Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Konica Minolta

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 25, 2004, 7:00 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8
Default

hi
im looking for a new camera and the g600 looks fine in compact and the z3 looks fine in macro
though im not really sure which one to buy i have some questions:
1: why is there not much feedback on the g600 around the internet? i think its a fine compact cam even with 6mp and a nice big 1/1,76" sensor?!
anyone has this cam and could tell me anything about noise?
is the battery pack ok? i have read steves review but i want another opinion from real life use

2: why does the z3 just have a 1/2,5" ccd? it is much smaller than a 1/1,76" ccd .. does the z3 have more noise than g600?

i hope anyone can answer my stupid questions...

stormid is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 25, 2004, 5:39 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 15
Default

Reason for the smaller CCD is so that you can get a super zoom lens in a smaller camera. The Z3 with a 420mm zoom is only about 110mm deep - compare that to a 35mm SLR which would be about 500mm and a few kilograms!
Eagleye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2004, 7:45 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

stormid wrote:
Quote:
i think its a fine compact cam even with 6mp and a nice big 1/1,76" sensor?!
anyone has this cam and could tell me anything about noise?
I'll let you in on a secret. A 1/1.8" Sensor is not big -- especially if you're packing 6 Million photosites into it. BTW, most manufacturers refer to it as 1/1.8", not 1/1.76". That's just the way Konica-Minolta shows it.

None of these small cameras are good with noise if higher ISO speeds are needed. You'll prefer to shoot at ISO 50 or ISO 100 with them.

Quote:
2: why does the z3 just have a 1/2,5" ccd? it is much smaller than a 1/1,76" ccd .. does the z3 have more noise than g600?
The pixel density from these two sensor is almost identical (if you compare packing 4 Megapixels into a 1/2.5" sensor, versus6 Megapixels into a 1/1.8" sensor). The 4MP sensor appears to have a very slight edge. I'd need to locate the exact size of the photosites to make sure, since there can be a slight difference in a CCD Design.Also, the size you see for the sensor refers to the diameter of the image circle, and varies a little bit between sensor types. The sensors are actually smaller than their size designation.

All things being equal (image processing algorithms, etc.), then the sensor with the larger photosites will usually have a better signal to noise ratio. However, these are so close, that I don't think you could tell the difference. Both would be considered to have poor noise characteristics at higher ISO speeds.

In order to get smaller cameras, the manufacturers must use smaller, densor sensors. Because the image circles can be smaller, the lenses can be too. That's why you can get such a long 35mm equivalent focal length in a small package like the Z3. With a larger sensor, the camera and lenses would need to be much larger, too.

The tradeoff is increased noise.

Now, noise is not too bad in good light at lower ISO speeds. However, in low light and/or higher ISO speeds, noise can be objectionable.

However, consumers seem to want "super zoom" and "subcompact" camera models, so the manufacturers oblige. They also want more megapixels, thinking that their photos will look better. In reality, at most print and viewing sizes, a lower megapixel cameras will work just fine (especially the older models, using less dense sensors - for example cameras using a 3 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD).

Now, I own the KD-510z (Minolta G500). It's using the Sony 5 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD (versus what appears to be the Sharp 1/1.8" 6 Megapixel CCD in the G600).

It's a fine little camera, and I wouldn't trade it for any other pocketable model on the market (including the newer G600). In fact, if Konica-Minolta would have made a model with the same features, using the less dense Sony 4 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD, I would have bought it instead.

You can see some photos from my camera here:

http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield/konica_kd510z


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2004, 2:51 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8
Default

thx jimc for your post.. it helped me alot...
now i decided to get a sony-w1.. the features espeacially the aa sized batteries attracts me more... although im a bit confused of all the soft thing that is going around for the w1... i couldnt see this problem in sample pics around the inet.. but if the w1 really has soft pic i can just use the ms stick and get a g500
i hope i wont be disappointed with my decision

stormid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2004, 3:31 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

stormid wrote:
Quote:
now i decided to get a sony-w1.. the features espeacially the aa sized batteries attracts me more... although im a bit confused of all the soft thing that is going around for the w1... i couldnt see this problem in sample pics around the inet.. but if the w1 really has soft pic i can just use the ms stick and get a g500
i hope i wont be disappointed with my decision

