Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 4, 2004, 7:20 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

neilslade wrote:
Quote:
I actually own a G400- and I've added to my G400 VS T1 page a photo taken in my totally dark basement, in automatic mode, with flash. The flash complete lights up the entire basement wall on the other side of the room--- TWENTY FIVE FEET AWAY. Regular automatic mode- not slow shutter. This is 3 1/2 times the range stated by the Minolta specs, and other folk using print as reference rather than actually using the camera. Okay? End of discussion. http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/details.html....
Neal:

My point is that this can be misleading to consumers. There is a reason that Konica-Minolta rated the flash in the way it did. Do you really want us to believe thatthis camera is going to give well exposed photos of a subject from 25 feet away using camera defaults?

Ditto for your misquoting of professional reviewers like Steve. I find it misleading to consumers. Thanks for removing the misquote from your web site (although the new 25 foot flash range claims are worse in my opinion).

Quote:
3) As for camera noise- alas, I misquoted Steve on the G400 versus G500 in this regard. SOMEWHERE out there noted that the G400 was a better value, and esentially gave the same image qualities for $100 less retail-- minus the additional megapixel. and in their opinion, the 500 produced more shadow noise. Rather than take MY word for it, or anybody else- why not just look at the photos yourself? That's what I do.
I did take a look. They both have noise in the shadow areas. As I said in my first post, "Also,neither CCD is what I would consider to be a "low light" champ -- especially if you need to increase ISO Speed. There is very little difference in the noise characteristics of these two sensors."

BTW, if you would bother to check the EXIF, the G500 photo was taken at ISO 100, wheras the G400 photo was taken at ISO 50.

As far as detail, you be the judge. But, if you'd bother to look at things like the front door of the restaurant, you'd see that if you magnify the G500 image, the "Restaurant and Bar" is clearly readable. It's not so readablein the G400 image.

Does this mean anything? Not really. For a comparison of models, you have to use the same subjects, in the same lighting, with the same camera settings.

Quote:
I am not the only one to note the inferior speed performance of the G500 over the faster G400. A bit of good web research will show plenty of people who have noted this.
Yes, it's quite fast. I didn't say it wasn't.The G400 has a new hybrid focus system that is extremely fast.

As for camera speed, 1.3 second startup time is pretty darn quick in the G500 already. As for the new 3 shot burst mode in the G400, for my needs, it would be more trouble than it's worth (having to switch to a special burst mode).

Both cameras have a "standard" continuous mode. The G500 can take one full resolution 5MP photo every 1.27 seconds until the memory cards are full in continuous mode, simply by holding down the shutter button. You can leave it set this way all the time - - no need to switch back and forth between a special burst mode, limit yourself to a 3 shot burst, etc. I have never accidently taken more than one photo by leaving continuous mode turned on.

The G400 is slightly faster in standard continuous mode (it's rated at 1 photo every 1.1 seconds until the memory cards are full, versus the 1 photo every 1.27 seconds in the G500). However, you're saving a higher resolution file with the G500, too.

So, I see no significant advantage to the G400 from a performance perspective (with the exception of autofocus times). Also, I'd prefer accurate focus to fast focus.Even theG400 manual suggests disabling the external sensors when more accurate focus is needed.

From the Manual:

* exo-AF sensor OFF

"This modes sets the focusing using only image-plane AF with a CCD, with no external AF used. Select this option when more high-precision focusing is needed."

If you'd like to see a lot more photos of similar subjects from both models, take a look at these albums. Note that the Konica KD-420z is identical to the Minolta G400; and the Konica KD-510z is identical to the Minolta G500. They were just "rebadged" for different markets. Theycome off the same assembly lines, with the same features and image processing.

