Minolta Dimage Xg ANY USERS?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jim Spen, Feb 20, 2004.

  1. Jim Spen

    Jim Spen Guest

    Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?
    Is sharpness/contrast or saturation adjustable?
    Any 1st hand experience with it, pro reviews are sparse.
    Thanks in advance for informative posts!
    Jim Spen, Feb 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim Spen

    Seneca Guest

    "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?


    I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway, which is all
    I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast, nice and sharp
    except for the extreme corners which are definitely soft at the shortest
    focal length. In most photos that corner softness goes unnoticed. Excellent
    results with the flash too in mixed light.

    Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it is, it
    will be a winner.
    Seneca, Feb 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim Spen

    Jim Spen Guest

    "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    news:nDwZb.15609$...
    > "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > > Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > > soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?

    >
    > I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway, which is

    all
    > I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast, nice and sharp
    > except for the extreme corners which are definitely soft at the shortest
    > focal length. In most photos that corner softness goes unnoticed.

    Excellent
    > results with the flash too in mixed light.
    >
    > Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it is, it
    > will be a winner.


    Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not perform, glad
    you think yours does. I must have higher standards for cameras as it is
    and was subpar compared to others IMHO. Glad you are happy with it though,
    thats what matters but it did not answer my questions because you and I
    don't agree
    on the Xt and if it is like that then no winner in my book, thanks but no
    thanks....
    Jim Spen, Feb 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Jim Spen

    Frank ess Guest

    Jim Spen wrote:
    > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > news:nDwZb.15609$...
    >> "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    >> news:BpwZb.13401$...
    >>> Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    >>> soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?

    >>
    >> I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway,
    >> which is all I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast,
    >> nice and sharp except for the extreme corners which are definitely
    >> soft at the shortest focal length. In most photos that corner
    >> softness goes unnoticed. Excellent results with the flash too in
    >> mixed light.
    >>
    >> Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it
    >> is, it will be a winner.

    >
    > Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not
    > perform, glad you think yours does. I must have higher standards for
    > cameras


    Could be.

    Traded your common sense for them, did you?
    Frank ess, Feb 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Jim Spen

    Jim Spen Guest

    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:R%xZb.69$...
    > Jim Spen wrote:
    > > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > > news:nDwZb.15609$...
    > >> "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > >>> Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > >>> soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?
    > >>
    > >> I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway,
    > >> which is all I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast,
    > >> nice and sharp except for the extreme corners which are definitely
    > >> soft at the shortest focal length. In most photos that corner
    > >> softness goes unnoticed. Excellent results with the flash too in
    > >> mixed light.
    > >>
    > >> Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it
    > >> is, it will be a winner.

    > >
    > > Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not
    > > perform, glad you think yours does. I must have higher standards for
    > > cameras

    >
    > Could be.
    >
    > Traded your common sense for them, did you?


    No I just have eyes and good vision thank you...
    Take a picture outside, green grass, see if you can see
    any blades of grass or details in trees or bushes, can you say F U Z Z
    Y...

    You probably can't since you can only make brainless comments and not add
    anything
    relavant to the question, you might as well post the porn in this group, or
    maybe you already do?



    (if you can see over your shot glass) hotshot!
    Jim Spen, Feb 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Jim Spen

    Guest

    Frank ess wrote:

    > Jim Spen wrote:
    > > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > > news:nDwZb.15609$...
    > >> "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > >>> Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > >>> soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?
    > >>
    > >> I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway,
    > >> which is all I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast,
    > >> nice and sharp except for the extreme corners which are definitely
    > >> soft at the shortest focal length. In most photos that corner
    > >> softness goes unnoticed. Excellent results with the flash too in
    > >> mixed light.
    > >>
    > >> Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it
    > >> is, it will be a winner.

    > >
    > > Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not
    > > perform, glad you think yours does. I must have higher standards for
    > > cameras

    >
    > Could be.
    >
    > Traded your common sense for them, did you?


    shhhhhh
    , Feb 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Jim Spen

    Seneca Guest

    "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    news:WSxZb.13537$...
    >
    > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > news:nDwZb.15609$...
    > > "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > > news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > > > Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > > > soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?

    > >
    > > I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway, which is

    > all
    > > I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast, nice and sharp
    > > except for the extreme corners which are definitely soft at the shortest
    > > focal length. In most photos that corner softness goes unnoticed.

    > Excellent
    > > results with the flash too in mixed light.
    > >
    > > Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it is,

    it
    > > will be a winner.

    >
    > Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not perform,

    glad
    > you think yours does. I must have higher standards for cameras as it is
    > and was subpar compared to others IMHO.


    My Xt is not "subpar" by any reasonable standard. I cannot speak to whether
    yours was or not, obviously.


    > Glad you are happy with it though,
    > thats what matters but it did not answer my questions because you and I
    > don't agree
    > on the Xt and if it is like that then no winner in my book, thanks but no
    > thanks....


    You're welcome.

    As for user reports on the Xg, that model has just been announced and there
    aren't any actually in stores as far as I can see. So you may just have to
    try to bring your patience up to your other extraordinarily high standards.
    Seneca, Feb 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Jim Spen

    Jim Spen Guest

    "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    news:eLJZb.15697$...
    >
    > "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > news:WSxZb.13537$...
    > >
    > > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > > news:nDwZb.15609$...
    > > > "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > > > > Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > > > > soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?
    > > >
    > > > I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway, which

    is
    > > all
    > > > I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast, nice and sharp
    > > > except for the extreme corners which are definitely soft at the

    shortest
    > > > focal length. In most photos that corner softness goes unnoticed.

