Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 29, 2004, 12:22 PM   #21
Junior Member
drool's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6

Amen, Keith
drool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2004, 3:33 PM   #22
Senior Member
CastleDude's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321

Hate to do a little threadjack here but,

Keith what kind of steps are you taking to get the pictures ready for 30x40 pictures?

This sounds like something I would like to try. I've had my A2 for about 3 weeks now. Ithink it would be fun to do an blowupon some of the pictures I have taken.

CastleDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2004, 5:13 PM   #23
Junior Member
keithfzr's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4

Here's a shot of me holding one of my 30x40 prints. This is a quick snapshot for the web, rest assured the actual print has correct flesh tone.

How I did it: (hold on to your hats, folks)

White balance set to flash, resolution maximum, extra fine JPEG, embeded Adobe RGB 1998 color space. The ONLY post processing was a 90 degree rotation and saved as TIFF. That's it. Nothing else. Nada. The only reason I saved as TIFF is because the old RIP I had for the Epson 9600 could only print TIFF. The new RIP I have can print JPEG, so we have eliminated that step. The rotation was to maximize paper useage, as the 9600 uses 44" wide material.

How much easier does it get? By the way, sharpening in the camera was set to normal. Just goes to show, the best thing you can do to your images is leave 'em alone.



keithfzr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2004, 11:40 AM   #24
Junior Member
Taree's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1

I intend to agree w. Keith. Technical investigations are useful however the results speak for themselves and Keith is the only one here who clearly comes up w examples and a comparison of quality of the end result as seen by the eye.

Besides this I am wondering how we can compare a camera with a fixed lens (a2) to one w/o fixed lens (D70). Doesn't it then all depends on what lens is used? Notice here that the A2 comes with a 28 -200 and the f is 2.8. - 3.5. I personally find that very attractive as Nikon comes with a kit of 18-70 and f=3.5-4.5 I have a SLR (not digital) and I really miss the 2.8 (mine has a 28-200 f=3.5-5.6). However hwo does this work on DIgital? Is this really an issue adn as important as it is w 35 mm?
Taree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2004, 2:13 AM   #25
Junior Member
jbach39's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4

I understand that the D70 is a better digital camera, but refering to the Ax series as a TOY!? I'm sorry, but I have a hard time calling a $999.98 dollar camera a TOY!

I am a happy A2 owner, and have tried various cameras when I was shopping around (yes, even tried the digital rebel and EOS-10D) and while the images produced were nice (ok, a bit better than the test images I did with the 'prosumer' grade cameras) I still was limited to about $1,000 for my purchase, as I have 2 35mm SLR's (and lenses, not compatible with any of the current dSLR's) I have the quality I need, that will do what I could have done with the D70 or any other dSLR, and now I have my A2, which for most projects I shoot (figure skating, family photos, weddings) the A2 will do nicely (yes I still bring the 35mm's along, in case I come across something the A2 can't handle. It does have a fast shutter (once you realize how to use it). I will agree it has noise issues at higher ISO's, but most of that can be handled in post. I am an Amateur Photographer, honestly I had no need for a more expensive dSLR setup, maybe down the road I might need one, then I'll look into one.

I started shopping around when my last digital camera died (was a Toshiba PDR-3300). that got used heavily, even did a wedding with it (was using a 35mm I wasn't familar with, and mis loaded the film, good thing I was also taking photos with my 3mp digital camera). even with printing at 8x10 was hard to seemajor differences in a lot of the photos (we restaged some pics so I could get them with the 35mm), overall the couple were happy with their photos. Anyway, I needed a replacement for that 3mp, and after researching it a while, decided the A2 was the ideal camera for my needs.

when it comes to cameras different people have different ideas as to the difference between a 'real' camera, and a 'toy' camera, to some it might be the fact that it's a dslr as opposed to anything else (heh, some even call ANY digital camera a toy). to me, it comes down to what the camera can do (or can't do)and yes, price does come into it a bit, I have toy digital cameras, those are in the .3mp range (iMHO)then there is the 2mp on up to about 4-6 MP P&S digital cameras (35mm P&S cameras are in this group also), they aren't toys, but are an appliance. like the TV, Stereo, VCR etc... Usable by just about anyone, with no real training or experience. then we get into the 'prosumer' grade digital cameras (the current crop of 8MP digital cameras (with the smaller Sony CCD like the A2, the Nikon 8700, the Sony 828, the Oly 8080, Canon Powershot pro 1) and the 5mp cameras that go beyond P&S (Sony 717, KM A1, various Nikon 5000 series cameras, and others of this group). then finally we get into the Pro category . the dSLR's and high end 35mm SLR's also) that is MY idea and opinion as to what the difference is.

Sorry for the rant, backing away from the keyboard now lol

John Bach

jbach39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2005, 4:40 PM   #26
Junior Member
FlyBoy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1

I have owned them allot, Dimage 7, D100, Cannon Rebel Digital, Maxumm 7, now A2 and guess what?, I love my A2, I can take it anywhere and again I have more pictures than I ever have, and some of them I sell as they are awesome!. Isn't that the idea?

Take Pictures, not carry around every lenses plus a camera in hops of getting that perfect shot, which you will never get waiting around or lugging around.

Some of my best work were with Quick Shots, my A2 does that... easily to take with me...if you cannot easily take it with you, you will not use it...it styas left behind.

Much like a concealed carry pistol, too big? you will not take it with you, and you might have needed it..

FlyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2005, 12:26 PM   #27
Junior Member
Babysplitz's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5

I agree with you Keithfzr. I've been an amateur photographer for 50 years. I used Nikon 35mm cameras and they were great. I think they are behind the curve with prosumer digital. Maybe the D70 and dSLR are high quality, but why spend so much on a camera medium that is still advancing at breakneck speed. Remember all those people that purchased computers 386/25 then 386/33, then 386/40; then the 486 came out. All this before Petiums etc. My digital photos from a Fuji 3meg, then to the Minolta 7i and finally now to the Minolta A200 put my film photos to shame. Most pro film today digitise their photos and correct them with photoshop.

Since this is the Minolta forum, I think the A2 and A200 are the best 2 cameras out there for the money.You can argue on other brands of equal quality or personal perference, but these 2 Minolta cameras are top notch.

To get back to don482's orginal question.I think if he just started playing around with a A2 that he should learn all he can ffrom it and take varried photos for at least a year. Then when he has a better understanding of digital photography, then come back and see what available and be able to ask ask more specific questions.
Babysplitz is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:50 PM.