Konica KD-420z (Minolta G400):

http://galleriet.akamera.no/albur09

Konica KD-510z (Minolta G500):

Note that you'll see the same subjects in these albums, as you saw in the first album. Only these albums compare the KD-510z (G500) with multiple cameras:

http://galleriet.akamera.no/albuq42

http://galleriet.akamera.no/albuq43

http://galleriet.akamera.no/albuq44

http://galleriet.akamera.no/albuq45

http://galleriet.akamera.no/albuq46


Quote:
As for anybody who owns a G500-- heck, this is all splitting hairs for people with nothing better to do than read and write long essays on internet forums haha!
You sure went out of your way to point out things about this camera on your web site -- even to the point of misquoting Steve on shadow noise.

Sure, both cameras have their purpose. Some users may want the smaller size of the G400. "Different strokes for different folks".

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2004, 8:24 PM   #12
Member
 
neilslade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
Default

Hey, what was the point of my whole post anyway in this thread? Just use that little scrolling arrow on the right side of the browser and re-read my first post.

It's This:
The G500 offers no significant improvements over the G400 which costs $100-$150 less, and that in some parameters, the G400 actually performs better-(and better than a whole line of competing cameras out there costing sometimes considerably more). No suprising since the G500 was an earlier model in development, and that it's design days are done, and Minolta instead chose to further develop the G400 design into their newest offering, the G530.

That's why we have FORUMS. Because while manufacturers and retailers will continue to sell their stock of less developed and dated cameras, shoppers can go online and see whats really available, and what the best value, and what the best quality of features and performance is available--

and not just assume that the most expensive model on the camera shelf is better than a less expensive model.

That's the point. Getting more photo bang for their buck. Jim is cranky and he's attempting to rationalize having paid for an older more expensive model that performs no better. His pride at having "one of the first" in America has been shattered that it's not important since a newer model has been released. (jab jab-- common Jim, lighten up, it ain't that bad.... I drive an 86 Honda, and its fine.)

Hey, we've all been there. I've done, everybody has done it. Cheer up already. Go have a coke.

1) FLASH: Can't see anything misleading about a PHOTOGRAPH, especially when a long explanation is tied to it. Need a high shutter speed and obliterating white light? Or do you need enough light to take a picture of your Aunt and Uncle sitting ten feet away from you? Let's get real here folks, misleading, my butt Jim, I don't see any galloping Zebras on my basement shot nor a claim that this is a high speed strobe. Good grief. Its really stupid and misleading to make people believe their subject won't be lit if its eight feet away per the specs. Use the manual controls, and you'll just improve the indoor settings under many circumstances beyond what will be a completely usable flash for most.

G400 Red-eye-- as opposed to the G500, it has much less.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/mi...ew/index.shtml
"Much to my surprise, there wasn't a whole lot of redeye on this ultra-compact camera."

And while we're on the subject, Minolta specs for flash:

G400:
Interval: 4 seconds
Range: 0.5 m to 2.3m (depending on focal length)

G500:
Interval: 5 sec
Range: 0.5 to 3.5m (depending on focal length)

And since Jim likes to emphasize "misquotes" so much-- Steve himself got the flash interval wrong in his review of the G400. See: http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...g400/spec.html
for the accurate flash info. The G400 is faster than Steve gives it credit for. It's okay, we all make mistakes.

Well, I don't know about everyone- but paying another $100-$150 for a slower recharging flash that has a suggested additional 1m spread-- don't sound like such a wonderful thing to me-- especially considering that my own tests show that the less expensive G400 flash will light up an entire 25 foot wide basement anyway.

2) Okay Jim, time for reading comprehension lessons and put on your glasses, eh?
Look at the columns on the porch. There's noise in the plate glass windows on the G500, and noise on the porch rafters. Want to argue that? Then the moon is also made of green cheese.

To quote Jim: "Since the G500's 5MP 1/1.8" (.556" type) CCD is less dense, with slightly larger photosites for each pixel, compared to the 4MP 1/2.5" (.40") CCD in the G400, I would expect it to have slightly lower noise at any given ISO Speed."

Great- I would to, except that either professional photographer Steve used the auto ASA or he chose 50 ASA for the G400, and 100 ASA for the G500--- why? Was the G400 SMARTER and picked the lower ASA, and why? Duh- LESS NOISE. Or did Steve deliberately choose a lower ASA for the G400-- doubtful. My tendency would be to give the camera program the credit for being smarter. Let us know Steve....


