Rebel XT or Minolta 7D?

Before I ask this, let me assure you I know this is a Canon forum, but I know you can provide some good advice here.

I'm trying to decide between the Rebel XT and the Minolta 7D.

I had my mind made up to order a Rebel XT until I saw that Wal-Mart has the Minolta 7D for $699 with a lens. I hadn't considered the 7D until now, since this drops it into my price range.

The 7D would cost me about $100 more than the Rebel XT. I've never owned a SLR camera, and I'm not sure which to get even after reading several reviews of both cameras.

The 7D has built-in image stability, which I think is a considerable advantage. I also like the 7D's controls better, and it has a magnesium body. The 7D has a larger LCD display and a better viewfinder. The Minolta can shoot faster than the Canon (can take more picture before filling the buffer).

The Rebel XT is quite a bit smaller and lighter. The Canon starts up faster than the Minolta, whatever that's worth. The Canon also has an additional 2 MP of resolution. I know there is a lot more to image quality than resolution, but I still hate to lose the additional resolution. I'm concerned about the ability to crop and enlarge.

I'm sure I'm leaving out some important pros and cons of each camera, so let me know what I'm missing.

I think most people would consider the 7D to be in a class above the Rebel XT, but I'm still not sure which I should get. I know Sony has acquired Konica-Minolta's camera division, but I don't expect that to be a problem (please correct me if I'm wrong).

If you have experience with both these cameras, which do you prefer? Which do you think produces better pictures?

Thanks to everyone who shares their opinion!

well to be honest i do not have experience with the cameras but know a little about them, i think that resolution and image quality would be slightly better for the xt, but build quality and controls of the 7d might be a bit better, the xt does take proven excellent images, the 7d is also an excellent camera and will take great photos, i think you would have to weight the 2extra megapixels versus the slightly better build quality and bigger lcd and image stabilization, depends also how big you want to print your pictures, the 2mp helps in terms of bigger prints, both excellent cameras and i think you wil be happy with your choice, canon does have some excellent lens and i am canon person myself but the anti-shake image stabilization is also key, i do have a canon now and have a lens with image stabilization and it is really nice to be able to take longer exposures particularly in lowlight and not use a tripod, hope have helped a lil , you have to decide what is more important to you from the above,
i personally would go with the extra two mp because i think i like the idea of having a canon with 8mp, maybe a silly opinion but that is what i think lcd is good but you want prints and comp moniter images,

There is also the fact that Minolta have abandoned the camera market. Sony are supposed to be supporting the Kinoca Minolta cameras but for how long.

As billmob stated, the onboard IS would be usefull - every lens would be have the feature but if the camera breaks and it is no longer supported then your options will be very limited.

If you have a bunch of Minolta glass get the 7D, else I see no point in buying in to a dead system unless you already have access to the classic and still good glass...

I forgot to add, a good buddy of mine has a Minolta 800si 35mm SLR with lenses. He wanted a digital body and purchased a Rebel XT, after using my 300D and my buddies. Instead of a 7D or 5D Maxxum.

He doesn't much care for the Rebel, but he loves that it's cheap and can use L glass lenses. He likes the lenses, the body is a means to an end.

Very happy with my XT.

from what i've heard, sony are making their own line of DSLR's and i think they will be compatible with that, if you can i would hold off and wait until they announce it one way or another, because i've been extremely happy with my sonys that ive had/have

but if you cant wait, i would go for the rebel because of the EOS lens system, i loathe the rebel as a camera, but canon has some great lenses out there, and a huge selection, and glass is most important

To expand on what's already been said, look at the system, not just the camera itself.

An SLR does what it does mainly due to interchangeable lenses and other accessories. Else, why buy an SLR and not a decent to high-end digicam?

Therefore, look at the selection of lenses, the factory and aftermarket support (for both repairs and upgrades) and in this case, the future of the marque.

The Minolta is a fine camera, and has some desirable features. But to be blunt, the company folded, and support and repairs is questionable at best.

