From: K_LEPA@unhh.unh.edu (Kristen   Lepa)
Subject: Re: Minolta diff 5000,5000i,5xi (et al)
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:52:53 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.12

In <2307@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> bruceb@mpd.tandem.com writes:

> In article <SLCPB4QQ@dri.com> braun@dri.com (Kral) writes:
> >This is probably a FAQ, but I've been looking for a week or so, and I'm looking
> >to buy RSN, so I'll put this out anyway and deal with the flames as they
> >come...
> >
> >Can someone explain the significant differences between the Minolta *000,
> >*000i, and *xi camaras and associated lenses? 
> >
> 	The n000 Maxxums were the original Minolta AF cameras. With them
>    came the first generation AF lenses in the Minolta 'A' mount. The
>    technology is dated today, and probably not worth investing in.

I beg to differ with you here.  The Maxxum 9000 is an excellent camera including
many features only available on the 9xi, or maybe one or two on the 8000i
with a card: Depth of Field Preview, Double Exposure Capability, Continuous
AF (which the 5000 and 7000 didn't have), manual wind and rewind which makes
for quieter operation, diopter adj. (sp?), and if you're not into high-speed
sports like auto racing, the AF is good enough for an amateur just starting 
to get serious about photography.  I believe he wanted the capability of
point and shoot for a new baby, and the continuous AF should suit him fine. 
If he doesn't like it, then he has the choice to easily turn it off, which isn't
always so easy with later model.  Indeed, the later cameras sometimes require
you to have an understanding of computers that most people don't have.  His
other purpose was, I believe, landscape photography.  Show me someone who
needs AF for that, and I'll show you a blind man.  If the 9000 isn't worth
investing in, how come I spent months looking for a 9000 that someone was
willing to sell for under $300?  I finally had to give in and spend a lot
for a camera that wasn't worn to the point of exhaustion.  On the other hand,
there *were* literally dozens of 7000s being sold for around $175.

>    For comparison purposes, it is
>    probably not out of order to say the 7000 and the 5000i were about
>    equal in AF performance.

It is my experience that all i series cameras have the same AF technology and
all x000 cameras have the same AF technology.  The i series cameras have
a far advanced AF technology that doesn't compare in the least to the x000
series. 

>     perhaps a used 7000i. I am not sure that I would bother with a
>     5000i/3000i, and definitely nothing older. The manual capability
>     of the 5xi/3xi make them much more competetive with the Canon
>     Rebel series, and they are about the same as a 7000i. Both systems
>     would handle what you are looking for, I would think. How much
>     does AZ mean to you?
> 
 
Just because something is old does not mean that it has no value to someone.
I'd hate to be an aged parent under your supervision.
If you were writing to someone whose aspiration was to become a world-
famous photographer, I would agree with your recommendation, but you are
writing to a man who just wants a better camera than what he has.  With a
new baby, I would suspect also that his budget is not unlimited.  I
hope he is not limiting himself by taking your recommendation to heart.

	-K

> 
>			Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Bruce Burden
>   bruceb@mpd.tandem.com