Look on my page- for all to see- I've made it easy exactly.http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/details.html

The mere fact that you can look at both photos and have to look so hard to find differences spells out that the extra megapixel in the G500 doesn't mean much. And in the samples on my page make the G400 actually look better in some image areas- as some of us have noticed, and others of us are resisting.

The reason I even brought up this issue is because SOMEONE ELSE pointed it this very thing- confirmed by my own observations, and visible on Steve's boathouse. The obvious point to any brain with a couple neurons connected is that the more expensive older heavier slightly bigger G500 sometimes can provide marginally sharper images-- and sometimes it does not. Its a close call, but in any case the G500 is certainly no LESS noisy than the G400, for the extra money.

Both the G500 and G600 have been reported by others as blurring on the edge and corners, not so the G400
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/mi...ew/index.shtml
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/mi...ew/index.shtml

3) Performance differences? Well, enough that Dave at Imaging Resources kept the 500 off his 'Dave's Picks' because of its sluggish shutter. I think he's a "professional". No such complaints about sluggish perfomance ofthe G400 from anybody I've seen. Look on page one of Steve's G400 review, Jim: " A newly designed signal-processing engine makes this compact camera twice as fast as the DiMAGE G500." Does Steve make a habit of putting unessential information in his reviews? To somepeople who would decline the G500 because of slowness, the G400 has no such bug.

If one has the personality of JimC and insists on rationalizing that the G500 is worth the extra $100-$150 it would cost you-- well then, you better get talking to the folks at Minolta who have stopped developing that model of camera over developing the G400 line.

4) Menu and Controls-- let's have another professional speak on the differences between the G400 and 500-

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/mi...ew/index.shtml
Probably the biggest flaw of the G500 is its menu system, which it inherited from the Konica side of the business. While it's attractive, I found it to be difficult to navigate, with options strewn all over the place. Minolta's own menu system, while not perfect, would be a vast improvement (G510 anyone?)."

G400- has different controls and menu- improved. Its the same menu Minolta put on its newest 5MP G530. The old G500/600 menu system- discarded.

Personally, I like having a place to put my nose other than on the LCD, which the G500 would force me to do. ;-) And I enjoy the priviledge of paying less, and enjoying the easier menu access of the newer G400.

Important enough for Minolta to go in this direction- maybe it will matter to people actually shopping for a camera too.





The only REAL misleading thought is that one will get a better camera if it's more expensive.

Both the G400 and G500 have their own individual quirks. The G400 appears by all accounts to generally be a more evolved camera in many respects, in most opinions- and in perhaps a couple of spots less evolved- as expressed by a few opinions also.

A real pat on the back belongs to the folks at Minolta who developed and offer a less expensive camera that shoots generally as good and sometimes better as their more expensive model(s)-

and thanks to all the people on the web who have taken the time to point this out for others rather than trying to rationalize buying an older more expensive model with an extra MPixel that really doesn't make things better in the end. Good for them.

I'm taking my $150 savings and ordering a few pizzas on the Pacific. If 20 people read and look at my comparisons- that's $3000 more fun people are having out there, and I've done my little contribution.

Have Fun- I mean, that's the main thing ain't it?
Cheers
Neil
-
neilslade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 2:54 AM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Neal:

If you want to believe that you can take well exposed flash photos at 25 feet with your G400. Fine. But, when users reading your web site start complaining to you about underexposed subjects when they buy one, you may want to consider changing it.

Here's what Jeff Keller at dcresource.com had to say about it:

"Since the flash doesn't have a long range, I had to set the ISO to auto to get a decently-exposed shot."

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

As far asSteve getting the flash recycle times wrong. Nope.That's why the specs say it depends on focal length. With these cameras, the more zoomyou use, the less light reaches the sensor through the lens, so theflashrecycle times will vary.

