compare new Konika Minolta A200 to A 2

[tbmartin]

I don' think the A200 has the high res viewfinder or the tiltable finder.  Also 3D autofocus seems to be missing (not sure this matters).  I noticed that the dial on the left side of the camera is missing, too.

[kuuan]

thank's for the details.
as I am no professional I find it difficult to judge, but would you agree that the A2 is the better camera, as many on the net seem to suggest?
Personally I do like the tiltable monitor and therefore would prefer the A200 to the A2, even though I don't like the downgrade of the viewfinder.
Or, generally speaking, which Camera would be the 'best' non - SLR camera? I also do like the Panasonic FZ20, but I don't like it's zoom starting from 36 mm equiv. only, and holding them in my hand, the Minoltas feel much better.

[Gary_Berg]

As for how well the A2 work, please check out Michael's two reviews:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews....2.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews....n.shtml

I went from a Canon Pro 90 IS to an A2. I miss the full-action LCD, but mostly because I always turned it to face the camera on the Pro 90. I also miss the extra zoom range, but the A2 gets about 80% of the pixels of an image at 200mm as the Pro 90 did at 380mm, and the A2 goes to 28mm instead of 38mm. My Pro 90 has sat on the shelf since this spring, unused.

I feel the A2 is the better camera, probably the best "prosumer" camera on the market today. It's not fair to compare it to a DSLR - they are a whole different kettle of fish.

[kuuan]

What are the major differences between the A2 and the new A200? I really like the more flexible LCD on the new A200, but understand that there are a few downgrades compared to the A2. Anybody who can explain the major downgrades/upgrades?
thank you very much for any information

[jimk]

i think the only difference is teh swivable lcd screen

[KMOlender]

From the K-M announcement:

#  New flip-out and twist LCD monitor (higher resolution 1.8", 134,000 pixels)
# New Electronic viewfinder, no eye sensor, fixed (doesn't tilt)
# New CxProcess™ III image processor
# Larger movie clip mode: 800 x 600 @ 15 fps
# Interpolated digital zoom mode: 4x
# Auto focus: 11 point selectable, no subject tracking
# Metering system now has 256 segments (compared to 300 on the A2)
# Base sensitivity lower at ISO 50 (compared to ISO 64 on the A2)
# Slightly slower 1/3200 sec maximum shutter speed
# New 'Portrait (sRGB)' color space option
# New pop-up flash, same range, now automatic or manual, no wireless flash
# No PC Sync flash terminal
# Continuous shooting: 2.3 fps, max 5 frames / 2.0 fps, max 5 frames / 10 fps (640 x 480)
# New NP-800 Lithium-Ion battery
# Marginally smaller (3 mm narrower, 5 mm shorter)
# Lighter by 60 g (2.1 oz)

[svein]

There isn't any clear answer. I had an A2, but sold it again. I think it's a pretty good camera, probably the best 8MP prosumer as of spring 2004. I can't really say that there were one sepcific issue that made me sell it again. I thought I could postpone getting a dslr a while by getting a good prosumer. Didn't work that way. Autofocus was too slow and inaccurate to compete with a dslr - although not any worse than other prosumer cameras.

It made me realize that I need two cameras. One (advanced) point and shoot/prosumer and one dlsr. And in that context the A2 wasn't right. I've recently purchased a Nikon 8800, and I'm happy with that choise so far (only a couple of days).

While the A2 probably was faster, at least in raw file handling the 8800 has a zoom range that suits my needs better. And this time I knew I wouldn't get a particulary fast camera - and decided to live with that.

So for the A2/A200 comparision. First, for focus speed and accuracy and lens performance you really have to wait for a review. What I'll say something about is the changes.

The big downgrade is the electronic viewfinder. A2 has the best one so far. A200 will have one that's no worse than other prosumers. Still, even if A2's EVF is best I can only see it as slightly more useful than other EVFs. It gave a slightly better picture, but it still wasn't easy to judge focus, and it's extremely difficult to judge the effect of e.g a pola filter. So the conclusion is that A2's EVF is nice, probably the best available, but still not good enough compared to a optical (slr)viewfinder.

I think the upgraded LCD (almost) compensate for the loss of EVF resolution. Slightly higher resolution, but more importantly is the improved tilt and swivel funtion. Also that it's possible to turn it towards the back of the camera for protection. The movable EVF of A2 was a feature I never used. When you have the camera in a difficult position it's much easier to use the LCD than the EVF.

I think these are the main differences. Tried the tracking AF on A2, didn't work well for me (missing on A200). I certainly appreciate the slightly smaller size and lower weight of the new model, but it's not a big issue.

The movie mode is slightly better on A200, but the highest res is only available with reduced frame rate, which makes it completely uninteresting to me. Real VGA mode with 30 fps is a bunus though (A2 was slightly lower res).

Another possible improvement is a faster processor. That's always welcome, but again - don't expect too much before you see a review.

So my conclusion si that A2 and A200 is about equal. Just different. If you prefer the old or new feature set is really up to personal preferences. A2 got quite a bit of bad press due to autofocus and image softness. A200 preumably have the same lens, but Minolta might have made some minor changes. I think that's the main issue you have to watch for, and only decent reviews can tell.