Minolta DiMAGE A200 Please comment if you like it

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

If you are spending that much then the A2 is probably a better choice for a
bit more.

"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5bgc11dq5smq5tdaphggg1d87pp4ig5bl6@4ax.com...
>I am thinking of getting this camera after reading many reviews but
> need to know someone that has it and if it is difficult to work and if
> you like it.
>
> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>
> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>
>

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

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:58:02 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:32:10 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>If you are spending that much then the A2 is probably a better choice for a
>>bit more.
>>
>>"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:5bgc11dq5smq5tdaphggg1d87pp4ig5bl6@4ax.com...
>>>I am thinking of getting this camera after reading many reviews but
>>> need to know someone that has it and if it is difficult to work and if
>>> you like it.
>>>
>>> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>>>
>>> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>I got a a200, I looked at the A2 and whilst it offers a few more
>features the swing out viewfinder and remote made more sense to me on
>the A200 than the A2.
>
>The A200 is a bit slow to focus in low light, (but I'm told most
>minolta's are), but apart from that it seems a nice camera.
>
>Ultimatle it depends what you want, if you want more manual control
>take the A2, if like me the wireless remote and the fact I can flip
>the LCD out and about 180 degrees so I can see what it's looking at
>when doing remote timer shots then the A200 will suit you better

You say it is slow to autofocus. That is a negative to me as the shots
I take I need the autofocus to be fast. I am not that good with a
camera and by the time I would manual focus the shot would be gone.

Because of your comment I looked a bit farther and the Panasonic
DMC-FZ20 seems like a better choice. what do you think?

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

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:33:37 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:17:19 GMT, tellme <whois@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:58:02 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:32:10 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you are spending that much then the A2 is probably a better choice for a
>>>>bit more.
>>>>
>>>>"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:5bgc11dq5smq5tdaphggg1d87pp4ig5bl6@4ax.com...
>>>>>I am thinking of getting this camera after reading many reviews but
>>>>> need to know someone that has it and if it is difficult to work and if
>>>>> you like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I got a a200, I looked at the A2 and whilst it offers a few more
>>>features the swing out viewfinder and remote made more sense to me on
>>>the A200 than the A2.
>>>
>>>The A200 is a bit slow to focus in low light, (but I'm told most
>>>minolta's are), but apart from that it seems a nice camera.
>>>
>>>Ultimatle it depends what you want, if you want more manual control
>>>take the A2, if like me the wireless remote and the fact I can flip
>>>the LCD out and about 180 degrees so I can see what it's looking at
>>>when doing remote timer shots then the A200 will suit you better
>>
>>You say it is slow to autofocus. That is a negative to me as the shots
>>I take I need the autofocus to be fast. I am not that good with a
>>camera and by the time I would manual focus the shot would be gone.
>>
>>Because of your comment I looked a bit farther and the Panasonic
>>DMC-FZ20 seems like a better choice. what do you think?
>>
>
>Best thing would be to try them in a local store. I don't know about
>the Pana so cannot say what it's like.
>
>In "normal" conditions (read normal daylight) it's fine with the
>autofocus, but it's slow in low light (read indoors with the one 100w
>light on, in a normal sized room), One problem is it does not have an
>autofocus assist light so its a bit slow in low light, however thats a
>bonus for some candid shots as there is no indication of the camera
>readyness. In notmal outdoors light and well lit rooms it's fast.
>
>Like most cameras it's a 2 position shutter, if you prefocus it it's
>very fast to then take the photo.

Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.

I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
family pics.

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

In article <aoal11lgikmkqvpqesf74614qj3ld4jk57@4ax.com>, whois@yahoo.com
says...
>
> Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
> the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.
>
> I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
> family pics.
>
I'm not sure IS will help much for low-light fast motion. Can you use
flash for the birds?

Maybe you need a DSLR? (for the ISO 1600 and fast AF bird capture).

Apart from a brief play with my daughter's new FZ20, all this is just
theory for me, offered only to get others ideas.

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:03:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>tellme wrote:
>[]
>> Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
>> the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.
>>
>> I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
>> family pics.
>
>Look at it this way:
>
>- the Panasonic is the top of its range
>
>- the Minolta is a cut-down version of the A2
>
>For family pics, the wider angle of the Minolta might be better, although
>I personally wouldn't buy one.
>
>May here might tell you that for fast response (and I guess you need that
>for birds in flight?) a DSLR might be a better choice. (I don't want that
>much size, weight and bulk, though).
>
>Perhaps the Panasonic is the best compromise?
>
>Cheers,
>David

