PDA

View Full Version : Dimgae A1 better then A2? True or flase?



jayjaydrinks
08-05-2004, 06:54 AM
I heard from some camera shop owners that the Konica Minolta Dimage A1 is better than A2 even though it has a lower resolution. What they told me was that when the A2 has more noise than A1, and reccommend me to buy the A1 instead.(funny thing though,as it was cheaper). So if price is not the point, which one is really better, the A1 or A2?

John_Reed
08-05-2004, 08:05 AM
I heard from some camera shop owners that the Konica Minolta Dimage A1 is better than A2 even though it has a lower resolution. What they told me was that when the A2 has more noise than A1, and reccommend me to buy the A1 instead.(funny thing though,as it was cheaper). So if price is not the point, which one is really better, the A1 or A2?
I think the Jury's still out as to whether the new breed of small 8MP sensors are as capable of rendering clean, relatively noise-free photos as their predecessors. I took a quick look at Jeff Keller's "ISO 400" shots of these two cameras for a comparison, to see if that would provide an answer; here's his crop of the A1 shot:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/minolta/dimage_a1-review/nightshot400-crop.jpg
Next, his crop of the A2 shot:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/minolta/dimage_a2-review/nightshot400-crop.jpg
I also brought along Jeff's crop of the Panasonic FZ10 night shot:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz10-review/nightshot400-mid.jpg
Now, to my eyeball, the "A2" shot looks better than the other two here. It may be because it's better exposed, and shows more detail than the other two, I don't know. Yet, in the August Popular Photography issue, they compare the A2 and the FZ10, and conclude that the A2 images were "unacceptable" at ISO 400, where the FZ10's noise level at ISO 400 were merely "moderate." I wouldn't have drawn the same conclusion from Jeff's evidence, would you?
Like I say, the Jury's still out. The A2 does have that "to-die-for" 922,000 pixel EVF screen, almost as good as an optical viewfinder, so it can't be all bad.

D70FAN
08-05-2004, 09:53 AM
Thanks for the comparison John. I think to really compare all 3 you would have to have them all take pictures of the same scene at the same time. Actually, at first glance the A2 seems better, but if you look at undistorted detail the FZ10 seems to have the edge. Then again the A1 shot does not seem propery exposed, and it appears that all of these shots were taken with different sutter speeds and apertures. And honestly, how many pictures do you take at night?

As I slowly get around to using the 8MP cameras (the CP8700 and C8080 so far) I can see some benefit to the higher resolution imagers. For those people not taking night shots for publication, 8 x 10 prints (on my Epson 870 and regular Epson semi-gloss paper) seem to be no worse for noise at ISO 400 than 5MP. I haven't had a chance to try the A2 yet, as it is really hard to keep going into local camera stores just to test cameras, and feeling guilty about not buying anything.

Anyway, these are all good examples of why Noise Ninja was invented. Try it. For $29 (standard) to $69 (pro) it will set you free from choosing a camera based on relative noise. If your like most people the majority of your pictures are daylight or flash anyway.

http://www.picturecode.com/index.htm

wax
08-07-2004, 12:23 AM
however, it is said in the review that a2 images are too soft, and the quality control is quite bad. so in my opinion, i would prefer a1, because the difference between a sharp 5MP and soft 8MP would not make any difference. and regarding the fine EVF which a2 has...........does it really change anything? it is not like a1's EVF is very blur, and you mainly want an evf to save batteries and compose your shot, which is not affect by that little difference in the evf.