Konica Minolta A2

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by JackN, Feb 26, 2005.

  1. JackN

    JackN Guest

    Is this camera discontinued in favour of the A200? A number of UK websites
    have deleted it from their lists.
    JackN, Feb 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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 J Taylor, Feb 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. JackN

    per Guest

    The wiewfinder on A2 has 922 000 pixels and the A200 viewfinder has "only"
    235 000 pixels!
    per, Feb 27, 2005
  4. JackN

    JackN Guest

    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?
    JackN, Feb 27, 2005
  5. 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

    - 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.

    David J Taylor, Feb 27, 2005
  6. JackN

    conj Guest

    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.

    conj, Feb 28, 2005
  7. JackN

    Paul Wylie Guest

    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.

    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
    Paul Wylie, Feb 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.