Canon 20D vs. Konica Minolta 7D

[bordersandflags]

I can not decide between these two.

They have the same prices range and similar things going for it, and different things better than the other (anti shake and canon's 8 megapixels against 6)

In the sample pictures i've looked for canon, the bokeh is much more blurry than the Konica Minolta. But i dont think as much people shoot with KM so i wouldn't know...

[paulnj]

Well.... if you wait a few days the 20D will once again have a very nice rebate attached to it......OCTOBER 15 so I here

[another view]

Some random thoughts - Bokeh is a function of the lens, not the camera.

I have great results with my 6mp Fuji S2 with 16x24 prints, and I'm not sure I'd see enough of a difference with 8mp unless I was printing that size or larger often. I would see my hard drive getting filled quicker though...

AFAIK, KM is the only company that has VR inside of a DSLR body, not the lens. If you shoot fast prime lenses, now all of them can have it (never seen a prime lens with VR or IS other than a super tele). This would be great for low light shooting.

So this all points towards the 7D in my mind but I'd still probably go with the Canon of these two. It's a bigger system with tons of lens offerings. You're more likely to know a few Canon shooters than one KM shooter (this may come in handy some day). Nikon's new D200 should be seeing the light of day soon too...

[Lionheart]

I can not decide between these two.

They have the same prices range and similar things going for it, and different things better than the other (anti shake and canon's 8 megapixels against 6)

In the sample pictures i've looked for canon, the bokeh is much more blurry than the Konica Minolta. But i dont think as much people shoot with KM so i wouldn't know...

Check the reviews on each of these cameras (warning: very thorough reviews-more info than you might want) on dpreview.com. They have a nice picture gallery for each camera where you can download the actual file for each so you can see and compare for yourself. I've been tempted to get the Minolta myself simply for the built in image stabilazation and their great optics on their lenses, but the noise at the higher ISO settings compared to the Canon's DSLR's is troublesome (I shoot at 800/1600 most of the time on my 1D Mk II).

[chinkster]

Check the reviews on each of these cameras (warning: very thorough reviews-more info than you might want) on dpreview.com. They have a nice picture gallery for each camera where you can download the actual file for each so you can see and compare for yourself. I've been tempted to get the Minolta myself simply for the built in image stabilazation and their great optics on their lenses, but the noise at the higher ISO settings compared to the Canon's DSLR's is troublesome (I shoot at 800/1600 most of the time on my 1D Mk II).

Hmmm... perhaps if you had AS built in to the camera body you wouldn't need to shoot at 800/1600 most of the time? ;)

But it's true that Canon is the Noise King with their CMOS sensors (as in best pic quality in terms of noise... very smooth and low noise, esp at high ISOs) and the very wide Canon system of lenses and accesories.

It's just that for me, the KM systems (esp the 5D) give best bang-for-the-buck value, good quality pictures, excellent colour, the AS is invaluable in handheld available light situations (my preferred style of shooting). I've also discovered KM has got very good, mid-priced lenses that give you very good value for money as well... and the bargains on eBay are not to be sneezed at, either!