5D. I guess that would depend on the throughput of the CF interface on the body.

I can't speak for that particular camera, but sometimes dpreview will include tests of several cards and post the write speeds. In general, the Sandisk Ultra II cards are very reliable, and have consistently high write speeds with my Canon, so I stick with those. You might not benefit from the Ultra II's, in which case the regular Sandisk cards will probably do. Get a 1GB card though. 512 will become a PITA if you're taking a lot of pictures at high res, and almost useless if you start taking pictures in a raw format.

Don't get the memory cards from B&H. They make a killing on those. Try zipzoomfly.com, newegg, tigerdirect, etc. I think I got most of mine through zzf.

One more thing...when you're evaluating bodies, pay attention to the high iso quality. You'll be surprised how often you'll crank up the ISO in bad lighting, so you can get a shot. I know the Nikon is good...not sure about the Minolta.

so I can tinker with the 5D Minolta, if I like it I'll buy it I plan to bring my lenses with me, as I only plan on buying a new body not a kit. I've already got two basic lenses I dont need yet another starter piece of lens.

Let's not forget, he's not using a pro body camera. The slower frame rate means even 10 consecutive frames will cover a single car most of the way through a corner. If 3-4 full seconds of shooting can't get you the shot that you want, you need to work on your timing.

Yes, it's an obvious limitation, but given his budget and the frame rate, I think he can work around it and see no reason for that to become a focal point of his decision.

Those are your words and assumptions.

He asked about FPS. I stated, accurately, that I use 10 frames plus all the time on a single subject. Leslie does so even more than I do.

Yes, your postion that 3fps for 10 frames is a long time is accurate. But there are many situations where this can and would happen, even at 3fps. In motorsports, pit stops are an example. They last longer than 3.3 seconds. As a matter for fact, from full frame "duck in" to pulling out, they last about 14-18 seconds, 137 frame buffer would destroy a 10 frame budder here.

As is the cae with shooting a car in a carousel with a zoom lens, where you can track them for more than three seconds at full frame with a zoom. As is the case in an accident, which often lasts more than 10 frames at 3fps.

Take the start of an F1 race for example. I'd bet he'd be really happy if he was shooting the start of a USGP standing start and ran out of frames in 3.3 seconds of 10 frames. Or when that car makes a pass, colides with the pass-ee, flips, and the entire thing takes more than 3.3 seconds.

The USGP is actually a really good example, as the the 8-9-10 corner section, all shoot-able with a 75-300 from a public position, is a series that takes more than three seconds to shoot. Actually takes about 9 seconds from entry to exit. I shot that turn from the stands with tons of amature photogs last year, with all of them amazed I could shot them the whole way through. Why amazed? Because they couldn't do it with their cams.

So, your statement "If 3-4 full seconds of shooting can't get you the shot that you want, you need to work on your timing" is honestly innacurate. There are many tracks in the world where this is the case. Almost any turn at Indy during the 500, the carousel at Road America, Hockeheim's infield, Portland's turn onto the main straight, Infineon 2-3, etc.

As for soccer, 5fps is not enough. You will not get the percentage of headers or the shot on the foot at 5fps nearly as often. You won't get the diving save with the ball on the keepers hands, etc. Lets not even talk about NFL, or catching the ball on the bat or mid flight from pitcher to batter at 3fps or with a small buffer. In soccer, your buffer almost continously has frames in it being churned, as the action is non-stop.

So yes, a 10 shot buffer is a hinderance and definitely not something I would recommend, expecially when it can be avoided.

I have run out of a 40 shot and larger buffer at 8fps, many, many, many times. Shooting a celebration after a sporting event (do you thing 10 total images in 3.3 seconds is enough when the driver climbs out of the car and grabs the milk bottle at indy? And yes, many, many amatures shoot this moment ech year), shooting a bride walking down the aisle. shooting a deer stopped on the road and then running through away, a child in a soccer game, etc.

Can he work around it for his budget? He has no choice. That's what you get, FPS wise, at that price. But I'd say having a 137fps buffer is a HUGE advantage over a 10 frame buffer.And I would absolutely say that 3fps is a hinderance, but not one that can be overcome at the price point he is at.