    > > Excellent
    > > > results with the flash too in mixed light.
    > > >
    > > > Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it is,

    > it
    > > > will be a winner.

    > >
    > > Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not perform,

    > glad
    > > you think yours does. I must have higher standards for cameras as it is
    > > and was subpar compared to others IMHO.

    >
    > My Xt is not "subpar" by any reasonable standard. I cannot speak to

    whether
    > yours was or not, obviously.


    Rated subpar by myself and others, negative reviews all over the net glad
    you got a "good" one...

    > > Glad you are happy with it though,
    > > thats what matters but it did not answer my questions because you and I
    > > don't agree
    > > on the Xt and if it is like that then no winner in my book, thanks but

    no
    > > thanks....

    >
    > You're welcome.
    >
    > As for user reports on the Xg, that model has just been announced and

    there
    > aren't any actually in stores as far as I can see. So you may just have to
    > try to bring your patience up to your other extraordinarily high

    standards.

    Not just my high standards, PLENTY OF NEGATIVE reviews on Amazon.com POOR
    PICTURE
    QUALITY is a common thread. Not that its that terrible, just not good or
    adjustable
    per menu system, if you like its inflexibility and can live with it then
    great. I promise to
    to as patient as my high standards and wait until it is released and we can
    have some official and
    personal reviews, not taking a chance on it...
    Jim Spen, Feb 21, 2004
    #8
  9. In message <UKyZb.13587$>, Jim
    Spen <> writes
    >Take a picture outside, green grass, see if you can see any blades of
    >grass or details in trees or bushes, can you say F U Z Z Y...


    I tried that again to day, and the answer is "yes" perhaps you have
    finger prints on your lens?
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    Ian Robert Walker, Feb 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Jim Spen

    Seneca Guest

    "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    news:0FKZb.14626$...
    >
    > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > news:eLJZb.15697$...

    [ . . . ]
    > >
    > > As for user reports on the Xg, that model has just been announced and

    > there
    > > aren't any actually in stores as far as I can see. So you may just have

    to
    > > try to bring your patience up to your other extraordinarily high

    > standards.
    >
    > Not just my high standards, PLENTY OF NEGATIVE reviews on Amazon.com POOR
    > PICTURE
    > QUALITY is a common thread. Not that its that terrible, just not good or

    [ . . . ]

    Well, looking over all the Amazon reviews I see more rave reviews for the Xt
    than complaining reviews. You will see some complaints about any camera. In
    at least some of the cases the users don't seem to know what they're doing,
    and may get better results when they learn more.

    Frankly, I was surprised to see any negative reviews at all, apart from the
    usual bellyaching about poor flash shots at a distance. Why so many people
    expect a tiny camera with a tiny flash to fill a very large room with light,
    I will never understand. Long before digital cameras came along, you would
    always see this sort of thing at large indoor events, people way back in the
    stands optimistically popping off their little autoflash point-and-shoots.
    Don't they ever learn?

    Here's a paste-in from the exhaustive six-page review of the Xt on Steve's
    Digicams:

    >>> The 2048x1536 size images can make photo-quality prints up to 8.5 x

    11-inch size. The overall image quality is very good and the equal of much,
    much larger cameras. <<<

    http://steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/dimagext_pg5.html

    The whole review was in very high praise of the Xt.

    This Photoxels.com page also praises and illustrates the image quality of
    the Xt:

    http://www.photoxels.com/minolta_xt_imageQuality.html


    Seneca
    Seneca, Feb 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Jim Spen

    Guest Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:4036BEFE.12704.6916AB@localhost...
    > Frank ess wrote:
    >
    > > Jim Spen wrote:
    > > > "Seneca" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:nDwZb.15609$...
    > > >> "Jim Spen" <> wrote in message
    > > >> news:BpwZb.13401$...
    > > >>> Anyone tried the new Xg??? Had an Xt and photos were
    > > >>> soft and lacked contrast, wonder if they improved it at all?
    > > >>
    > > >> I have an Xt and the photos are fine--up to letter size anyway,
    > > >> which is all I expect from an ultracompact. Good color and contrast,
    > > >> nice and sharp except for the extreme corners which are definitely
    > > >> soft at the shortest focal length. In most photos that corner
    > > >> softness goes unnoticed. Excellent results with the flash too in
    > > >> mixed light.
    > > >>
    > > >> Dunno about the Xg but if it's as good as the Xt, and I presume it
    > > >> is, it will be a winner.
    > > >
    > > > Can anyone comment on the Xg please, had an Xt and it did not
    > > > perform, glad you think yours does. I must have higher standards for
    > > > cameras

    > >
    > > Could be.
    > >
    > > Traded your common sense for them, did you?

    >
    > shhhhhh


    pete, don't be like this.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Guest, Feb 22, 2004
    #11
    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. PasserBy

    Any info on Minolta Dimage A1 (successor to 7hi) ?

    PasserBy, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    333
    Bryan Biggers
    Aug 3, 2003
  2. cymro

    Minolta DiMage A1 VS DiMAGE 7hi

    cymro, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    657
    Clyde
    Jan 13, 2004
  3. JSN61
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    350
    Craig Bailey
    Feb 24, 2004
  4. Martin O'Brien

    Any big problems with Minolta Dimage 7hi?

    Martin O'Brien, May 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    621
    Martin O'Brien
    May 17, 2004
  5. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,234
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page