Spent more time digging through my archives today as I continue to heal from surgery. I got to a large body of work from my old Maxxum 7D. I had sort of forgotten how many good images I had taken with it before they left the market and I went over to Canon. Even more surprising was how many of the shots were taken with my Minolta 300/4.0 lens and a 1.4 teleconverter. The RAW files were just so nice. Anyway, here's a little sampling from the thousands of shots I got. All just quickly processed today, there's a lot more that can be done with the original files for sure.
Young short-eared owl:
This shot was sold to be the cover for a book called Meadowlarks Economics. Just a quick snapshot I took in a camping ground one day, !
That is so cool you can look back at your Minolta files with fresh eyes and appreciate them all over again. Funny how things change yet stay the same. Nice images, looking forward to more while you recoup. Wishing you all the best in your recovery.
These are lovely James. When one processes old files with modern software and our better skills, it can result in great improvements or sometimes subtle differences that make an image.
morris wrote:
These are lovely James. When one processes old files with modern software and our better skills, it can result in great improvements or sometimes subtle differences that make an image.
Get well soon!
Morris
What's surprising to me is how clean the RAW Minolta files look compared to all the old Canon 30D/40D and 7D files I've been looking at also. There's a quality to the RAW Minolta images that the Canon files don't have. Sort of like my shooting now. I did a local event a couple of weeks ago with my new (used) Leica SL side by side with my Canon 5DR s. After the event I could see a noticeable difference between the Canon files and the Leica. The Leica was so much nicer to my eyes without any processing.
All subjective of course and I'm sure it really is something to do with how the various files are created in the camera. I will say that the Minolta files certainly suffer at the higher ISOs. The more modern camera's sure have that solved now days.
jamesdak wrote:
What's surprising to me is how clean the RAW Minolta files look compared to all the old Canon 30D/40D and 7D files I've been looking at also. There's a quality to the RAW Minolta images that the Canon files don't have. Sort of like my shooting now. I did a local event a couple of weeks ago with my new (used) Leica SL side by side with my Canon 5DR s. After the event I could see a noticeable difference between the Canon files and the Leica. The Leica was so much nicer to my eyes without any processing.
All subjective of course and I'm sure it really is something to do with how the various files are created in the camera. I will say that the Minolta files certainly suffer at the higher ISOs. The more modern camera's sure have that solved now days. ...Show more →
The old CCD based camera produced lovely images. When CMOS first came out the images were not as nice yet there were advantages of dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO.
! 
