I haven't, specifically, but one of my student-mentorees used one ... Some really spectacular work from that puppy.
I may get a little flak for this, but I think the Minoltas, Nikons, Canons, Pentax(note the LX) and Olympus (and certainly many others) from that era were all nearly equal in quality and "nicety" - and that is to say, at the TOP of the scale.
I am from near Hutchinson, but I have friends and family in Wichita. I am starting a Central Kansas Photography club, so let me know if you or any of your friends are interested. We could rotate where we meet.
The XG-7 is a competent camera, even though it played second-fiddle to the XD-11 when it came out, but it became the founder of main Minolta line when Leica hogged the XD-11 chassis. It uses CdS as metering sensor, and when switched over to manual it cuts off the exposure meter altogether so it can be a little frustrating. The main circuit board has two capacitors which will fail, if they haven't already done so, due to age, and a lot of problems can be solved by replacing them; in fact a routine procedure by Minolta when they go back for servicing.
The XG-7 should be a "first type" chassis model, the "second chassis" is the same as the later X-series which is still current. If you can live with the peculiarities of this camera, I cannot see why it will fail to be a fully satisfactory machine for effective picture making.
The XG-7 was my Dad's 1st SLR, the camera that started my family on it's photographic journey. He later sold it to a fellow engineer when he decided to go Nikon, with the FE/FE-2. I just bought a XG-7, with the 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor, and fell so in love with it that I bid for and won an XD-11. The only "complaint" I might have with the XG-7 is the light meter is somewhat slow to respond. You can actually see the coupling pin move and slide. Aside from that? The camera is a joy to use.
I'm not a huge fan of the XG series. I have one (an XG-1) and with the meter shutting off if you go to manual, it kind of defeats the point of having a meter. I find my FE far superior (build is far, far better, a good motor drive if wanted, a meter that works, etc.).
It's a shame, too, as I have a clean 45/2 Rokkor with only this body for it (I've been paring down my "collection," so this one will probably go at some point. I'm happy with my IIIf/Jupiter 8, FE and 105/2.5, Rolleicord III and the evil D90).
EDIT: Hold Dead Thread, Batman! This thread is so old I was in high school for the last post before today (and then I went to college and got a real job in the mean time)...
Back when the cameras were new, the FE was about 3 times more than the XG series, any of them, and didn't take images any better.
I have experience with the XGs and Nikons going back to when they were released.
Compose,focus, shoot. Does the FE do it any better? No it doesn't.
You were in high skewl when the post before last was made, I was there before XG and FE came out.