>>I am thinking of getting this camera after reading many reviews but
>>>>> need to know someone that has it and if it is difficult to work and if
>>>>> you like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I got a a200, I looked at the A2 and whilst it offers a few more
>>>features the swing out viewfinder and remote made more sense to me on
>>>the A200 than the A2.
>>>
>>>The A200 is a bit slow to focus in low light, (but I'm told most
>>>minolta's are), but apart from that it seems a nice camera.
>>>
>>>Ultimatle it depends what you want, if you want more manual control
>>>take the A2, if like me the wireless remote and the fact I can flip
>>>the LCD out and about 180 degrees so I can see what it's looking at
>>>when doing remote timer shots then the A200 will suit you better
>>
>>You say it is slow to autofocus. That is a negative to me as the shots
>>I take I need the autofocus to be fast. I am not that good with a
>>camera and by the time I would manual focus the shot would be gone.
>>
>>Because of your comment I looked a bit farther and the Panasonic
>>DMC-FZ20 seems like a better choice. what do you think?
>>
>
>Best thing would be to try them in a local store. I don't know about
>the Pana so cannot say what it's like.
>
>In "normal" conditions (read normal daylight) it's fine with the
>autofocus, but it's slow in low light (read indoors with the one 100w
>light on, in a normal sized room), One problem is it does not have an
>autofocus assist light so its a bit slow in low light, however thats a
>bonus for some candid shots as there is no indication of the camera
>readyness. In notmal outdoors light and well lit rooms it's fast.
>
>Like most cameras it's a 2 position shutter, if you prefocus it it's
>very fast to then take the photo.

Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.

I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
family pics.


David, thanks for your input. a DSLR would be overkill for me. I
wonder why you would not buy a Minolta.

I do need the fast response and I think the Panasonic from what I have
read does have a wide angle as well.

I wish I had more input from others here so that I can see other
opinions, not that I do not value yours I just want pros and cons.

I have read all I can and the articles go into such depth for someone
that is not taking photography to exhibit.

Input from others welcomed. Now it is down to the Minolta DimageA200
and the Panasonic DMC-FZ20

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

"Gavin" <gavin@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:iu4n11pmjca24rivvoad4s54h7makqea02@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:47:22 GMT, tellme <whois@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:33:37 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:17:19 GMT, tellme <whois@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:58:02 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:32:10 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you are spending that much then the A2 is probably a better choice
>>>>>>for a
>>>>>>bit more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:5bgc11dq5smq5tdaphggg1d87pp4ig5bl6@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>I am thinking of getting this camera after reading many reviews but
>>>>>>> need to know someone that has it and if it is difficult to work and
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> you like it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I got a a200, I looked at the A2 and whilst it offers a few more
>>>>>features the swing out viewfinder and remote made more sense to me on
>>>>>the A200 than the A2.
>>>>>
>>>>>The A200 is a bit slow to focus in low light, (but I'm told most
>>>>>minolta's are), but apart from that it seems a nice camera.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ultimatle it depends what you want, if you want more manual control
>>>>>take the A2, if like me the wireless remote and the fact I can flip
>>>>>the LCD out and about 180 degrees so I can see what it's looking at
>>>>>when doing remote timer shots then the A200 will suit you better
>>>>
>>>>You say it is slow to autofocus. That is a negative to me as the shots
>>>>I take I need the autofocus to be fast. I am not that good with a
>>>>camera and by the time I would manual focus the shot would be gone.
>>>>
>>>>Because of your comment I looked a bit farther and the Panasonic
>>>>DMC-FZ20 seems like a better choice. what do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Best thing would be to try them in a local store. I don't know about
>>>the Pana so cannot say what it's like.
>>>
>>>In "normal" conditions (read normal daylight) it's fine with the
>>>autofocus, but it's slow in low light (read indoors with the one 100w
>>>light on, in a normal sized room), One problem is it does not have an
>>>autofocus assist light so its a bit slow in low light, however thats a
>>>bonus for some candid shots as there is no indication of the camera
>>>readyness. In notmal outdoors light and well lit rooms it's fast.
>>>
>>>Like most cameras it's a 2 position shutter, if you prefocus it it's
>>>very fast to then take the photo.
>>
>>Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
>>the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.
>>
>>I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
>>family pics.
>>
>
> would you be better with a Digital SLR, the canon 300D will support
> most canon lens so you should be able to get some fast glass ie a f2
> lens to photo the birds and then a general 18-200 range lens for
> general use.
>
> How would you take birds in flight anyway, unless you in a well lit
> avery you'll need some form of flash to get any decent image out by
> the time any camera has focused and you (or it) have set the shutter
> and aperature it will be wrong,
>
> You want a really good quality set up for the birds and a regular one
> all the rest of the time, I think you'd be disapponted in any compact
> digital at the moment
>

