Konica Minolta A2

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is this camera discontinued in favour of the A200? A number of UK websites
have deleted it from their lists.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JackN wrote:
> Is this camera discontinued in favour of the A200? A number of UK
> websites have deleted it from their lists.

Although I rejected the A2, it is a pity to see an even cheaper and
nastier camera take over, if what you suggest is true.

David
 

Per

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
58
0
18,580
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The wiewfinder on A2 has 922 000 pixels and the A200 viewfinder has "only"
235 000 pixels!
/per

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
skrev i meddelandet news:RM4Ud.24203$8B3.5665@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> JackN wrote:
>> Is this camera discontinued in favour of the A200? A number of UK
>> websites have deleted it from their lists.
>
> Although I rejected the A2, it is a pity to see an even cheaper and
> nastier camera take over, if what you suggest is true.
>
> David
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Can you qualify this statement? Why do you ''reject'' the A2 when the
respected review sites reach a somewhat different conclusion. Surely they
can't all be in the thrall of Minolta Konica?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JackN wrote:
> Can you qualify this statement? Why do you ''reject'' the A2 when the
> respected review sites reach a somewhat different conclusion. Surely
> they can't all be in the thrall of Minolta Konica?

Jack, look back over this newsgroup for the full story, but in summary:

- image quality was no better than the 5MP Nikon 5700 is was due to
replace

- there were unacceptable JPEG artefacts in the in-camera firmware (also
reported in the reviews). These had been reported in the Minolta A1, and
I had expected them to be fixed in the A2. Why weren't they fixed?
Cameras rushed out? The effect was to require the camera to be used in
RAW mode, and this was unacceptable to me.

- the swivel LCD was of tinny construction and limited in its swivelling
compared to the Nikon 5700.

- the image stabilisation indicated that it would not work at the typical
exposures I would have required (longer than 1/10s).

As I was making an upgrade, I made sure that the supplier I chose had a
no-questions-asked returns policy. The camera would have to have been
significantly better than my 5700 to justify purchase. Having to use RAW
to extract images was the real killer.

I stuck with the Nikon 5700, regretting that the EVF was not as good as
the one in the A2, and missing the zoom ring. Later, my wife bought a
Panasonic FZ20 with its Leica f/2.8 36 - 432mm lens, with which she is
very pleased, and I bought a Nikon 8400 for its 24mm capability.

Cheers,
David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yep, it looks like the A2 was too pricey compared to the competition so they
removed a couple of features.
The A200 has a lot less external controls so it's more like the others; from
menu selections. The viewfinder is more like the others in the category too
(the A2 had a very special high definition EVF).
But it adds a few features like a remote and a full-swiveling LCD and better
"out-of-the-box" jpegs.

Marc

"JackN" <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cvqdjk$2ud$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Is this camera discontinued in favour of the A200? A number of UK websites
> have deleted it from their lists.
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JackN <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Can you qualify this statement? Why do you ''reject'' the A2 when the
> respected review sites reach a somewhat different conclusion. Surely they
> can't all be in the thrall of Minolta Konica?

I also tried and rejected the A2. I had objectionable levels of noise
with many photographs, as well as problems getting the autofocus AI to
choose the correct focus point.

Ultimately, I decided the camera was too complex and offered too little in
the way of image quality for the amount of work it required.

I returned it and bought a Canon 300D with the kit lens for roughly the
same price. Although the 300D has a lower-resolution sensor (6 MP vs. 8
MP for the A2), there's no question that the images I get from the 300D
are superior. The 300D at ISO 1600 has less visible noise than the A2 at
ISO 400. At anything less than ISO 1600, the 300D's noise is typically
not visible. I could see visible noise on the A2 at even ISO 200.

Your mileage may vary, but my decision was to ditch the A2 and go with a
DSLR. I've been *much* happier with the image quality, and as a bonus,
the 300D is much simpler to operate than the A2.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your right... I'm still using the 5700... and....just waiting for a real
replacement.... All manufacture's are pumping out way to fast.... I'm
wondering if...They just would rather sell a bunch,,,take the profit..dump
the camera and pop out a new one..

--
____________________________
PATRICK//////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\
================================
A+ CERTIFIED TECH...........
______________________

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:CfsUd.24966$8B3.2404@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> JackN wrote:
>> Can you qualify this statement? Why do you ''reject'' the A2 when the
>> respected review sites reach a somewhat different conclusion. Surely
>> they can't all be in the thrall of Minolta Konica?
>
> Jack, look back over this newsgroup for the full story, but in summary:
>
> - image quality was no better than the 5MP Nikon 5700 is was due to
> replace
>
> - there were unacceptable JPEG artefacts in the in-camera firmware (also
> reported in the reviews). These had been reported in the Minolta A1, and
> I had expected them to be fixed in the A2. Why weren't they fixed?
> Cameras rushed out? The effect was to require the camera to be used in
> RAW mode, and this was unacceptable to me.
>
> - the swivel LCD was of tinny construction and limited in its swivelling
> compared to the Nikon 5700.
>
> - the image stabilisation indicated that it would not work at the typical
> exposures I would have required (longer than 1/10s).
>
> As I was making an upgrade, I made sure that the supplier I chose had a
> no-questions-asked returns policy. The camera would have to have been
> significantly better than my 5700 to justify purchase. Having to use RAW
> to extract images was the real killer.
>
> I stuck with the Nikon 5700, regretting that the EVF was not as good as
> the one in the A2, and missing the zoom ring. Later, my wife bought a
> Panasonic FZ20 with its Leica f/2.8 36 - 432mm lens, with which she is
> very pleased, and I bought a Nikon 8400 for its 24mm capability.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have nothing against Minolta...Still keep a D-5 around....I was very
disappointed in..The AF....Even in very good light conditions...It failed
....Not always...Just whenever...If it failed consistently...At least it may
be understood and corrected...

--
____________________________
PATRICK//////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\
================================
A+ CERTIFIED TECH...........
______________________

"Paul Wylie" <paul@teamwylie.removemunged.org> wrote in message
news:d00021$ni$2@reader2.panix.com...
> JackN <jackn@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Can you qualify this statement? Why do you ''reject'' the A2 when the
>> respected review sites reach a somewhat different conclusion. Surely they
>> can't all be in the thrall of Minolta Konica?
>
> I also tried and rejected the A2. I had objectionable levels of noise
> with many photographs, as well as problems getting the autofocus AI to
> choose the correct focus point.
>
> Ultimately, I decided the camera was too complex and offered too little in
> the way of image quality for the amount of work it required.
>
> I returned it and bought a Canon 300D with the kit lens for roughly the
> same price. Although the 300D has a lower-resolution sensor (6 MP vs. 8
> MP for the A2), there's no question that the images I get from the 300D
> are superior. The 300D at ISO 1600 has less visible noise than the A2 at
> ISO 400. At anything less than ISO 1600, the 300D's noise is typically
> not visible. I could see visible noise on the A2 at even ISO 200.
>
> Your mileage may vary, but my decision was to ditch the A2 and go with a
> DSLR. I've been *much* happier with the image quality, and as a bonus,
> the 300D is much simpler to operate than the A2.
>
> --Paul
> ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY