New A2.

[boku]

It takes a while to get the hand of the interface, so I'd say take it one step at a time. There are a wide range of settings to verify before you use it, perhaps you may want to read the manual (essential) before you go on your field session. If you want to peak at an advanced copy, use this link:

http://www.kulon.net/pdf/DiMAGE_A2_OM.pdf

If you want impressive results your first time out don't go over ISO 100. Consider using noise removal software in post processing.

Good luck. Let's here about your experiences. I welcome that.

[Aaron Bredon]

I just finished reading the A2's review in the Luminous Landscape and I wonder if the problems of noise with the Sony CCD are endemic to that CCD and that all cameras with this chip should be avoided until sony sorts out the problems.  In this regard is the A1, with the older and perhaps better 5mp CCD a better camera?  Or do some of the cameras with the 6.1 CCD- like the Nikon D70 simply produce sharper pictures and with less noise than the minolta A2.

The Sony chip used in the A2 is a 2/3" type CCD - roughly 6mm by 8mm active area - this is VERY small, and packing 8 million sensors in that area means that each of them is tiny. When you have sensors that small, the sigal/noise ratio is poor.

The A1 would have slightly less noise per sensor site, and its native ISO is higher, simply because each sensor is larger.

The D70 and other DSLRs have MUCH less noise because each sensor is around 10 times the size of each sensor on the Sony chip. This improves the signal/noise ratio by a factor of 3 or so.

The problems of noise are endemic to all small-sensor cameras (including every high megapixel camera right now except DSLRs), and I doubt the noise level can be significantly reduced without a massive technical breakthrough in CCD design. Some of the consumer cameras try to hide the high noise level by using lots of noise reduction in camera, but this tends to lead to blurred details and blotchy noise that can't be dealt with.
One interesting thing about the Minolta 7/7i/7Hi/A1/A2 series is that the noise of these cameras tends to not be visible when printed at normal sizes - it may look bad on screen, but often actually improves the printed picture (unless you are doing massive enlargements).

[benmoto]

One interesting thing about the Minolta 7/7i/7Hi/A1/A2 series is that the noise of these cameras tends to not be visible when printed at normal sizes - it may look bad on screen, but often actually improves the printed picture (unless you are doing massive enlargements).

You stated:

[Spyro]

Here are some 1st day test shots with default settings.
http://erbesfamily.com/jimrebecca/james/pics/

See any camera issues aside from user error.

These were taken as JPG's. The rabbits are using the digital zoom I believe.

Just want to know if the camera is working well.

[Spyro]

I just purchased a new A2. Waiting for a microdrive to arive. What should I look for as far as defects and how?

Saturday I will test it out with some wildflower photography with the Sierra Club on Saturday.

I don't have much experience aside from point and shoot.

-s

[benmoto]

I just finished reading the A2's review in the Luminous Landscape and I wonder if the problems of noise with the Sony CCD are endemic to that CCD and that all cameras with this chip should be avoided until sony sorts out the problems.  In this regard is the A1, with the older and perhaps better 5mp CCD a better camera?  Or do some of the cameras with the 6.1 CCD- like the Nikon D70 simply produce sharper pictures and with less noise than the minolta A2.

Before anyone reading this gets the wrong impression, it needs to be said that while it's true that these 8MP cameras using the Sony chip are indeed noisier than DSLRs with their larger chips and larger photosites, this is only true at higher ISOs.

At ISO 50 or 64 (depending on the camera maker's design) they are essentially noiseless, and produce extreemley clean images.

At ISO 100 a small bit of noise starts to be seen, and at ISO 200 is definately visible but not terribly objectionable. Beyond that it isn't very good.

With a decent noise reduction program ISO 200 is quite usable for even large prints.

Michael

[benmoto]

Sorry- new to this-- in my post above I quoted you as saying that the noise is not evident in the Minolta series in normal size photos.  Why would that be and What would be a normal size.

[Aaron Bredon]

Sorry- new to this-- in my post above I quoted you as saying that the noise is not evident in the Minolta series in normal size photos.  Why would that be and What would be a normal size.

Normal print sizes for digital images from prosumer cameras are anywhere from 200 pixels/inch to 300 pixels/inch - for an 8 megapixel camera that is anywhere from an 8x10 to a 12x16 inch print for an uncropped picture.

The noise is not seen at normal print sizes as it blends into the surrounding areas and becomes part of the detail. (as a side note, if you apply enough noise reduction to remove all the noise, you tend to see 'banding' in some colors when printed - the noise tends to blend the transitions, so the banding is not visible. Also, I recall that the human eye is more sensitive to differences in printed colors than in colors on a monitor - we can only distinguish around 256 shades of a color on a monitor, but we can distinguish over 50,000 shades when printed - this was tested with side-by side comparisons of shades of color, and people were easily able to tell the difference between VERY close shades of color when the colors were printed - if I remember correctly, they didn't reach the limit for printed colors - every subject could distinguish between every printed shade)

One thing to note is that noise does tend to be visible on prints when it gets 'blotchy' (3-4 pixels in diameter - like when poor noise reduction is applied) or when the signal (and noise) is boosted too far (high ISO pictures and raising the brightness in the shadows.)