Using my Minolta lens with digital body

[kwiggy]

I purchased a Minolta MAXXUM 400si 35mm with two lenses (AF 35-70 and AF 70-210) in the mid 90's. I am wondering if I can buy a Minolta body with digital capabilities (DSLR?) and still use my lenses. I am just a point and shoot guy, but like to have a bit more flexibility than the pocket digital cameras. Plus, you know what the ladies say about long lenses.... okay, go ahead and tell me what they say about long lenses because I have no idea.

[mmeyer]

Hey Kwiggy. How's that fish house treating you? As far as the Minolta lenses, I'm not sure but Sony might use the same mount. Sony bought out Minolta if I'm not mistaken.

As far as what the ladies say about long lenses..."that's a long lens" is all I've been told, but then again I'm usually sportin a short one.

[Steve Foss]

kwiggy, I don't know how Minolta rides, but most of the good Canon and Nikon lenses developed for film cameras in the 90s will bolt onto their current DSLR bodies. I'd run the lenses down to the camera store and check.

[ShawnZ]

Any Minolta Maxxum lens will work on the digital Minolta or the digital Sony bodies and the greatest part of that, IMO, is that every lens you use is automatically image stabilized because the cameras themselves have image stabilization built into the bodies. For other brands you have to pay more for IS or image stabilized lenses I've used the Minolta 5d, and the SonyA300 and have enjoyed both and have used third party lenses (Tokina, Tamron, Sigma) and have not had any problems so long as they have the "A" style mounting like Minolta Maxxum lenses do.

[kwiggy]

Thanks all for the info. That was the good news I wanted to hear. Now I will have to bring them to a store to confirm that they will fit. Any recommendations on where to shop near Monticello? If I can avoid the big boxes I will.

Mike, the fish house has been great. Of course I never get out enough, but that's not the fish house's problem. I wished I would have bought the lights you had... do you still have them by chance?

[mmeyer]

Mike, the fish house has been great. Of course I never get out enough, but that's not the fish house's problem. I wished I would have bought the lights you had... do you still have them by chance?

I know how that goes! Sorry, the lights went right away after the house.

[Steve Foss]

National Camera's always a good bet, but I don't about locations closest to Monticello.

[kwiggy]

Okay, I am thinking my two choices are the A230 or the A330 since these are closest to my price range. With $100 being the price difference I am leaning towards the A230. I even compared the two online, side-by-side and couldn't tell the difference. Both lists had a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and all the mumbo-jumbo looked like they matched up.

So, my question is... does anybody know the difference between the A230 and the A330? Thanks!

[ricerdude69]

I'd steer clear of the 230 or 330 and go with a 200 or 300. The 230 and 330 are supposedly the newer versions of the 200 and 300 but don't really have any improvement and have less features. The only real improvement is there is a help menu/tutorial system that is nice for beginners. Features that are missing on the 230 and 330 that were pressent on the 200 and 300 are the ability to use a clicker/remote, manual white balance adjustment, and the 330 actually has a slower rating in burst mode than the 300. They also eliminated a lot of buttons that make changing some of the settings much more irritating. the difference between the 200/230 and 300/330 is that the 300/330 has a live view lcd, the 200/230 does not. So if you think you'll always use the optical viewfinder, go with the 200/230, if you like the idea of using the screeen, go with the 300/330. I was shopping the same models as you and talked with quite a few guys at the local camera shop and some other stores as well as read many online reviews and the general consensus is that the new models are a step backwards. Supposedly sony is making the 230 and 330 even more entry level so that more serious photographers will be more drawn to the upcoming 500 and 550. I ended up picking up a 300 and love it. I got a great deal on a 300 with the kit lense brand new on amazon for 499 shipped, which is 100 less then the 330 which at the very least is as I said, the same camera with less features. So you could get the nicer model for the same price as the 230. Let me know if I can answer any other questions because I have done way too much reading on these cameras lol. Hope this helps.

[kwiggy]

Thanks Dude! I appreciate the good info. That is exactly why I asked here. I was leaning towards the 230, but realize I want the 300/330 because of the live lcd viewfinder. Plus, I didn't even know there was a 200/300. All good info, thanks again.

[ricerdude69]

No problem, lemme know what ya end up getting

[HawgTide]

Kwiggy, the "A" mount minolta lens work great on the Sony. I believe it's the "M" mount that doesn't work. That is the original reason I went with Sony also. I have the original Alpha A100 and the A350, both really solid cameras. (I've recently moved over to Canon). Also, there is a Nat Cam in Maple Grove.

[kwiggy]

Well.... I jumped into a little deeper water than I had planned. I ended up getting the a500! It was an open box at Nat Cam plus on sale, so I got the camera for 650 with full warranty. Now I have to go to college to learn how to use it. This discussion helped me realize what options are important to me and that helped me make the best decision. Thanks all for your replies and help.

[jeffreyd]

hey kwiggy i just bought/got for my early christmas present, (wife got modern warfare 2 xbox setup) a sony a330l with teh 18-55 lens and also the 75-300 with an extra battery. while i am novice at best, i found the a330 the easiest to use. the viewfinder lcd is fantastic saves holding to your face to find the shot. while i need to still figure a bunch of stuff out on it, i love it. coming from a kodak point and shoot to this is a change but the quality of pictures is amazing. good luck either way you go. jeff