[font color=\'#000000\']
If that features ok, it seems to be a good camera system to get in lieu of buying the more expensive lens from Nikon and Canon. Would there be a case to switch? How expensive are the Minolta lens? I guess they would be inline with the non-VR/IS etc. of Nikon and Canon lens, but now with the VR/IS features "freely" given (except one zoom lens and one fisheye lens per their advertisement; sorry, their PR statement). Are they comparable in offerings from these two more commonly used 35mm systems? Any kind of landscape, journalist etc. demaraction as would people choosing Canon and Nikon? Or it is just such a small player that one should stick with the more well known?
Minolta lenses aren't really less expensive than N or C, unless you're buying used. There's a plethora (had to get that word in somewhere! :: ) of excellent quality used Minolta lenses at very reasonable prices. The 70-210/4, which is as good as the Canon, can be had for around $100US. And of course, all stabilized with the 7D. I like Minolta lenses better than Nikon; about the same as Canon. There's a full range available, everything from 17-35 and 16mm fisheye to 600/4. Even an AF 500 mirror lens. 200/4 Macro, 35/1.4, good assortment of standard zooms, you name it. 1X-3X Macro Zoom - I must own that lens someday . . .
Doesn't seem to be a real specific type of Minolta shooter, you get all sorts.
edit: people on the Minolta mailing list who have had an opportunity to take some sample images with the 7D indicate that the camera yields images that are very "film-like" in their quality; and in particular, that the noise at high ISO settings (while very low) is less objectionable than it could be, due to looking like film grain. Dynamic range seems to be superior to 20D, but that will have to be verified in testing.[/font]
