Minolta Dimage A1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gavyn Aaron, Oct 21, 2003.

  1. Gavyn Aaron

    Gavyn Aaron Guest

    Hello everyone,

    I currently use a Sony DSC-F717, and though it is a wonderful camera with
    some really great features (and great quality), I do need more control and
    wider available options. I use an older Pentax for film shooting
    necessities.

    I've been looking at film SLR's and digital SLR's, and the Minolta Dimage A1
    really seems to be fantastic from everything I've read about it. But then I
    have this bug that says, "No, get an older film camera that just lets you
    have complete control." Or maybe even a newer film camera. I can afford up
    to the amount that the A1 is going for right now.

    On film cameras, again I lean toward Minolta. If I wanted an older one, the
    X700 seems to be the way to go on that (and it's REALLY old but still great
    from what I can find on the net about it), or a new Canon Rebel Ti or
    something like that. Minoltas just seem to have a really wide array of
    lenses at much less expensive prices than Canon and Nikon.

    Any opinions on the A1? It's either that or a film camera, not both.

    Thanks,
    ~G~
     
    Gavyn Aaron, Oct 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Gavyn Aaron" <> wrote:
    >
    > I currently use a Sony DSC-F717, and though it is a wonderful camera with
    > some really great features (and great quality), I do need more control and
    > wider available options. I use an older Pentax for film shooting
    > necessities.
    >
    > I've been looking at film SLR's and digital SLR's, and the Minolta Dimage
    > A1 really seems to be fantastic from everything I've read about it.


    Huh? It's the same sensor as the F717 with a slower lens and image
    stabilization to get you back the f stop you lost in lens speed. If you
    didn't own an F717, then the slightly longer throw of the A1 zoom makes it
    attractive, but it's essentially an equivalent camera.

    If you have enough money for the A1, then the digital you should be looking
    at is the 300D. Not significantly more pixels than the F717, but worlds
    better in terms of noise. Put the Canon 50/1.8 lens (a $70 lens) on the
    300D, and you have one of the best low light cameras ever made.

    > But then I
    > have this bug that says, "No, get an older film camera that just lets you
    > have complete control." Or maybe even a newer film camera. I can afford
    > up to the amount that the A1 is going for right now.


    > On film cameras, again I lean toward Minolta.


    If you're going to scan, 35mm film is 8MP. Maybe. Film scans are really ugly
    and have to be downsampled to look as good as digital images.

    Here's an example: http://www.pbase.com/image/21867927
    And another: http://www.pbase.com/image/22348855

    (The right half of the second image is what happens if the scanner isn't
    focused correctly. These are slide film scans: scans of negatives look a lot
    worse.)

    The second downsampled: http://www.pbase.com/image/22348935

    That's about as good as what you get from digital cameras, but it
    corresponds to a 2400 dpi scan, which is barely 8MP from a 35mm frame.

    IMHO, current digital cameras are so close to 35mm as to make 35mm not worth
    the bother.

    IMHO, stick to the F717, or jump for the 300D. IMHO.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gavyn Aaron

    Peter Guest

    Hello Gavyn Aaron,

    You wrote:

    >Hello everyone,
    >
    >Any opinions on the A1? It's either that or a film camera, not both.


    Having only just upgraded to the A1 my experience is somewhat limited,
    but for the new lower price of just over £600 (if you live in the UK) I
    must say I am highly delighted with it.

    I too have a 35m Minolta which has not left my cupboard since I moved to
    digital several years ago.

    Regards,
    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 21, 2003
    #3
  4. Gavyn Aaron

    JR Guest

    > Huh? It's the same sensor as the F717 with a slower lens and image
    > stabilization to get you back the f stop you lost in lens speed. If you
    > didn't own an F717, then the slightly longer throw of the A1 zoom makes it
    > attractive, but it's essentially an equivalent camera.


    What about better manual control, a better, sharper lens...faster lenses
    are usually not better quality..look at Leica lenses...some of the best
    ever made and they are not usually the fastest. PC connection for
    control of external strobes, minolta quality and the fact that a CAMERA
    company that has been making cameras for decades designed it to be a
    camera.


