Sony F-828 vs Minolta Dimage A1

[jack_belen]

It seems to me that these are two similar cameras in many ways. Does

one stand out above the other in performance?

Thanks

[evan_bridges]

I'm not sure about the specs but Sony only gives you a 90 day warranty on parts so

after that they can charge you how evr much they like. Minolta has a year warranty on

both parts and labor-standard throughout the industry.

-Evan

[mark_thomas3]

Must be different country to country.. I have just forked out AU$88 for an extra 2 years warranty on my Sony DSC-F717, as it "only" came with 12 months.. (and I think that's a bargain). Does Sony really only give 3 months in the US? Pretty much everything electrical/electronic here in Australia is warranteed for 12.<P>

 

Sorry, but I can't really answer the original posters question, although I think I might *just* be swayed to the 828. I'm a little put off by the chromatic aberration and noise, but I am hearing conflicting views about how serious either problem is when it comes down to the final prints. And to have 8Mp for those 11" x 17" prints.. mmmmm...!<P>

[coconutdaydream]

the A1 has that Anti-Shake feature, sounds pretty nice! and the F828 is like 8 megapixels on a smaller sensor, typically that means for more noise, right?

[andy_piper2]

Sony 828's lens is a full f/stop faster at the wide end, it delivers 8Mp on a 2/3rds" chip, and is somewhat noisier as a result. It also tends to show a bit more purple color fringing on some light/dark edges.

 

The Minolta only delivers 5Mp, but they are generally 'cleaner' Mp. Whether the noise/fringing differences show up in prints as well as on the screen is a matter hotly debated at the moment (and not having seen prints from either, I won't join in.)

 

Zeiss and Minolta have different lens-design philosophies, and (at least according to the test images at dpreview.com et al) the difference is visible (to me) even in digital images - the Zeiss is all-or-nothing contrast and crisp precision, the Minolta is a little smoother and more romantic. The Zeiss lens is definitely sharp enough to use every one of the 8Mp behind it - both show the stigmatum of short digital zooms: barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

IMHO (and having held both) the Minolta is a bit more compact and ergonomic and easier to hold steady, while the Sony's longer lens tube leaves a bit more mass cantilevered out and waving in the breeze.

 

I would definitely recommend a swing past the dpreview.com web site - they have extensive reviews of both cameras now that be compared head-to-head for technical 'performance'.

 

I'm planning on buying something a little - different. But the 828 and A1 are what I'd be choosing between otherwise. I THINK I would end up with the Minolta based on holdability - but the siren song of 8Mp and an f/2-2.8 lens....?

[river side]

with the size of these EVF camera in mind why would anyone not opt for a bigger sensor Digital Rebel??

[andy_piper2]

Riverside:

 

1) Mirror shake/noise?

 

2) 1.6 lbs that covers 28-200mm @ f/2.0-2.8 in one package, instead of 4.5 lbs that covers 28-200 @ f/2.8 (no f/2 at the wide end) and requires a bag for the spare lens(es)?

 

3) Cost? Sure, the DRebel with the 'freebie' lens is the same $999 as an 828 - but once you add the long f/2.8 telephoto?

 

4) "real-time" viewing on the rear LCD? (Not my cup of tea, but some people like it.)

 

SLRs have their pluses and minuses, just like any other camera style. For some folks the minuses just outweigh (literally!) the pluses.

[andreas_carl]

Do you like how the camera handles? To me the swivel screen of the Sony is a BIG (BIG!!!) plus. More so than the 5 clean MP versus 8M not quite so clean MP debate... but that's just me...

[gary h sp]

Being basically unfamiliar with digicams, is it true that the smallest aperture built into their lenses is only f/8 ?

 

If that is true, then the Canon Digital Rebel with a fully usable lens would be the way to go economically if you're actually serious about photography. I can't see how you can do without f/11,16,22, or without a DOF button.

[andy_piper2]

Gary - you are generally correct that the digicams with lenses in the 7mm real focal length range do not use the smallest apertures we're used to in film photography. The exact cutoff varies from model to model (e.g. the Panasonic LC-1/Leica Digilux-2 still goes down to f/11).

 

The reasons being: 1) diffraction effects at the tiny real image size, and 2) at least for DOF purposes, you don't need f/11 or f/16 or f/22 with a 7.5mm lens - at f/8 its DOF is already huge.

 

Some people don't like the non-SLR digicams because they have TOO MUCH DOF and can't blur backgrounds enough as it is.

 

DOF preview is a great tool -

 

- but to say that "serious" photographers can't do without it implies that all those rangefinder photographers over the years - Cartier-Bresson, David Douglas Duncan, Mary Ellen Mark, David Alan Harvey, Lee Friedlander, Gary Winogrand, Danny Lyons, etc. etc. etc. - were not "serious" photographers. Since rangefinder cameras do not have DOF preview of any kind. Same goes for TLR users such as Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Aaron Siskind and Imogene Cunningham.

 

Is that really what you meant to say?

 

I've been meaning to get back to this thread and add that obviously one can make an equivalent list of reasons in FAVOR of DSLRs:

 

a)interchangeable lenses;

 

b)a vastly wider range of focal lengths

 

c)larger, less noise-prone pixels

 

d)Ground-glass viewing instead of a TV image or peep-show window

 

e)More background blur using wide apertures for equivalent "focal lengths"

 

f) Yes - even DOF preview (on some cameras)

 

etc, etc.

 

I just assumed, since Jack asked specifically about the 828 vs. the A1, that he had already considered and rejected the SLR route.

[gary h sp]

By serious I meant only the smaller f-stops. But you answered another question for me. The smaller format of digicams also affects the DOF range, so that f/8 would be equivalent to f/16 I suppose. And I agree that digital photos done at f/2 appear much sharper than with f/2 at 35mm. So with a digicam, if the entire range is f/2-8, would that be like f/4-16 in 35mm ?

[andy_piper2]

"...would that be like f/4-16 in 35mm?"

 

With regard to DOF - yes; I guess so; no; perhaps; maybe. Comparing DOF across different format sizes is always tricky. You'd really have to sit down with some DOF tables to figure out exactly which aperture on a 28mm lens-35mm film would give the same DOF as f/2 on a 7mm lens-2/3rds" chip. Same as if you were trying to figure out which aperture on a 90mm lens/4x5 film would give the same DOF as f/2 on a 28mm lens/35mm film.

 

Without DOF tables handy, all I can make is a WAG - DOF of f/2-7mm enlarged 32x (8" x 10" print) is probably equivalent to f/5.6-28mm on 35mm film enlarged 8x is probably equivalent to f/16-90mm on 4x5 film enlarged 2x.

 

Maybe...