Ditto forsubject distance. Whenyou have a closer distance to your subject, the flash will "throttle down" (as not to overexpose your subject). Because of this, recycle times will be shorter at closer ranges. For example, I've timed the G500 at one flash photo every 2.1 seconds at a range of 3 feet to a subject. Yet, if I shoot something across the room, it can take as long as 5 seconds.

You'llsee the kind of thing with the G400 (recycle times will vary). The only difference being that it's flash is not as powerful. So, a full strength flashwill probably recycle in less time. At closer ranges to the subject, I suspect that their cycle times would be identical.

If you want to believe that there is a difference in noise levels between these two sensors, when shooting identical subjects, in identical lighting, at identical ISO speeds. Fine. Believe it.

Jeff Keller at dcresource.com reviewed both cameras, using ISO 50 for both. He said this about the noise levels of the G400:

"Images are a little noisy"

Quote:
No such complaints about sluggish perfomance of the G400 from anybody I've seen.

I never said the G400 was sluggish. But,since you brought it up. Here's what Jeff Keller said about it:

"While the G400 starts up quickly, the autofocus performance wasn't as impressive -- especially in low light."

"Endless continuous shooting mode (though at a sluggish 1 frame/sec)"

"Average AF speeds, poor low light focusing, despite the external focus sensor"

Now, Jeff reviewed the G500, too (before the G400 was even announced).He also gave it some knocks. For example, "I see some blurriness in the bottom-left corner, which you'll also spot in many of myreal world photos as well."

I've seenthree G500 users with this same problem (Jeff, and two other users). The two others swapped their cameras and got one without a blurry left bottomcorner (one took photos of newspaper print to confirm it). So, it's a QC problem.

Jeff also used almost the identical verbage for the continuous shooting mode (leaving out the word sluggish):

"Endless continuous shooting mode (albeit at 1 frame/sec or so)"

He also knocked the G500 for redeye, and noted suprisingly little in the G400. Although, you can find tons of photos taken with the G400 on photo sharing web sites with plenty of redeye, so the exact angle of the camera to the subject'seyes can play a big part.

None of these subcompacts are very good in this area.

He also complained about it being too easy to knock the cover, accidently turning on the G500 (Jeff doesn't like sliding covers).

In contrast, most users I've talked to, find it hard to open the camera.

He knocked both cameras for their menu system, too.

If you want my take on the major differences:

G400:

* Faster startup

* Faster Focus

* Longer Movies

* Aperture Priority

* Scene Modes

* Smaller and Lighter

* Longer Battery Life (however, if you use the G400 battery in the G500; battery life is improved in it, too). The same battery will fit fine in both models. KM just upped the mAh rating for the newer battery that ships with the G400. The newer battery hasthe same voltage rating, and will fit in the same chargers and cameras.

G500:

* Morecontroller key customization (for example, putting redeye reduction flash mode as a toggle choice when using the right controller key, versus needing to use the menus to set it)

*Better LCD display

* Stronger Flash

* Slightly Better Low Light Focus - Even Steve's review comments "Although it's not equipped with a focus-assist lamp, the G500 autofocus system worked surprisingly well in conditions of low ambient light, as did LCD viewfinder."

* Higher Resolution

Other Notes:

The G400 had the advantage on Memory Types supported (it supported Memory Stick Pro, and the G500 did not). However, Konica-Minolta has released a free, user installable firmware upgrade that allows the G500 to support Memory Stick Pro.

This upgrade also has some undocumented features reported by users. For example, dramatically faster transfer times via USB. Faster operation with some Memory Types (users have reported much faster startup and operation with some MemoryProducts), lastfocus choice used is retained when poweringoff the camera, improved focus reliability when using zoom, improvedredeye reduction pre-flash strength, and more.

Look, we can throw barbs at these cameras forever. But, that's not helping anything. None of these cameras are going to perfect, for all users, in all conditions.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 3:33 AM   #14
Member
 
neilslade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
Default

Jim,

Man, what are you doing up so late? ;-)

To your points: Underexposed flash on the G400?-- Okay-- are all you G400 owners listening? Start sending your underexposed flash complaints directly to me
[email protected] I will be happy to forward all zero of them to Jim. Really, I don't think anybody except rank novices are that naive about flash use.

