Whats Wrong With This Camera

[ikickpigeons]

Camera Whats the catch with this camera? I was browsing through newegg and spotted this sucker. I was going to go wih this Sony but im rethinking it all now. The only thing i see is that instead of being a 7.2 mp camera like the sony, its 5.0 mp. But would there really be a difference between the two in terms of quality? I mean, Konica-Minolta makes pretty awsome cameras, so would their 5.0 mp be equal to a sony 7.2??? im sorry if im asking a stupid question.

 

[yadda]

I truly would stay with tried and trues ( Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus)

Look at Camera site

Y

 

[saltedeggman]

1 word


CANON

 

[ikickpigeons]

Is Konica Minolta not a good brand anymore?

 

[PlasticJesus]

I can't imagine that there is anything wrong with that Minolta. With my extremely limited research and resulting extremely limited knowledge, it seems to me that cameras of that particular style are at about 5.1 MP right now. I think even Canon's latest offering, the S1 or S2 or whatever it is that is kind of that same style is still at 5.1.

It seems to me that the MP seems to only make a difference if you are going to print large prints or if you are going to enlarge photos. If you don't have any interest in such things as making wall posters out of your prints, I would think that if you like the Minolta it might be a nice choice.

The site pointed out by yadda produced what was, in my opinion, an almost completely worthless review of the DSC-W7. If you go to the Sony forums on that same site you will see almost no discussion of the W7.

It's a hard one. I went from wanting a W7 to wanting a G6 to not wanting a Coolpix 7900 'cause some 7900 owner at dpreview said it was made of plastic to once again wanting a W7 to absolutely having to have the 7900. The Fedex guy left my 7900 at my door Thursday and I love it.

A lot of money to spend there on something you might not like. I'd recommend hitting the various forums at dpreview.

 

[ikickpigeons]

Ok, ive been reading some review on the minolta and it appears that its a very nice camera. I just dont want to screw up in my choice. Ill see what i can dig up at the forums.

 

[tapir]

I love my minolta Z2, it has been very reliable and has a good feature set, had it for a year now

 

[Deadtrees]

Konica does make very good, if not super good, compact cameras.
One very important thing to keep in mind is Megapixel = Resolution and that it's 99% about how big you can develop pictures. Many people think megapixel=image quality. Wrong. With higher megapixel with good processor along with CCD+lens, there can be slight improvement in details, but you won't notice it.

Just read reviews at dpreview. Forget about the megapixel.

P.S: I personally don't like sony cameras before P200 as their colors are somewhat washed out.

 

[teddyv]

I did quite a bit of research on Steve's site (http://www.steves-digicams.com) and ended up with the recently-released Canon SD-400. I am very pleased with it, especially its small size and really spectacular picture quality. It replaced a Sony (ugh, never again) which replaced an Olympus.

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: yadda
I truly would stay with tried and trues ( Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus)

Look at Camera site

Y

Sony makes good digital camera? Not exactly what I heard?
Canon is definately a leader in the DC industry.
Nikon seems to have better pro camera than consumer ones
Olympus's DCs are great, but their product doesn't "look" as good/cyber as other brand like Canon or Sony.

 

[Zepper]

Minolta cameras almost always have above-average to excellent lenses so it's easy to see where most of the cost of the Z5 camera goes. Across the line, Sony doesn't have such a good rep for lens quality or for final picture quality.
. It is a lot easier to make a high quality normal range zoom lens (3 to 4x) so more of the cost can go into features and more MPs. You just have to decide where your priorities lie. You can crop that 4x at 7MP pic down to the equivalent of a 12x at a bit over 2MP.

.b.h.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Zepper
Minolta cameras almost always have above-average to excellent lenses so it's easy to see where most of the cost of the Z5 camera goes. Across the line, Sony doesn't have such a good rep for lens quality or for final picture quality.
. It is a lot easier to make a high quality normal range zoom lens (3 to 4x) so more of the cost can go into features and more MPs. You just have to decide where your priorities lie. You can crop that 4x at 7MP pic down to the equivalent of a 12x at a bit over 2MP.

.b.h.

Are you saying Carl Zeiss lens doesn't have good rep??????????????????????
Hello?

 

[Cheesetogo]

If your looking at that I would recomend either the Panasonic FZ-20, which is probably the best ultra -zoom camera out, or the FZ-5, which is just a smaller version with a few less features. The FZ-20 is much better than the konica-mintola you were looking at there. The lens in the fz-20 is very high quality, it's sharper than the minotla and is made by lecia.

 

[Macro2]

Nothing. I've always considered Minota optics right up there with Canon and Nikon.