Cheers,

Mike S

so that would be fewer fps for a lot longer.

I'm playing with the camera right now and I just shot 40 or so sequential frames... at the medium resolution option.

I will have to experiment a bit.

it was still going too.

I wonder at what setting it only does 10 frames?

As of right now there is no problem with 3fps for dozens of sequential frames even at high res.

That is, as advice to qfrog...somebody looking to purchase an entry level dSLR on a budget. That is what this thread was about.

Secondly, he specifically identified the 137 frames vs. 10 frames as a focal point of his decision, and once again, my comment was made in that context...addressing his concerns.

And to answer your question...do I believe he can make do with 10 frames, yes, I do. I've stated that pretty clearly. It will force him to think about the subject matter and the events happening around him. It will force him to consider what moment he wants to capture, rather than putting the camera on rapid fire and hoping for the best. He's not losing a paycheck if he goofs and loses the money shot, but he will learn something, and do a little better the next time.

Your response was to me, my response was to him. Regardless, this is a public form and we are all allowed to chime in on each others contentions, backing them up or debating them.

You made contentions and assertions about concepts and ideas and attributed them to me incorrectly. I never even wrote in teh body of a post, purely in the subject line and purely about my experience. But somehow you attributed things to me out of a 15 word subject line regarding my personal experience.

You have the right to feel as you do. I have the right to feel as I do.

But when you imply that FPS isn't that important, imply a small buffer is not an issue and that ""If 3-4 full seconds of shooting can't get you the shot that you want, you need to work on your timing", it paints a picture that is not accurate.

Secondly, frames per second has little to do with framing or timing. If anything, it's harder to shoot and time a photo with a high fps camera than a slower FPS camera. With 8-10fps, you see more viewfinder blackout than you do the subject. It's much harder to track a moving car or hit the "timing" when you rarely see your subject. On the contrary, it's much easier to nail a frame or a shot dead on with a single frame than it is to track at full frame at 8-12fps.

Having more fps gives you more variety if you are good, but it is flatly harder to track with all the viewfinder black out you experience.

I have specific examples of where 3-4 fps or a small buffer is a problem. I didn't talk down to anyone with "..... you need to work on your timing." I didn't offer an opinion, I offered direct examples of cases that do not work with your example.

I don't think you'll argue that FPS or a larger buffer are negative in any way, so why you'd think that they are not important features to look for when purchasing a camera, I do not understand. Perhaps if you were to miss something really important or unreal due to these issues, you'd feel differently. Missing that special image can be pretty painful. But when you miss it because you ran out of frames, you might understand my position.

Take care,

Mike S

Like getting a race car about to roll over or a big crash around a turn (great for us photographers but really sucks hard for the drivers).

Overally I avoid taking multiple frames, especially at track/race events. Personally, I believe it's better to plan ahead and learn to get the shot at that moment in time vs taking a bunch of shuts, reviewing them, and deleting the ones you don't need. Some of the photographers I shot next to at races, they all shoot single frame. Of course, we're there for quite some time so if we missed it there is a good chance that it'll come around again assuming it does go off course and retire!

to it.

Hard to tell me that the way I use my camera is not truthful. Hard to tell me that my experiences are not what they are.

In the end, I have been shooting 350,000-500,000 images per year, digitally, since 1999. I work at race tracks 200-225 days per year. Nikon tells us we shoot more frames out of our cameras than any other photographers who's cameras they service.

I likely have experienced situations that others haven't, as well as shooting more on the average weekend than most shoot in a year (or the lifetime of their DSLR).

Doesn't make me better than anyone, but it does offer me experiences others don't have.

Mike S

My comments here are based on my opinions and limited knowledge, and they are directed at qfrog's questions. He's working within a budget and trying to make the best compromises that he can while still buying something that will last him a few years.

I'm really beating my head against a desk here trying to figure out how this conversation turned into me questioning your talents, experience, etc. Frankly, I don't understand it. Rather than pick apart the posts word for word, why don't I just flat out tell you...my intention is not to devalue your opinion or anybody else's. Period.