    >
    > If you have enough money for the A1, then the digital you should be looking
    > at is the 300D. Not significantly more pixels than the F717, but worlds
    > better in terms of noise. Put the Canon 50/1.8 lens (a $70 lens) on the
    > 300D, and you have one of the best low light cameras ever made.
    >



    Not if don't want a bigger, more expensive system...to get the 28-200
    equivelent you will have to spend hundreds more, and you will have to
    carry around more equipment.


    >
    > If you're going to scan, 35mm film is 8MP. Maybe. Film scans are really ugly
    > and have to be downsampled to look as good as digital images.


    Huh??? I have a Minolta 5400 scan the scans 40 Megapixels! 210 mb
    files, and they are gorgeous at 16x20 and larger from iso 100 slide
    film. In fact now having a Dimage A1 and a Minolta 5400 film scanner,
    film is BY FAR superior still....
    >
    > Here's an example: http://www.pbase.com/image/21867927
    > And another: http://www.pbase.com/image/22348855


    Those are HORRIBLE scans...they look like 35mm scanned on a
    flatbed...Try this one scanned on my old Minolta SCan Dual II at 2800
    DPI:

    http://www.webphotoforum.com/user_images/975/L/14725.jpg

    that is with a Nikon F100 with a Nikkor 300/4 on Fuji Velvia.


    http://www.webphotoforum.com/user_images/975/L/35629.jpg

    That is with a Nikon F70 with a Tokina 28-70/2.8 zoom on Kodak Supra
    800...YES 800 SPEED NEGATIVE FILM....

    Oh and try this with digital...

    http://www.webphotoforum.com/user_images/975/L/39764.jpg

    Shot with my Nikon F100 and my 28-70/2.8 lens on Ilford Pan F 50 film....


    >
    > (The right half of the second image is what happens if the scanner isn't
    > focused correctly. These are slide film scans: scans of negatives look a lot
    > worse.)
    >


    >
    > IMHO, current digital cameras are so close to 35mm as to make 35mm not worth
    > the bother.


    If you don't print large images....I enlarge to 11x14 and larger
    frequently and my 8x10's from a 5MP camera isn't even close to a 8x10
    from film....

    >
    > IMHO, stick to the F717, or jump for the 300D. IMHO.


    I am a professional photographer and I wouldn't/cou;dn't use those for
    my work, although I just added the minolta Dimage A1 and it will fit my
    digital needs until the full frame Nikon digital comes out....The 300D
    is a cheap plastic camera without essential items, and the Sony is not a
    serious tool...If he wants digital, with true full manual control, then
    the A1 is a solid choice....

    JR

    --
    www.jrhonephotography.com
     
    JR, Oct 22, 2003
    #4
  5. "JR" <> wrote:

    > > Huh? It's the same sensor as the F717 with a slower lens and image
    > > stabilization to get you back the f stop you lost in lens speed. If you
    > > didn't own an F717, then the slightly longer throw of the A1 zoom makes

    it
    > > attractive, but it's essentially an equivalent camera.

    >
    > What about better manual control,


    The the F717 has everything any film camera has and more. My sense here is
    that the A1 is, technologically, a consumer camera. Bells and whistles don't
    make a difference if the image was taken on a tiny consumer sensor. So I'm
    surprised at your enthusiasm.

    > a better, sharper lens...faster lenses
    > are usually not better quality..look at Leica lenses...some of the best
    > ever made and they are not usually the fastest.


    So far, the Sony Zeiss lenses are the sharpest consumer lenses there are.
    Maybe the A1 lens is better than the D7 lens, but the F717 edged out the D7
    in both resolution and noise.

    Also, although I agree fast lenses ought ot be worse, for example, the Canon
    "L" fast primes (e.g 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.2) are all better than
    the corresponding slower lens.

    > PC connection for control of external strobes,


    A hot shoe adapter costs a couple of bucks.

    > minolta quality and the fact that a CAMERA
    > company that has been making cameras for decades designed it to be a
    > camera.


    These are _digital_ cameras, and Sony is a far better electronics company
    than Minolta. And Zeiss is a better lens company than Minolta. Besides, Sony
    makes the sensors in both cameras.

    > > If you have enough money for the A1, then the digital you should be

    looking
    > > at is the 300D. Not significantly more pixels than the F717, but worlds
    > > better in terms of noise. Put the Canon 50/1.8 lens (a $70 lens) on the
    > > 300D, and you have one of the best low light cameras ever made.

    >
    > Not if don't want a bigger, more expensive system...to get the 28-200
    > equivelent you will have to spend hundreds more, and you will have to
    > carry around more equipment.


    Well, yes. The sensor is larger for better noise, so the lenses are bigger
    and heavier. But the 300D is a far better camera in image quality than
    either the Sony or Minolta.

    The 300D is a serious camera in sheeps clothing; it's imaging capabilities,
    especially in low light, are worlds ahead of any consumer camera.

    > > If you're going to scan, 35mm film is 8MP. Maybe. Film scans are really

    ugly
    > > and have to be downsampled to look as good as digital images.

    >
    > Huh??? I have a Minolta 5400 scan the scans 40 Megapixels! 210 mb
    > files, and they are gorgeous at 16x20 and larger from iso 100 slide
    > film.


    Calm down there. 35mm is not "gorgeous" at 16x20. Even my beloved 645 is
    crapping out at that size<g>.

    > In fact now having a Dimage A1 and a Minolta 5400 film scanner,
    > film is BY FAR superior still....
    > >
    > > Here's an example: http://www.pbase.com/image/21867927
    > > And another: http://www.pbase.com/image/22348855

    >
    > Those are HORRIBLE scans...they look like 35mm scanned on a
    > flatbed...Try this one scanned on my old Minolta SCan Dual II at 2800
    > DPI:
    >
    > http://www.webphotoforum.com/user_images/975/L/14725.jpg
    > http://www.webphotoforum.com/user_images/975/L/35629.jpg


    Yours are radically downsampled: the scans I showed are full resolution
    crops of 4000 dpi scans. I've not seen any full resolution raw scans that
    look any better. Ever.

    > http://www.webphotoforum.com/user_images/975/L/39764.jpg
    >
    > Shot with my Nikon F100 and my 28-70/2.8 lens on Ilford Pan F 50 film....


    HEY! That's serious cheating: you're a far better photographer than I.
    Probably than I'll ever be. Sigh. (The silver car shot's seriously cool,
    too. Sports shots don't do anything for me, but that's me.)

    > > IMHO, current digital cameras are so close to 35mm as to make 35mm not

    worth
    > > the bother.

    >
    > If you don't print large images....I enlarge to 11x14 and larger
    > frequently and my 8x10's from a 5MP camera isn't even close to a 8x10
    > from film....


    Well, the Sony and Minolta are consumer cameras. The 6MP dSLRs get a bit
    closer. But 645 looks better still. (I started out in MF and never found
    35mm attractive.)

    > > IMHO, stick to the F717, or jump for the 300D. IMHO.

    >
    > I am a professional photographer and I wouldn't/cou;dn't use those for
    > my work,


    I didn't realize you were a professional. Sorry. But given that, I'm even
    more surprised at your interest in the A1; it looks to me to be the same
    class camera as the F717, whereas the 300D, in image quality terms, is a
    whole 'nuther ballpark.

    > although I just added the minolta Dimage A1 and it will fit my
    > digital needs until the full frame Nikon digital comes out....


