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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 17, 2004, 2:19 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default

Hi,

check the samples of http://dcresource.com/reviews/minolt.../gallery.shtml

it says all shots were shot at ISO 50 - but in the church photo - there is visible noise at most places and clearly obvious near the lights

And the photo below it ( a corridor ) has an over-exposure .

Put in your thoughts

Is the settings that made were incorrect or is it A200 problem ?
deepboys is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 18, 2004, 12:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

Steve's just posted his reviewfor this camera & whilst his comments appear to find favour with this camera, the images on his gallery page are disappointing.

The RAW image file looks too soft & when compared with the Nikon CP8800, it's somewhat inferior; the CP8800 in it's NEF mode compares favorably with the Nikon D70.

I was initially attracted to this camera because of its Flexi Focus abilities but it's let down on a number of fronts:

1. Poor image quality
2. No AF assist lamp
3. No landscape mode with infinity lock

However, given the image quality here http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...0_samples.htmlI think I be buying the Nikon CP8800 instead.
Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2004, 1:42 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 925
Default

I always look first at the two traffic signs - Nicholson St and ONE WAY - in Steve's pictures of the schoolhouse. I usually crop these out & apply Unsharp Mask to them.

I was not at all impressed by the A200, especially since it's an 8 megapixel camera. Compare the Minolta samples with the Canon G6 which costs less. And in the below-$1000 category, there's the Nikon 8800.

Granted, the A200 has Image Stabilization, which is why I settled on a Canon S1 IS - but I think I prefer even that, with not much more than 3 megapixels, to the A200.
Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 12:26 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Default

I've beenevaluating several cameras using my own CF card to compare images...the local photo shop has been very cooperative.

Straight out the camera, the A200 images are definitely softerthan the Canon G6 or Nikon 8800.But this camera has such a nice combination of features....( manual zoom, good range 28 - 200mm, relatively fast lens (compared to the Nikon 8800), image stabilization, accepts filters and lens hood without adaptors, good LCD and EVF..... ) thatI decided to look at it again.

Rather than looking at the images onthe PC monitor, I decided toprint some instead,starting withthe G6 and A200.

I used an Epson 1200 printer, with the imageprint size setat 300 ppi. This produces roughly an 8 by 10 inchprint from the full frame jpeg.

Both cameras were set toiso 50, max jpeg quality, all othercamera settings at normal and in P mode. i.e. no in-camera sharpening, contrast or saturationadjustments.

Surprisingly, the differences between the prints from thetwo cameraswere not nearly as apparent. The G6 has slightly snappier colours, and a bit more contrast, but the A200 pic was real close. When I applied a small amount of unsharp mask to both, the A200 pic improved, the G6 pic was about the same. Both prints looked great, imho.

I'm now wondering if evaluating the image quality on the PC screen is an appropriate test. At 100% image size, it's the same as having your nose about a foot away from a 45 inch wide print. And at 200% size, which was what I was doing, it's the same as having your nose a foot away from a 90 inch wide print...

This has caused me to rethink my previous conclusions. I haven't decided on which camera I'll purchase, but the A200 is now back in the mix, although admitedly, it may require more post processing than the G6 to get the maximum print quality. I'll likely repeat this test with the Nikon 8800 and 8400 as well.

Cheers...Santos




Santos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 2:10 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

An interesting study from Santos but forgive my saying so but are you not deluding yourself.

I too liked the features of the A200 but image quality is important to me & no matter what post processing you do, you can't improve on a what's not there. Even the RAW output from this camera is not that much better than the JPEG output.

I was intent on checking out the A200 until I saw the sample shots on Steve's review and have decided to give the A200 a miss. I'm still looking and for the moment the CP8800 looks favorite.

Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2004, 4:14 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Default

I don't think I'm deluding myself...at least I hope not...there is no perfect camera, so I'm just trying to pick out the best combination of quality and features for my use. The point I was trying to make is that if prints are your final intended product, you shouldevaluate image quality on prints as well as the image on your monitor.

