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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 30, 2005, 4:11 AM   #11
Member
 
maros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 36
Default

this time I focused onto a car's registration plate ...
Attached Images
 
maros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 4:15 AM   #12
Member
 
maros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 36
Default

This is the sharpest landscape shot I managed to take so far... It seems that A200 likes contrasty, sharp objects... I focused onto the clump in the background and surprisingly all objects are sharp. I have no complaints about this picture.
Attached Images
 
maros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 4:40 AM   #13
Member
 
gapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 47
Default

:?I think that's the lens problem ! I heard from someone said that the GT lens used for A-series can't hold for 8 megapixels CCD ! So some people said A1 is the best A-series DC (Except for noise control). I dont' know whether it is true or not !:?
gapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 4:48 AM   #14
Moderator
 
selvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,204
Default

Maros,

With your recent shots, I now have a better idea what you are talking about. I can see why shots posted on the web would not be able to recreate your problem.

Can I assume that you have also tried printing the pictures that you consider muddy? And they are just as muddy printed as when viewed on your screen?

You probably thought of this but for the record, most monitors produce only 75dpi and thus the quality just isn't there compared to 300dpi (or better) photo paper.

The shots that you tend to have the most issue with are those with objects quite some distance away and as you mentioned have relatively low contrast as in trees. This may be very well an inherent problem with our current digital technology. Or additionally an inherent problem with the A200 and cameras of this class and price. You may he hoping for the quality of a dSLR with a prime lens. This combo easily tops out at at least $1500(USA) which is about twice the price of the A200.

Furthermore I shy away from using my monitor as a means of judging the ultimate fine quality of any photo. The main reason being, my monitor is an LSD and has not been calibrated. According to all the experts this leaves me open to a host of potential image quality problems. Some believe that LCD monitors (except for the most recent high quality ones) aren't up to snuff for professional quality imaging.

Cheers and aloha -- thanks for your kind comments on my galleries.




selvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 7:06 AM   #15
stk
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76
Default

Hi Maros,

I've had a look through some of my shots and I'm not sure that they are really any different to yours. I've attached a small crop of a tree at 100%. This is not as far away as your shot and the focus point is quite a lot closer, but it does seem to have a similar muddy, featureless feel. However, at anything less than 100% it looks Ok to me. This is at 50asa as most of my shots are at 50, but I don't really have any problem with noise at 50 or 100asa.

100% can be very deceptive. In front of my monitor its like looking at a poster over 1m wide from about 35 cm.

I wonder if its like Selvin says, combination of low contrast and lens/sensor capabilities. I think also that the A200 has very low sharpening and this may also flatten the image a bit. I earlier tried a Fuji 7000 and much prefered the lack of sharpening artifacts.

Cheers
Steve.


Attached Images
 
stk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 4:55 PM   #16
Member
 
maros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 36
Default

I must admit that all printed pictures look just great, at 300dpi or more, despite they look strange on the screen at 100%. Also when viewed at 50% (calibrated Apple Studio Display )they seem to be crisp enough, so I probably shouldn't complain...

I noticed that if I shoot at 5Mpixels all the issues mentioned above just vanished and pictures look sharp even at 100%. But I prefer Photoshop resampling which gives marginally better results (pictures not intended for printing)
Thanks Steve for your crop... It looks as most of my pictures (those two discussed above were just the worst shots I managed) so I am relived that my A200 is not a faulty one!

But I know my next camera will definitely be a SLR... one day.

:idea:
maros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 8:09 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

you are asking quite a bit out of this camera. i shoot regularly with both a 1d mk2 and a 1 ds mk2. you'll be surprised to find out the results on screen are not much better with my 1d2 then withyour A2 both being 8mp cameras(there are considerable operational differences though). you are finding out the limitations of any digital camera is somewhat painful and there can be a number of mitigating factors that will add to the image degradation. its faily difficult for me to go back and forth from the two in results. but i do understand the limitations and can work with them. i also shoot with a minolta A1.

it is not the lens. that lens is quite good.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2005, 8:09 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

pixel peeping can be a real bad habit to get into.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2005, 7:27 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 29
Default

Heh

There is a russian magazine, they tested Panasonic lc1 vs. Dimage A200. Rescale of panasonics 5MP picture to 8MPshowed the same details, as A200 does... So thisis all about lenses, nothing more.






A-lex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2005, 1:09 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Nols's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 154
Default

I don't havea A200. I own a Z3 and have just recently purchased my first dslr. One thing I noticed is the effect of aperture and focal length onDOF is much more evident when shooting images (especially landscapes)using dslrs. So, the problem heremight bethat your DOFmight be too shallow for the detail and sharpness you want to see. You can maybe try stopping down to f/8 or smaller. Anyway, if you find nothing wrong with your camera, maybe you trymy suggestion.



Nols
Nols 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 8:12 PM.