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

In article <s28n11d7okl8p93npn01v36hqrr08rjqem@4ax.com>, whois@yahoo.com
says...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:49:23 +1100, Bruce Graham
> <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <aoal11lgikmkqvpqesf74614qj3ld4jk57@4ax.com>, whois@yahoo.com
> >says...
> >>
> >> Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
> >> the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.
> >>
> >> I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
> >> family pics.
> >>
> >I'm not sure IS will help much for low-light fast motion. Can you use
> >flash for the birds?
> >
> >Maybe you need a DSLR? (for the ISO 1600 and fast AF bird capture).
> >
> >Apart from a brief play with my daughter's new FZ20, all this is just
> >theory for me, offered only to get others ideas.
> >
> Bruce, the flash has not bothered them up till now. I am a distance
> from them that is why I need the zoom. I have gotten a few really good
> shots of my Timneh in flight with his wings spread out that someone
> did a painting of since the picture was so good. As you would probably
> guess it is difficult to shoot a bird in flight getting their wings
> spread out without noise in the picture and each feather spread out.
>
> I do not fly my birds outside so all my pics are taken indoors. Most
> of the family ones are as well.
>
> Does this help the list in giving me advice?
>
Given you can use flash, I think you would be able to get your bird shots
with the FZ20. The viewfinder (electronic) is slower than the optical
finder of a DLSR, but you can just blaze away and you should eventually
get some good shots. The FZ20 can do about 3 frames/sec for a short
burst. Make sure you buy a fast SD card (45x or 60 x or 80x) for this
camera. I bought a Transcend 45x 1G card which works well for my
daughter and a lot cheaper than the Pana SD card. For blazing away with
flash, I suspect you will need a good external auto flash - The FZ20 has
an external flash contact, but the internal flash has enough light
power if you can wait a moment between shots. An external flash would
also let you use diffusers and bounce for different lighting. If you buy
a secondhand flash, make sure that the flash trigger contact voltage is
low enough to avoid frying the camera. You can also try pre-manual focus
on a landing perch or other likely target area to cut down delay, but the
FZ20 is much more resposive than a point and shoot anyway.

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

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I got a a200, I looked at the A2 and whilst it offers a few more
>>>>>features the swing out viewfinder and remote made more sense to me on
>>>>>the A200 than the A2.
>>>>>
>>>>>The A200 is a bit slow to focus in low light, (but I'm told most
>>>>>minolta's are), but apart from that it seems a nice camera.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ultimatle it depends what you want, if you want more manual control
>>>>>take the A2, if like me the wireless remote and the fact I can flip
>>>>>the LCD out and about 180 degrees so I can see what it's looking at
>>>>>when doing remote timer shots then the A200 will suit you better
>>>>
>>>>You say it is slow to autofocus. That is a negative to me as the shots
>>>>I take I need the autofocus to be fast. I am not that good with a
>>>>camera and by the time I would manual focus the shot would be gone.
>>>>
>>>>Because of your comment I looked a bit farther and the Panasonic
>>>>DMC-FZ20 seems like a better choice. what do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Best thing would be to try them in a local store. I don't know about
>>>the Pana so cannot say what it's like.
>>>
>>>In "normal" conditions (read normal daylight) it's fine with the
>>>autofocus, but it's slow in low light (read indoors with the one 100w
>>>light on, in a normal sized room), One problem is it does not have an
>>>autofocus assist light so its a bit slow in low light, however thats a
>>>bonus for some candid shots as there is no indication of the camera
>>>readyness. In notmal outdoors light and well lit rooms it's fast.
>>>
>>>Like most cameras it's a 2 position shutter, if you prefocus it it's
>>>very fast to then take the photo.
>>
>>Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
>>the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.
>>
>>I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
>>family pics.
>>
>
>would you be better with a Digital SLR, the canon 300D will support
>most canon lens so you should be able to get some fast glass ie a f2
>lens to photo the birds and then a general 18-200 range lens for
>general use.
>
>How would you take birds in flight anyway, unless you in a well lit
>avery you'll need some form of flash to get any decent image out by
>the time any camera has focused and you (or it) have set the shutter
>and aperature it will be wrong,
>
>You want a really good quality set up for the birds and a regular one
>all the rest of the time, I think you'd be disapponted in any compact
>digital at the moment

The birds fly through the house. I have 2 story ceilings. In the past
by using the built in flash and all my kitchen and family room lights
on I have gotten good pics of them flying. The hardest part was that
the Olympus I had did not shoot continuous so I had to keep hitting
the button but I got some great pics.

An SLR for me would be overkill as I am thinking the Dimage would be
as well.

Thanks for the comments.

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:30:55 -0800, "Robert Millard"
<r.g.millard@comcast.net> wrote:

>Hi Gavin,
>
>I purchased the DMZ-FZ20 just before Christmas to replace my Nikon N-80 with
>the following Nikkor lenses: 18-35mm, 105mm micro, and 80-400 VR. My lens
>of choice was the 80-400, and I'm becoming too old to cart around a 4+ pound
>package.
>
>So far I've photographed birds in Hawaii, lots of flower close-ups,
>aquariums, and general shooting and haven't regretted not having my film
>outfit at all. Can't recommend the Panasonic highly enough.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Bob
>

Hi

Got your quotes mixed up, I'm the guy with the A200 not the one
choosing between then Pnaa and the Minolta

>
>
>
>
>
>"Gavin" <gavin@mindless.com> wrote in message
>news:iu4n11pmjca24rivvoad4s54h7makqea02@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:47:22 GMT, tellme <whois@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:33:37 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:17:19 GMT, tellme <whois@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:58:02 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:32:10 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you are spending that much then the A2 is probably a better choice
>>>>>>>for a
>>>>>>>bit more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:5bgc11dq5smq5tdaphggg1d87pp4ig5bl6@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>I am thinking of getting this camera after reading many reviews but
>>>>>>>> need to know someone that has it and if it is difficult to work and
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> you like it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not an avid photographer just novice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also looked at the Z3. Can anyone give me some input please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I got a a200, I looked at the A2 and whilst it offers a few more
>>>>>>features the swing out viewfinder and remote made more sense to me on
>>>>>>the A200 than the A2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The A200 is a bit slow to focus in low light, (but I'm told most
>>>>>>minolta's are), but apart from that it seems a nice camera.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ultimatle it depends what you want, if you want more manual control
>>>>>>take the A2, if like me the wireless remote and the fact I can flip
>>>>>>the LCD out and about 180 degrees so I can see what it's looking at
>>>>>>when doing remote timer shots then the A200 will suit you better
>>>>>
>>>>>You say it is slow to autofocus. That is a negative to me as the shots
>>>>>I take I need the autofocus to be fast. I am not that good with a
>>>>>camera and by the time I would manual focus the shot would be gone.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because of your comment I looked a bit farther and the Panasonic
>>>>>DMC-FZ20 seems like a better choice. what do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Best thing would be to try them in a local store. I don't know about
>>>>the Pana so cannot say what it's like.
>>>>
>>>>In "normal" conditions (read normal daylight) it's fine with the
>>>>autofocus, but it's slow in low light (read indoors with the one 100w
>>>>light on, in a normal sized room), One problem is it does not have an
>>>>autofocus assist light so its a bit slow in low light, however thats a
>>>>bonus for some candid shots as there is no indication of the camera
>>>>readyness. In notmal outdoors light and well lit rooms it's fast.
>>>>
>>>>Like most cameras it's a 2 position shutter, if you prefocus it it's
>>>>very fast to then take the photo.
>>>
>>>Thank you. I am still in a quandry. I read the review and the forum on
>>>the Panasonic. It sounds pretty good.
>>>
>>>I will use the camera for taking shots of birds in flight indoors and
>>>family pics.
>>>
>>
>> would you be better with a Digital SLR, the canon 300D will support
>> most canon lens so you should be able to get some fast glass ie a f2
>> lens to photo the birds and then a general 18-200 range lens for
>> general use.
>>
>> How would you take birds in flight anyway, unless you in a well lit
>> avery you'll need some form of flash to get any decent image out by
>> the time any camera has focused and you (or it) have set the shutter
>> and aperature it will be wrong,
>>
>> You want a really good quality set up for the birds and a regular one
>> all the rest of the time, I think you'd be disapponted in any compact
>> digital at the moment
>>
>

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

Maurice Brandman via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> I have my A200 for about 3 weeks now.
>
> It has up to 5 shot continuous advance and AFC automatic continuous focus
> which allows you to autofocus on a moving target. I have not teted this
> focus option but it appears to be designed for photographing moving targets.

It Is and it does. Subject to the usual conditions and things we know
about shooting moving targets.
>
> It's ergonomics are exceptionally good.

Agreed. Its a joy to use.

> I understand that auto focus is poor in poor light - this is just a matter
> of degree because this is a problem with all autofocus cameras.

Correct. The A200 is not the best performer here but rarely have I been
unable to get the required shot.

> The articulated LCD is a big bonus.

Definately an improvement on the A2. The whole package represents far
better value for money than the A2.

> If you need to push the 200mm tele up to 340 mm then the Olympus x1.7 TCON-
> 17 is half the weight and half the price of the Minolta x1.5 ACT-100. You
> will need a 49-55 step up ring for the TCON-17.

That's interesting. Have you used it and if so is it all ok?
>
> Maurice
>


--
Anti-Spam Trap In Use:
To Reply Remove "REMOVE" :
Same Rule if you Click "Reply To " :
http://www.mozilla.org/