When I did that, the differences between the A200 and the G6, on an 8 by 10 inch print, were negligble. Ok, it's a pain to manually adjust sharpness in the PC, but all these cameras have in-camera sharpening, saturation and contrast adjustments, none of which I tested, so I guess yet another round ofvisits to the local camera shop is needed. I wouldn't rule out an interesting camera based solely on reviews, you should test it yourself...

good luck with your selection...

Santos
Santos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 1:44 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default

santos,

probably u cud have posted the pics u r talking about. i wud like to particularly comment on the pic PICT0492.JPG in A200 samples in this site - it says ISO 50 and lot of noise - same as with samples in megapixel site. Agreed A200 has lot of features - but whats the use if the image quality is inferior.

Regd the prints - its a good point that u have made out that it finally matters how the pics come out on paper. whats still wondering to me - how can a pic doesnt look good on PC will look good on paper.

Even one of indoor close up also got lot of noise.
If you look at the wide agle pic of boats ( PICT0246.JPG ) the camera did not seem to focus at any one point ( may be because of these the megapixel gave a 7/10 rating to focusing )

Taking all the pics into consideration, in my opinion its not a worth buy.
deepboys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 10:48 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Default

Hi deepboys....

I hope you don't think I'm trying to sell you on the A200...I'm going through this exercise to help me make a decision... Most of us do make compromises on quality, or we'd all be taking out a second mortgage on the house to buy a 22 MP medium format dSLR... We base our purchase decisions on a combination of price, convenience, suitability to the task, ergonomics, and quality... and for most people, in that order as well...

About the prints vs monitor image...most would agree that if you're making 4x6 prints, the difference, on the prints, between a4 MP and an 8 MP camera isn't that significant. Likewise with 8x10 prints, the visible differences on the prints made with different 8MP cameras,are not as great as what you'll see on the monitor. I think it's because you're looking at an image 45 inches wide on the monitor, but only 10 inches wide on the print. I wish I could share the testing, but I'm looking at paper prints, and it is somewhat subjective.

The images in this site confirm that the A200 images are softer than some other cameras. PICT0246 is especially poor, it looks out of focus to me..?

I make somemore prints comparing the A200 with the G6... this time at 14x20 inch size... resolution was set to 150 ppi, lower than recommended, but it gave about the largest size I would ever consider. I printed the central portion at 100% crop onto 8x10 paper. I used Epson glossy photo paper with the printer set to 720 dpi.

Both pictures were soft, but the G6 has a definite edge over the A200 at this size. At a viewing distance of 3 feet, both were barely acceptable, but the G6 print looked better... I'm using the G6for comparison because I have pictures of the same subject matter taken under similar lighting conditions. I'm going to try to do the same with the Nikon 8800 & 8400

By the way, here's a good example of why you shouldn't just go by what a reviewer says or posts...the website dcresource.com has posted a review of the Nikon 8800. He happened to have an A200 on hand so he did some comparison photos... His conclusion was that the A200 picswere sharper than the 8800. And a he postedsome pictures to show that. Yeah, I find that hard to believe as well, but that's what he says...a link to the review is posted below.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ni...ew/index.shtml

I'll be looking at the cameras again... If I decide to pass on the A200,I maygo withthe Nikon 8400 for the 24 mm wideangle. If I pass on that, then it'll be between the Canon G6 and the Nikon 8800.

cheers... santos


Santos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 12:02 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

Well curiosity got the better of me & I popped into my local photo store and checked out the A200.

I didn't get to take any shots but certainly like it's relative diminutive size which is also a high priority of mine. It handled well, was relatively light & the zoom was a delight to use.

It's back on the list - I'm reviewing sample images here: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/mi.../gallery.shtml

The attachment shows a section of 2 images that has been compressed to uplaod it within the 250K limit and shows the CP8800 as the sharper of the 2 by a whisker.

Attached Images
 
Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2004, 1:01 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Default

Something odd happening here.... the A200 pics in this site and in the dcresource.com site are labelled as jpg files, but can only be downloaded as 22 Mb BMP files. The Nikon 8800 pics inboth sites download as jpeg files ?? I'm not an expert in digital imaging, but now I'm wordering if the A200 files are representative of what's coming out of the camera... ??

Any comments or help greatly appreciated...

thanks...santos


Santos 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 10:13 AM.