What really gets my goat is when you tell people that they are putting words in your mouth. Just give us the benefit of the doubt. Please! For example, when I state that "XXX shouldn't be the focal point of his decision", the intention was not to say "Mike said you should make your decision based on XXX, and he's wrong", rather the intention was to say "even though you've (qfrog) identified this criteria as a difference between these cameras, I don't believe you should make your decision based on it". You're certainly free to add your two cents, and I'm glad you did. But claiming I put words in your mouth takes this to a personal level, which was neither my desire nor intent.

Ultimately, if you don't want to give me (or my intentions) the benefit of the doubt, then I'll just refrain from responding to your posts. That should avoid these kinds of exchanges in the future.

All I wrote was :

"I use 10 frames plus all the time in motorsports and soccer. All the time."

Didn't tell him to buy a camera with more fps. Didn't mention buffer speed. Nothing. Nothing but that I use 10fps all the time.

You responded with:

"At 3 FPS? Let's not forget, he's not using a pro body camera. The slower frame rate means even 10 consecutive frames will cover a single car most of the way through a corner. If 3-4 full seconds of shooting can't get you the shot that you want, you need to work on your timing.

Yes, it's an obvious limitation, but given his budget and the frame rate, I think he can work around it and see no reason for that to become a focal point of his decision."
__________________________________________________ _____


Where did I say anthing about 3fps not meeting his needs in that post? Where did I even mention 3fps? Why ask me "At 3fps?" when I didn't even mention it? Asking a question about something that wasn't said and using a figure that wasn't quoted, is putting words in someone's mouth. You incorrectly assumed I was against him getting either camera. I have never said he should have chosen a camera outside of his choices.

I never commented about his situation at this point at all! I only pointed out that I use 10 fps all the time. You took my subject only post and made assumptions and statements reflecting on my post that were not accurate or even approrpiate to my statement.

You went off on a tangent that had little to do with my post.

In your reply you also made statements that were inaccurate. Perhaps you haven't had a situation where a 10 shot buffer isn't enough. You made the judgement, that a 10 shot buffer was enough from your admittedly lessor experience. I countered with exact examples of where 10 shots would not do the job. You never noted this in your responses. Fully omitted any reply to my examples of where this buffer would be a hinderance.

Your assertion of " If 3-4 full seconds of shooting can't get you the shot that you want, you need to work on your timing" either shows the limited experience you have, as you have not experienced situation where this would be needed, or your not considering situations you or others may enounter in the future.

When someone comes here looking for advice, and you give it, don't necessarily expect others to agree with your advice or feel that others cannot comment on it. And when they give concrete examples pointing out the errors in your statement, don't act like they were never stated.

In the end, I posted my using 10fps daily. You saw to it to read into that post many sentences deep in your reply and make assertions that were not applicable to my post.

That, RKA, is putting words in someone's mouth.

I am not mad. Hold nothing against you and will move forward in dialogue with you like this never happened. Big deal. But don't tell me you didn't put words in my mouth, or at least infer that I was stating something WAY beyond what I said.

The quotes tell the story.

Mike S<ul><li><a href="http://t">http://t</a</li></ul>

I translated 3 fps with a 10 shot buffer and asked if he really needed more than the 3-4 seconds of continuous shooting. I didn't think he did.

With respect to my examples or lack of, I did provide him examples offline last night, mostly because I can not carry a discussion with YOU online, and these posts are an example of WHY. I asked you to give me the benefit of the doubt, and you continue to insist I'm putting words in your mouth. That is not the case, and I've come right out and told you as much.

I asked why you didn't comment on my examples online, here, on this forum, and you respond with "With respect to my examples or lack of, I did provide him examples offline last night".

Huh?

Try reading what I asked you again. I specifically asked why you responded time and time again, and kept dodging my specific examples that proved your contention as less than accurate.

I have tried to be polite. I have given you the benefit of the doubt.

But you cannot A) stay calm. B) avoid yelling (caps) and C) see how you made huge assumptions from a basic, subject line only, sentence.