 

[RanDum72]

Sony sold more digital cameras than any other brand. Even Canon is only second in volume. Sony makes outstanding DC, their DSC-717 was a benchmark in 5 MP non-DSLR cams for a while.
Konica Minolta makes excellent DC's too. That particular model has AS (anti-shake) basically image stabilization. But instead of moving a lens element to counter vibration and movement, it moves the sensor. AS really comes in handy when you shoot at the telephoto end and want blurr- free pics. It uses SD cards, takes AA batteries and can even accept external flashes with its hot-shoe. Its actually one of the better deals in its class.

 

[ikickpigeons]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
If your looking at that I would recomend either the Panasonic FZ-20, which is probably the best ultra -zoom camera out, or the FZ-5, which is just a smaller version with a few less features. The FZ-20 is much better than the konica-mintola you were looking at there. The lens in the fz-20 is very high quality, it's sharper than the minotla and is made by lecia.

*EDIT*

Ive narrowed it down to the FZ20 and now im looking at cannon. Whats a good cannon one that wont break my balls on price? Ive heard a lot about Cannon. Thanks so much for the replies fellows.

 

[Zepper]

A camera with a real Zeiss (made in their European plants) zoom lens would cost considerably more than the Sony under discussion here. These are made under license as are the "Leica" lenses on Panasonic digicams. Whereas Minolta has been designing and manufactuing their own Hexanon lenses for decades - no middleman to screw things up. Unlike Canon, Minolta (and many other film camera makers) was a bit late to the digicam game so some stuff other than lanses may not be up to par with the Sonys and Canons.
. In any case, I'm sure the OP could be quite happy with either as long as he takes enough time to evaluate his needs, read reviews and find a good match. Perhaps since all my film cameras since I graduated from toys have been Minolta, I have a tender spot for them...

.bh.

 

[Lalakai]

The pixal density and image quality is a consideration, but look at how often you'll be shooting at the upper levels. I have 4 mp camera and rarely shoot beyond 2 mp. Look at how easily you can operate the camera; are the menus logical, does the layout of the camera feel natural in your hands, does the size and shape fit the conditions you'll be most frequently using the camera under (ie, gonna carry in a case, in your pocket, in backpack, will you be using the camera mostly outside or inside?) Most cameras today will be adequate for 90% of the users, and if you're worried about picture quality, pay attention to the printer. Konica makes a very solid middle of the road camera, that's durable and should perform well for a long time. Good luck

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zepper
Minolta cameras almost always have above-average to excellent lenses so it's easy to see where most of the cost of the Z5 camera goes. Across the line, Sony doesn't have such a good rep for lens quality or for final picture quality.
. It is a lot easier to make a high quality normal range zoom lens (3 to 4x) so more of the cost can go into features and more MPs. You just have to decide where your priorities lie. You can crop that 4x at 7MP pic down to the equivalent of a 12x at a bit over 2MP.

.b.h.

Are you saying Carl Zeiss lens doesn't have good rep??????????????????????
Hello?

Even product like DSC-F828, a high-end digital camera by Sony uses very reputable and expensive lens, however, it turns out to be a joke in picture quality especially for its price (slightly under $1000).

 

[ikickpigeons]

Hey guys, I decided to buy the Panasonic DMC-FZ20. Its picture quality is better than the Konica and it has more of the features i was interested in. And its only 40 bucks more. Id like to thank you all for the help.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
Hey guys, I decided to buy the Panasonic DMC-FZ20. Its picture quality is better than the Konica and it has more of the features i was interested in. And its only 40 bucks more. Id like to thank you all for the help.

If you don't intend to use external flash and manual focus in favour of better battery time/slightly less noise/a lot smaller size/cheaper price/better shutter position, FZ5 would be your choice.

 

[RanDum72]

Even product like DSC-F828, a high-end digital camera by Sony uses very reputable and expensive lens, however, it turns out to be a joke in picture quality especially for its price (slightly under $1000).

In this case, the culprit was the sensor (made by Sony). ALL other DC brands that used this sensor ( Canon, Minolta, Nikon ) had picture quality go south once you go up the ISO range mainly because of high noise.

As for the original poster's choice, Panasonic is good enough for his needs.

 

[ikickpigeons]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
Hey guys, I decided to buy the Panasonic DMC-FZ20. Its picture quality is better than the Konica and it has more of the features i was interested in. And its only 40 bucks more. Id like to thank you all for the help.

If you don't intend to use external flash and manual focus in favour of better battery time/slightly less noise/a lot smaller size/cheaper price/better shutter position, FZ5 would be your choice.

From the retailers i spotted the FZ5 was actually the same price and sometimes more expensive. Whats everyone's opinion on the Cannon PowerShot S2 IS???? It seems promising but i cant find a review on it.

 

[Macro2]

Personally I'd have bought a FOVEON camera.

 

[ikickpigeons]

whats FOVEON?