As to blurry corners in the G500 and G600-- are we counting how many people are reporting this now? A LOT. One in a blue moon is acceptable-- beyond that- time to look at another camera if you ask me. Both G600's I've test shot had MORE than blurry corners-- blurry SIDES was more like it. The G500-- well, I didn't see this on Steve's sample camera, but now you report a couple people you know, and theres the other site reporting this--- this is not good.

Jim-- I am starting to doubt your sanity----

Better LCD on the G500? Huh?-- its exactly the same on both: 1.5-inch low-temperature polysilicon TFT color LCD monitor with backlit
Brightness, colors (Red, Green, Blue) adjustable (I'm assuming you can adjust yours on the G500)

And I will add, this is the brightess most colorful LCD I've ever seen on a camera--

The MENUS are different, and having used them both-- I found the G400 a lot quicker and more logical than the G500/600- besides being additionally externally labled, which the 500/600 are not. Apparently Minolta has agreed, since the abandoned the G500 layout/system in favor of the G400 for their newest like model.

G500- you say stronger flash? Because the estimated range is 1 m farther? But its also a second slower in recharge. And as my web photo shows-- my "weakling" G400 flash still lights up my whole 25 foot basement. Pooh.

Slightly better low light focus- I would suggest you look at my NO LIGHT focus in my closet taken with the G400. Please note my 25 foot flash no light basement photo is also in focus. I haven't had any focus problems-- maybe somebody who hasn't had the camera long enough to really get comfortable with it might have problems, say people who "learn" a new camera every day.

Okay, time for a truce-- I like you Jim, especially the fact that you've taken the time and intelligence to challenge me on many of my points-- you've helped me to be a better critic. Thanks, in all seriousness.

The G500 is a kick bottom camera, my second most favorite compact camera in the world right now. ;-) If I didn't have the G400, and I didn't have a chance to get the G530 in a couple of days-- no question, G500 on the bill.

Just so people know out there, people who are considering cameras, that there's more out their to take seriously than Sony, Pentax, and Canons in compact and sub-compact cameras--- all of which I found inferior and overpriced to the delightful discovery of G500 and G400 Minoltas. The Minolta's got em beat in features AND more importantly in IMAGING.

Hey, if there was a better compact camera out there-- trust me-- I would have bought it!

I've been a diehard Sony user for years- and continue to use many Sony products. But Minolta beat 'em in the compact camera market this past season or two. Most consumers wouldn't know this because the Sony advertising budget is probably 10 times the Minolta ad budget at least. So people will depend on word of mouth and forums like this to get the real dope on what cameras are really happening. Same with Pentax-- generally perceived and priced as the high end of things. I dunno, but I looked at some name Pentax sub-compacts and I wasn't that impressed.

Okay, time for bed.....

Nighty night all
Neil

neilslade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 3:59 AM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

neilslade wrote:
Quote:
Better LCD on the G500? Huh?-- its exactly the same on both: 1.5-inch low-temperature polysilicon TFT color LCD monitor with backlit
Brightness, colors (Red, Green, Blue) adjustable (I'm assuming you can adjust yours on the G500)
Yes, they are both adjustable for RGB and Brightness. Check the resolution Neal, not just the size, and compare the displays side by side. The display on the G500 is vastly superior.

Quote:
Okay, time for a truce-- I like you Jim, especially the fact that you've taken the time and intelligence to challenge me on many of my points-- you've helped me to be a better critic. Thanks, in all seriousness.
I'm bored, and it keeps me occupied.

Quote:
The G500 is a kick bottom camera, my second most favorite compact camera in the world right now. ;-) If I didn't have the G400, and I didn't have a chance to get the G530 in a couple of days-- no question, G500 on the bill.
OK, don't believe me about Pixel Pitch, but you should see the noise levels out of this new 5MP 1/2.5" Sensor indoors in lower light. I've looked at quite a few of the X50 photos from users overseas thatpurchased it (it has the same sensor as the new G530 will have). The difference between a 4MP 1/2.5" and a 5MP 1/1.8" sensor is negligible (with both being relatively poor performers as you increase ISO speed. But when you try to stuff 5MP into a 1/2.5" sensor, that's a different story -- it's worse.