Well, you may want to take a look at this thread (discussing pros and cons of one model against the other). Also, make sure you buy the camera you choose from a vendor with a no restocking fee policy. That way, if despite your best efforts to find the "best match" for your needs, if you do decide you don't like it, you can return it for a refund.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=87






JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2004, 4:06 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8
Default

i saw that thread.. but in real i dont have many choices.
there are just the sony w1 and minolate g500 which can attract me... if the minolta has support for aa batteries i would take the g500 but with the prop :/
the thing is i already have a cam photsmart 612 (really not the best )
and from that cam i already have 2100nimh rechargeable... so if i can get a good small cam with aa i give it a try.. at least the difference between my photosmart 612 and any other cam will be probably huge...

the greater canons are not really a good idea (ixus series may be good but just auto modes and prop. so for me like the g500).. too big to carry in my opinion and to featureless to compete with "the bigger" cams like z3 f717 and so on... either a very small cam or a really big one with all the opportunities given from their size ( or best two cams but i dont have money for two :/ )

and well im here in germany and there is a law which guarantee u can give anything back in 2 weeks after an online purchase without giving any reasons (money back or another item just as you wish) so if the w1 is really not worthy in my eyes i give it back keep the ms stick and will be happy with g500...

so long...
stormid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2004, 4:25 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

stormid wrote:
Quote:
if the minolta has support for aa batteries i would take the g500 but with the prop :/
the thing is i already have a cam photsmart 612 (really not the best )
and from that cam i already have 2100nimh rechargeable... so if i can get a good small cam with aa i give it a try.. at least the difference between my photosmart 612 and any other cam will be probably huge...
Each user will have their preferences in battery type. Most models I've owned used AA Batteries (and I still have chargers and AA NiMH batteries).

However, I personally preferLithium Ion. Why? For one thing, it's much easier for me to handle. Instead of multiple batteries to load,you have one battery to load, that only fits in the charger or camera one way. With AA's, I have to fumble with multiple batteries, worrying about making sure I don't have the polarity reversed (when inserting them into the charger, or the camera).

Also, I've foundLithium Ion to be much better about holding it's charge when my camera is "sitting on the shelf". With AA's, I'd always need to make sure they had a fresh charge before using the camera.

As for price, if you shop around, you can usually find Generic Lithium Ion batteries for most popular digicams, at a fraction of the cost of the manufacturer's batteries.

For example, I can buy a Generic Batteries for the Konica for under $10.00 each on Ebay. I don't know about Germany. Here, all you have to do is search for either the Minolta NP500, Minolta NP600, or the Konica DR-LB4 (any of them will work). Here is an example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...72366&rd=1

So, I would never let battery type influence my decision in purchasing a new digicam.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2004, 10:46 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8
Default

battery was not the only thing that made the decision.. i like the speed of the w1 too and on another point i saw so excellent sharp macros from the w1... dont know how its with the g500.
but tomorrow is the day the w1 will arrive then i can tell if im happy with it or not..

stormid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2004, 2:13 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I think you will be. I took a look at the Sony Forum to see what all of the fuss about soft images was, and posted some of my comments in the thread.

Make sure to see both of my posts in the thread.

The first post I made discusses motion blur (which is what I suspect one of the users complaning is seeing), and the second post I made discusses image sharpness:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=28&page=2
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2004, 4:28 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8
Default

yeah i read that thread too

and i totally agree... i cant see what should be soft in the "girl-pic" i think its totally clear with low noise and without softness... i would be glad if i just get half the picture quality...

but one think i dont understand: as you said older cams had less mp and therefor brighter lenses and more space within each photosite.. why do they even bother to get more mp in the same sensor?
why dont they just enhance the existing? eg features size energyoptions and so on.. because if the picture quality is just fine for normal prints why try to go backwards? i really dont get it
do you know what the biggest sensor today is? is 2/3" the biggest? or are there cams with more?
stormid is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:36 AM.