I have no idea why you are so worked up about this. If you can't debate without yelling and cannot see your logic leap, so be it. Sorry you have not seemed capable of this.

You are free to have your opinions and to express them. I, too, am free to do this as well. But when you make false assertions and extrapolations about something you apparently wish or think I would have said, don't be surprised when I call you on it. You don't own this forum. You don't get to decide who is offended.

In the end, your assumption and statements just weren't accurate. They were way to "blanket". I gave direct examples of how far from accurate your logic was, and apparently the actual, real world examples I offered that contradicted your post really pissed you off.

I have done nothing but help you each and every time you've asked for years. I have no idea why you feel I should be somehow required to agree with you, let alone why you find it appropriate to defend your personal extrapolations of what you think I meant. I have, on multiple ocassions, taken the time to clarify the situation and specifically notify you that you were off base as to what you thought I meant.

I've been traveling heavily for work lately. Haven't even been on AW in four days straight (rare for me). 18 states, 7100 miles driven and 11,300 miles flown in the past 40 days doing a ton of shoots. I feel no need to come here and have an argument with someone I've always thought was a friend when I have so little free time.

Not worth it.

In the end, I only defended myself from false conclusions you made about what you thought I meant. No reason for you to be mad at me for defending myself. I mean, how dare I?

Water way under a far away bridge.

Mike S

Let's take another example. Suppose the question was "I have a $15K budget, and I'm wondering if 150 hp is enough when I see all these cars advertised with &gt;200 hp".

Person A responds with "there are many situations were I've needed the extra hp to avoid an accident, etc.".

Person B responds with "don't get hung up on the horsepower alone, you can make do with 150 hp, just learn to anticipate what traffic around you is doing".

Neither response is wrong, but the second response does take into consideration the budget stated, so the response is different.

As far as I'm concerned, that sums up this entire discussion in a few short sentences. The rest of the noise is generated by the use of the phrase "putting words in my mouth" or the use of the term "assumptions". I'm flattered that you would speak to your friends in this manner, but I don't appreciate it, and I believe I've made that VERY clear.

do the job.

But in this post, you put words back in my mouth again.

Where did I mention budget in my single line post of:

"I use 10 frames plus all the time in motorsports and soccer. All the time."

You have extrapolated where you thought I was going, or what I meant, throughout this entire thread.

In the end, what I said was what I said. All I did was say that I use 10 frames plus all the time. You took that to mean that I was telling him he should buy a camera with this, that I thought his budget was unlimited, that I was saying he couldn't do most of what he wanted without 10 plus frames.

That's putting words in someone's mouth.

From your positions, it's obvious you are not a lawyer. As had you walked into court with all of the interpretations and extrapolations you made, associating them with my one little sentence, you would be laughed out of court.

Understand on thing. Completely guessing what people think or mean from one little sentence, and then in the face of that person telling you that your guesswork is wrong and that isn't what they meant, time after time after time after time, it gets a little old and frustrating.

It's deadly obvious that you extrapolated way too much from my one sentence. Doing this, you put words in my mouth, period. You then went into yelling emails and continued denials.

When you trace it all back to that one little 15 word subject line, in a post without even a character of body, and then look at your each reply of continued supposition, it becomes clear that you put a vast array of words in my mouth.

As I've said, it's not a big deal. It's clear that I don't agree with your continued positions as to what I must have meant. But it's frustrating that you see the need to continue to tell me what I must have meant via my own post.

Mike S

As I've stated clearly before, my responses were made in an effort to help him, which means factoring in his budget. It's fine that you wish to share your experiences while disregarding that tidbit, but don't persecute (or prosecute?) the rest of us for taking that into account in our responses.

I have not had a debate about this with anyone else here. Just you, and solely because you made conclusions and statements about what you thought I must have meant, even after I continued to tell you that you were wrong.

It's really quite simple.

qfrog wrote me privately and publically and we had no issues. The issue was purely your making way too many and too broad of assumptions based on a subject line.

Mike S

otherwise you couldn't be right. And that must be unacceptable.

If I'd realized that a week ago, I could have saved you a lot of typing. But I'll keep it in mind.