Quote:
Just so people know out there, people who are considering cameras, that there's more out their to take seriously than Sony, Pentax, and Canons--- all of which I found inferior and overpriced to the delightful discovery of G500 and G400 Minoltas. The Minolta's got em beat in features AND more importantly in IMAGING.
Check out the albums from the G500 in my earlier post. It compares it to much larger cameras, including the EOS-10D. Note the detail in roof tiles, color range, exposure accuracy, etc., compared to the rest. It's a lot of "bang for the buck".

Quote:
I've been a diehard Sony user for years- and continue to use many Sony products. But Minolta beat 'em in the compact camera market this past season or two. Most consumers wouldn't know this because the Sony advertising budget is probably 10 times the Minolta ad budget at least.
I've owned two Sonys -- a DSC-F505, and a DSC-P10. I bought the P10 last year, but after trying it for a week, I wasdissapointed in it's metering, color accuracy and more -- so, I returned it for a refund. I expected more from Sony.

The G500 is a vastly superior camera from an image quality perspective IMO. The P10 was fast, but fast doesn't mean better.

BTW, The lens design used onyour DSC-S85is a very good one -- making it nice for existing light photos. I can remember when this lens first appeared on the DSC-S70. You see the identical lens design on the Epson PhotoPC 3000z, Toshiba PDR-70 and Casio QV-3000EX.

Of course, the Sonys probably used different glass and coatings, but otherwise, the lenses on these models are identical. Keep in mind that it's a "Carl Zeiss" design, but made in Japan. So, multiple models using the same lens are not uncommon (even though the lens manufacturer may be labeled differently).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 4:24 AM   #16
Member
 
neilslade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
Default

Ah, sorry, but are you saying that the G530 will be a lot noisier -- (I think that's what you mean)-- okay, I can believe that, and I would not be surprised.

I have a little british sports car-- my second. The first one had a 150 hp engine in it, the second car was exactly the same with a 101 hp engine. You might think that the 150 hp version would be better and more fun. Well, it WAS faster.
More fun? Not by a long shot. Fun is not just going faster, its also if you can survive the noise for more than an hour. And its much less fun to sit in a 150 hp 1200 pound Lotus for a 300 mile drive than it is to cruise in a 101 hp Lotus for the same amount of time.

I am trying to make an analogy here. Sometimes more is NOT better, and it sounds like you're saying the 5 MP version of the G400 design gains nothing except noise. Okay, I'll buy that (and literally NOT buy one.)

BTW, I have searched high and low for that reference to 400 versus 500 shadow noise-- I must have seen it in a magazine at the bookstore- because I cannot find it anywhere on the web right now. And I know I did not hallucinate the reference to this. I looked really hard at the school and boathouse photos regarding this, and I've tempered my text regarding this. The 500 noise looks more apparent in these photos- quite possibly because the shadow areas are actually not as dark- (with the exception of the porch rafters, which DO look noisier) the contrast in the 500 is less, or the exposure is actually allowing more light in the shadows to come through-- and so the "rainbow of colors", i.e. the noise, is more readily perceived in the G500 samples. Also relative to these lighter- yet more "colorful" shadows in the G500 samples, is that the G500 boathouse sample seems to be at a later or earlier time of the day-- the shadows are less dark in that the sunlight is not so intense. AND this might explain why the ASA in the G500 is set at 100, and the ASA in the brighter G400 sample is set to 50.

I could budge on the "more shadow noise in the G500", given these observations that it only appears this way for these reasons. But it doesn't seem like the G400 is worse at any rate, something one might potentially sacrifice for a lesser priced camera. It doesn't seem to be the case.

And yes about the S85-- I was interestedin the V1 for a little while, only to discover Sony ditched the generous M series battery, and the F2.1 lens-- I mean, this is definite DEEVOLUTION. What were they thinking?