    That's what I'm waiting for too: I decided to pass on the 6MP generation and
    do 645 until then.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 22, 2003
    #5
  6. Gavyn Aaron

    JR Guest

    Hey David....
    It may be subtle, but if you are used to the way a film camera works,
    then the A1 is a good compromise...I got it for my fiance to use, but
    made sure it could use my strobes and had good enough resolution for
    serious work. I have used it on a few shoots, and it is nice, but I
    still prefer film to digital. Those were downsized images....the full
    sized scan files are 210 MB...If you use good lenses and have a good
    scanner, you will get great scans. Also lens-wise...my good zoom lenses
    alone cost what an entire camera costs....Take a second look at the
    minolta....numbers mean nothing at this level, it's image quality, ease
    of use, flexibility, and ability to get the image...the A1 has a very
    fast continuous mode as well...I have a 30 year old Pentax K1000 that
    does everything my Nikon f100 does, but....the F100 does everything so
    much easier...I am sure the sony is a fine consumer camera, the Minolta
    takes it a step further into the "prosumer" realm....I wanted the 300D
    until I picked one up...then I put it down....Oh...your 645 and Velvia
    will make gorgeous 20x30's I have seen it....

    JR

    --
    www.jrhonephotography.com
     
    JR, Oct 22, 2003
    #6
  7. Gavyn Aaron

    Sloopy Guest

    In article <bn5aeb$g65$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    > The the F717 has everything any film camera has and more.


    It has film?

    -Sloopy
     
    Sloopy, Oct 22, 2003
    #7
  8. Gavyn Aaron

    Alan Browne Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "JR" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Huh? It's the same sensor as the F717 with a slower lens and image
    >>>stabilization to get you back the f stop you lost in lens speed. If you
    >>>didn't own an F717, then the slightly longer throw of the A1 zoom makes

    >
    > it
    >
    >>>attractive, but it's essentially an equivalent camera.

    >>
    >>What about better manual control,

    >
    >
    > The the F717 has everything any film camera has and more. My sense here is
    > that the A1 is, technologically, a consumer camera. Bells and whistles don't
    > make a difference if the image was taken on a tiny consumer sensor. So I'm
    > surprised at your enthusiasm.


    Comparing the A1 and F717 on dpreview "side-by-side" and the A1 is
    better in a few areas. The F717 has a 1/2 stop faster lens and that is
    good, but not terribly significant. The optical zoom of the A1 is a bit
    further reaching.
    They have the exact same sensor spec.
    The max shutter speed of the A1 is far better than the 717. Does one
    need 1/16,000? rarely. but up to 1/4000 occurs often enough.
    The Minolta wireless flash system can be used by the A1. (off camera
    TTL metereed ratio flash). This is way beyond the Sony 'hot shoe' flash.
    Does the F717 do RAW? (not indicated at dpreview) the A1 does.
    The A1 anti shake is sure to be good for a couple stops of speed.

    So, while you might not personally like Minolta, saying the A1 is 'less'
    than the 717 seems to be personal dislike more than anything else. The
    A1 is a better camera.

    What Sony have done that is more impressive is the 828 and I look
    forward to the reviews on it.

    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 22, 2003
    #8
  9. "Alan Browne" <"Alan Browne"@videotron.canospam> wrote:
    >
    > So, while you might not personally like Minolta, saying the A1 is 'less'
    > than the 717 seems to be personal dislike more than anything else. The
    > A1 is a better camera.


    That depends on the resolution and noise performance, and I haven't seen any
    reviews on the A1 yet.

    By the way, I didn't intend to say the A1 is "less than" the F717.

    In the hand, it's worlds better than the D7 cameras (which I think feel
    cheaply made), and the IS system is an incredibly neat idea. I'd rather have
    a faster lens (and the Sony is a full stop faster at every focal length)
    than IS, but that's really a quibble.

    What I did intend to say, to the original poster, Gavyn Aaron, _who already
    has an F717_, is that the F717 and the A1 are so close in imaging
    performance as to be identical cameras.

    So I think the A1 _as an upgrade to the F717_ is a waste of money. If you
    want something more than the F717 in a similar price range, the 300D makes a
    lot more sense.

    > What Sony have done that is more impressive is the 828 and I look
    > forward to the reviews on it.