In light of that alone, given the choice, I'd go with the Rebel XT, unless the price were so startlingly good on a new Minolta (from a reputable dealer) to make it a decent buy even if one only got a year or two use out of it before it broke and was not longer able to be repaired by the factory.

Canon is, at the moment, at the top of their game. They have the market and the resources, an amazing lineup of lenses, and by all indications, excellent factory support.

If you're planning on using this camera for anything more than just taking snapshots of the dog, the baby and Aunt Erna, especially if you plan to ever shoot for pay, then get the Canon.

Doc.

The problem with Minolta is, its pretty far behind Canon and Nikon. So if you don't have glass already, i'd go with Canon or Nikon, just because with Minolta, you never know if that line will kick the bucket. They need to advertise more.

I looked hard at Nikon & Canon while doing research. I glanced at Minolta because of the IS feature, but quickly moved on after hearing that Minolta had abandoned the camera business. The Nikon/Canon question ultimately came down to lenses. Canon won by a landslide. Look beyond the camera & evaluate the entire system as has been suggested above. My $0.02
Kevin

You might go looking for bargain offers on the NOINK D50.

Also most likely a great camera (but performance wise closer to the 300D than the newer 350D), the system is not dead (yet ) and they are selling it at very good prices nowadays.

Best regards,
Andy

If you decide on the Minolta, I've got a killer 50/1.4 lens I'll sell you from my film days. I'll throw in a crappy Sigma zoom for free.

But that gives away what my thinking was (although I switched before the Minolta DSLRs came out).

It will be interesting what Sony will do with the Minolta technology.

I'd highly suggest the Canon 350D instead of the Minolta. Firstly as already been said, Minolta has withdrew from the commercial camera market, so that would also mean that they've stopped making lenses and such. Onboard IS is great, but as stated, if it faults on you, you're in alot of trouble. 8mp vs 6mp + IS, if the onboard IS faults on you *and in my opinion, most onboard things always have a chance of faulting up, then you'd simply have a 6mp. I'm not sure in terms of quality, since i haven't tried the Minolta, but XT has a very good reputation for great quality photo for it's price, and also as stated, it's compatiblity with the L series lens makes all the difference.

What i would highly recommend before you make any purchase, is find some friends or other people who has the XT, and others who has the Minolta, and test them both, do test pictures with both.

ps. another thing is, Canon has awsome warrenty, i paid extra 130$ for a 3 year extended warrenty, which includes 1 free system cleanup per year, and the warrenty states that they will fix all mechanical or camera problems, and if they cannot fix it, they will replace my camera for free *which in it's own is a great deal, my worry-factor just went straight down* I cannot say the same with the Minolta, since they folded in the market, and I don't think i would trust their warrenty to the same degree. just say hypothetically, that they ran out of the camera... uh oh..

if you do decide to go with the minolta, why get the 7d when u can get the newer version, the 5d

http://www.pricegrabbe​r.com …0020131/search=​minolta+5d

i bought my father a 5d. its heavier than my 350d. the LCD isnt impressive either. its hard to tell if youve taken a good picture or not on the minolta LCD. and it only lets you zoom in once when reviewing pictures. its annoying at times

I looked seriously at the Minolta's a while back just as they annouced exit from the market. You are right to say the body based IS is a strong plus, as is the build. I decided then that if I just wanted a camera with a lens or two to used for a few years and basically run into the ground then I should go Minolta. Of course, that isn't what I wanted to do and so the system argument is a strong one if you want to persue photography as a more serious pass-time. Sony are backing the Minola system but things are a little uncertain in my view lens wise and so there is a tad more risk there.

The 350D is a very fine camera (I had one) that allows access to very many fine lenses and accessories. As Andy says, the cheaper Nikons are also really looking very attractive and, in my view, so are the cheaper Pentax. I have no axe to grind around any brand but for me personally Canon is the best choice all around at this point in time, but it does depend if you just want a very advanced 'point and shoot' in the style of a DSLR or really want to take up serious photography.

Read this review : http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/konicaminolt​a7d/

very indepth and compared to the 20D and the D70, then make an educated purchase.