It's bizarre, I really respect Sony- but gosh, they've gone backwards this past couple of seasons in camera design.

Anyway, after spending a day with the T1, and the G400 indoors, I would NEVER sell my S85. Although I've got a very steady hand, and I've gotten pretty good at slow shutter speed no flash photos with the G400, - its just SO MUCH easier and faster with the big S85 lens under low light. What they need to do is put that lens on the G400....!

BTW-- weird that you say there's a difference between the 500 and 400 LCDs-- I just took some more sample pictures with a G600 and my G400 in the camera store today- I didn't see any difference. What IS different is how they render color- the G400 is different from the G600, which looks like Sony color- on the cool side, so I noticed that. I'll have to look again.......

So Jim, what do you do for a living, anyway-- just curious... As for myself, I am a hopeless jack of all trades... I make my living selling my books and CDs on brain and behavior science for the average Joe. And along the way, I utilize my lifelong skills in photography on my own site, in promotions, and in video and photo production. You sound pretty hard core yourself.

You are so right about these little Minoltas kicking camera butt. Look at the roof on Steve's Boathouse- then compare the detail shown by the Minoltas with the LACK of detail in all the under $1000 Sony cameras. Same with the roof shingles in his schoolhouse sample photo. So far, the only camera at $1000 or under that actually properly shows the school shingles is the Canon Pro 1. The Sony camera's in particular just smear them all together like Photoshop Smear tool!

Neil
neilslade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 5:00 AM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
BTW-- weird that you say there's a difference between the 500 and 400 LCDs-- I just took some more sample pictures with a G600 and my G400 in the camera store today- I didn't see any difference. What IS different is how they render color- the 400 is different, so I noticed that. I'll have to look again.......

The G500's is 117,000 pixels, versus the G400's 76,800 pixels. It may not be that noticable unless you're viewing photos (because of the revamped menu system in the G400, with larger Icons, etc.). When viewing details in a photo, or using the LCD for framing in marginal light, the higher resolution is very nice.


Quote:
So Jim, what do you do for a living, anyway-- just curious..


You mean you have to do something for a living? :-)

I've got a Telecom/IT background: 6 Years Naval Communications, followed by 6 Years in the Interconnect Telephone business, followed by 6 Years with a Long Distance Company, followed by a move into Transportation (Managing theMISHelp Desk and Network Engineering Groups for a company with 147 branches).

After they merged with someone else (and the Corporate HQ moved), I went back into Telecom (Wireless this time around -- as Director of Network Control Center Products for a startup company -- that unfortunately, didn't make it).

Finally,I moved into Retail Information Systems Consulting (for a large provider of Software to Retailers).

Right this minute, I'm out of work (which is why I'm spending so much time on the forums).

What it boils down to, is that I'm a jack of all trades,as far as Telecom, Network Technology, and Software Development goes.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 10:00 AM   #18
Member
 
SalBolzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 86
Default

Jim, Neil ! One question - does the G400 have a"Video out" to TV connection? I would consider the G400 if it does.. I travel to my inlaws sometimes and would be nice to be able to show them some photos on their PAL/SECAM television set....

I tried the Sony DSCW1 - not a bad camera at all, but a litle to heavy for a point and shoot and no manual white balance .... Do the G400 or G500 have one ?

What happened with the W1 and the pentax optio s4i is after shooting some pictures in a park for a while, in AUTO, the sensor "got used" to green as a white color and the rest of pictures came out greenish.... I had to shut the camera off, cool it for a few seconds and re-start it again, in Auto mode to get the original white settings.... Weird, but true ! I still use my trusted Nikon F5 with fantastic F1.0 real Zeiss lens !!!

But when travelling around, i prefer to have something in my pocket to carry everywhere I go and catch the precios momnets, therefore I need a small, lightweight pocketable camera with a good viewable outdoors screen, and the W1 was great with its 2.5 " LCD, good enough outdoors, but it is a heavy thick camera and for that thickness it could have been a 5x zoom.... The good part about the W1 is it can take external slave flashes and external teleconverter lenses, which I am not sure the G400/G500 can... would you confirm it please ?