    It does look amazing. I'm worried about the smaller pixels, but hopeful that
    it'll be useable at ISO 100.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 23, 2003
    #9
  10. Gavyn Aaron

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <bn2f5t$nv9$>, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    writes:

    >IMHO, current digital cameras are so close to 35mm as to make 35mm not worth
    >the bother.


    Dont know about you, but I can see the difference right off.
    35 mm still has better *resoloution* to my eyes............

    I still have a Minolta SRT 101 (over 30 yrs old !) that I use regularly,
    and it along with my Minolta XG 1 still take outstanding photo's !!!
    (Minolta did make some very good lens's then !!)

    And for astrophotography, unless you are using a dedicated (!!!)
    CCD (such as one from SBIG) made for astrophotgraphy, film
    still rules for what I call basic quality. Dedicated astro CCD's are
    getting better, and better all the time, and with adaptive optics
    available, really make impressive images now !!! But the cost
    for a good imaging CCD is still in the thousands of doller range.
    The advantages are far shorter exposure times, which translates
    into less guiding time needed, hence less chance of guiding errors
    showing up in the final result. This all does assume that you have
    a good quality equatorial mount, that has been properly polar aligned.
    Those of us still using film are becoming a rare breed these days....
    Although on some faint surface brightness DSO's film still has
    an advantage when you need to take an hour long + exposure..

    It still will be a long time before digital CCD's have the image resoloution
    of TP 2415 film (B&W) though.............


    I just use both digital, and 35mm, they complement each other
    very well !!!!!!!!!!
































    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Oct 24, 2003
    #10
  11. "Azzz1588" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <bn2f5t$nv9$>, "David J. Littleboy"

    <>
    > writes:
    >
    > >IMHO, current digital cameras are so close to 35mm as to make 35mm not

    worth
    > >the bother.

    >
    > Dont know about you, but I can see the difference right off.
    > 35 mm still has better *resoloution* to my eyes............


    Mine too. But it's still a subminiature format that doesn't have enough
    resolution to make a decent 11x14, let alone anything larger, so why bother?
    If resolution is an issue, shoot MF. If convenience is an issue, shoot
    digital. 35mm kicked MF's butt on the convenience issue, and now digital is
    doing the same thing to 35mm.

    And it's not just convenience: dSLR digital is clearly better than 35mm at
    ISO 400 and above, where the vast majority of 35mm shots are taken.

    > I still have a Minolta SRT 101 (over 30 yrs old !) that I use regularly,
    > and it along with my Minolta XG 1 still take outstanding photo's !!!
    > (Minolta did make some very good lens's then !!)


    My 1950's Rollei kicks those cameras collective butts.

    > I just use both digital, and 35mm, they complement each other
    > very well !!!!!!!!!!


    Digital and MF here. 35mm isn't meaningful any more.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Gavyn Aaron

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <bnbckk$227$>, "David J. Littleboy" <>
    writes:

    >My 1950's Rollei kicks those cameras collective butts.


    And this means what exactly ???



    >Digital and MF here. 35mm isn't meaningful any more.


    Ok, for you, fine.............. For me 35 mm works just fine.
    Meanwhile MF is a waste of time for me for what I want to do.
    Photography at 28,000 fl, f/140 (planetary) With the small FOV it
    would be an incredible waste of film.....................

    Do try and respond to me when your ego is on leave ok ??
























    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Oct 24, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Hans en Erna Eelink

    Minolta Dimage E223

    Hans en Erna Eelink, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    508
    Hans en Erna Eelink
    Aug 18, 2003
  2. Hans en Erna Eelink

    Re: Minolta Dimage E223

    Hans en Erna Eelink, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    489
    Monsignor Larville Jones MD
    Aug 20, 2003
  3. Barry Turner

    Minolta Dimage F200

    Barry Turner, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,247
    NoMoreSun
    Jul 12, 2003
  4. Yamxs850

    Minolta dimage s304

    Yamxs850, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,167
    Eddie Bromhead
    Jul 12, 2003
  5. cymro

    Minolta DiMage A1 VS DiMAGE 7hi

    cymro, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    795
    Clyde
    Jan 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page