I used X-700's for quite a while before making the switch to Canon AF, and
since there was no real compatibility between the MF and AF bodies, I looked
at the market and decided Canon had the engineering advantage with ECF and
IS, they had the consumer market with the Rebel series, and they had a full
line of advanced lenses that were, as a rule, better priced than their
counterparts from say, Minolta. I'm still undecided on which has a bigger
user following between Canon and Nikon, but I can tell you that while
Minolta may have had the first AF camera, they're a distant third (at
least) in today's market. I figured all those EOS users couldn't be wrong.
So far, I still think so, but I've only had a chance to own 5 of them, so
I'll need a little more than just a couple of years before I can give you a
definitive answer.
Tom P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kumakichi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: EOS AF Cannon vs. Minolta
> I am a long time Minolta manual focus user but have considered trying one
of
> the newer autofocus bodies. A friend of mine has an A2E and says Cannon
is
> just great.
>
> I was just hoping maybe some of you could offer some opinions about the
> Cannon autofocus systems vs. comparible Minolta autofocus systems. Would
> there be any reasons for my to buy a Cannon rather than go with a Minolta?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kuma
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