Be well both of you and it is a joy to read you two getting a great discussion !!!


SalBolzano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 10:46 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

SalBolzano wrote:
Quote:
Jim, Neil ! One question - does the G400 have a"Video out" to TV connection? I would consider the G400 if it does.. I travel to my inlaws sometimes and would be nice to be able to show them some photos on their PAL/SECAM television set....
No, the G400 and G500 do not have a Video Out.

However, you can purchase an inexpensive Viewer witha switchable PAL and NTSC output withbuilt in card readersand remote control like this one:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....p;type=product

Quote:
I tried the Sony DSCW1 - not a bad camera at all, but a litle to heavy for a point and shoot and no manual white balance .... Do the G400 or G500 have one ?
No, there is no manual white balance. However, I've found that the Auto White Balance is very good on the G500. You can also switch to Sunny, Cloudy, Flourescent, and Incandescent White Balance. Personally, the only time I ever change my white balance is under Flourescent Lighting -- otherwise, you sometimes get a slight yellow/green color cast. However, even under Flourescent Lighting using Auto White Balance, Skin Tones seemto do well if you are using the flash (only the ambient lighting in the background has a yellow/green tint).

Quote:
What happened with the W1 and the pentax optio s4i is after shooting some pictures in a park for a while, in AUTO, the sensor "got used" to green as a white color and the rest of pictures came out greenish.... I had to shut the camera off, cool it for a few seconds and re-start it again, in Auto mode to get the original white settings.... Weird, but true ! I still use my trusted Nikon F5 with fantastic F1.0 real Zeiss lens !!!
That's very strange. It sounds like a defective camera. But, two different models? Are you going by the way the photos look on the Camera's LCD Display? If so, most models are not totally accurate (you need to go by your PC monitor to get closer). Now, the G400 and G500 do have the ability to adjust LCD color (separate adjustments for Red, Green and Blue Channels), as well as LCD brightness.

Quote:
But when travelling around, i prefer to have something in my pocket to carry everywhere I go and catch the precios momnets, therefore I need a small, lightweight pocketable camera with a good viewable outdoors screen, and the W1 was great with its 2.5 " LCD, good enough outdoors, but it is a heavy thick camera and for that thickness it could have been a 5x zoom.... The good part about the W1 is it can take external slave flashes and external teleconverter lenses, which I am not sure the G400/G500 can... would you confirm it please ?
There are no teleconverter lenses available for these models. As for a Slave Flash, most are designed to fire at the same time as the camera's main flash. So, you could use a slave (available from many sources), even though the camera was not designed with a slave flash in mind.But, exposure may be difficult to get right, since the camera will assume that it's internal flash is the only light source.

It's my understanding that the W1 only supports a Slave Flash, too (versus a true camera operated flash). However, Sony appears to have designed the camera/flash combination to work together, so exposure may be more accurate.

I'd try to figure out what is wrong with your Camera. It sounds defective to me.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2004, 2:12 PM   #20
Member
 
neilslade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
Default

I've posted a few changes, and a few more comparison pictures on my G400/500/600 page at
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/details.html

Just trying to be fair about the differences between models, and use the newer information gathered. I think all will be pleased.

I did get an email from Steve regarding the ASA 50 on the G400 sample photos versus the ASA 100 sample photos on the G500:
"For most sample images we usually lock the ISO at the lowest value to insure the best image quality. Don'tknow why the G500 was at ISO 100. There shouldn't be much difference between ISO 50 and 100 unless the shutter speed is longer than 1/2 second though. The lower density CCDs will be less prone to shadow noise than the higher resolution imagers, it's just physics of the chip."

See the sample photos on my site regarding noise and these cameras--

As for teleconverters- I've always found it easy to adapt existing converters to cameras by simply installing PVC rings of appropriate diameters inside converters-- doing this now for the G400 and will post results soon.

Later,
Neil
www.neilslade.com/Papers/brainphotofun.html

neilslade 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 12:47 AM.