|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Review (Reply to this comment)
by urbangirl30
A friend of mine has the camera and I've shot with it as well. I admit the photos generally turn out lovely. But, when you're at a concert or something and want to shoot something at a moments notice, it takes forever. You'll generally miss the money shot. And yes it does blur alot.
|
May 03 '05
4:34 am PDT
|
|
Nice review, thank you (Reply to this comment)
by prcarp
I am deciding on prosumer-level camera pretty soon and at the moment, it is a toss-up between the KM-A2, the Nikon 8800, and the KM-A200. I am interested in your thoughts on the A200, if you have any. I am also interested in which one is more robust as I am in situations that are hard on equipment (e.g. photographing wake-board events from a moving boat, etc.). I need good detail and something that won't second guess me and "take the shot" when I press the button.
|
Feb 02 '05
1:00 pm PST
|
|
A2: good yet limited (Reply to this comment)
by johnsondanl
I've bought a new A2 and have run about 200 photos through it in a week. Bottom line: it's a great point-and-shoot camera that is not of professional quality because of physical sensor pixel size and difficulty controlling critical focus.
Outstanding features:
- VGA electronic viewfinder is very nice.
- Anti-shake compensation is spectacular.
- the camera's software ergonomics are well conceived and organized so that basic functions and their "extensions" are for the most part easy.
Detriments:
- weak flash
- lens hood vignettes the flash and 49mm filters vignette the image at wide zoom angles.
- manual focus is electronic, is relatively insensitive to focus-ring movement, and difficult to visualize even on a VGA EGF; and the 2x magnification is not easy to invoke when in a hurry to capture that critical moment because then you lose framing info.
The anti-shake feature is spectacularly effective, and completely compensates for the slow ISO of the 6.6 x 8.8 mm 8-megapixel sensor because it's possible, with care, to use shutter speeds of 1/10 sec at 200mm "effective" focal length. The short actual focal length (~7-50mm) also benefits usability at slow ISOs because of its greater depth of focus that the 35mm "equivalents".
The jpeg algorithm seems quite well designed; comparing raw and fine jpeg images next to each other at enlargements great enough to see individual pixels, the jpeg looks slightly noisier but not as pixelated.
The anti-shake feature and the VGA viewfinder make this the 8 megapixel ZLR of choice for me.
|
May 21 '04
2:53 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Review structure (Reply to this comment)
by portiaindira
Yes, my being a "laywoman" those specs truely befuddle me. Howard has a lot of enthusiasm for each product, but some of us don't know a darn thing about camaras, perhaps Howard can include a "layman's" section with the eloquent reviews.
|
Apr 25 '04
1:54 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Review structure (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech,  in Electronics
Thank you for your suggestions. Reader feedback is very important to me. My digital camera review format evolved directly in response to the hundreds of comments and emails I’ve gotten from digicam shoppers over the last (almost) five years.
|
Apr 18 '04
10:42 pm PDT
|
|
Review structure (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh
Initially I wondered if this review was going to be just a paraphrase of the spec sheet. Then I got to the field trip description.
In your introduction you might want to describe the overall structure of the review, so that people mostly interested in image quality and your personal evaluation will know to skim through the first bits.
Another thing that would make this review even more helpful would be comparisons with this camera's primary competitors. Why buy this one and not one of those, or vice-versa?
|
Apr 17 '04
7:46 am PDT
|
|
Does Moore's Law have a camera corollary? (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Do you think that digital cameras can continue to pack more and more megapixels? Think there could be a potential upper limit? I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000, and I'm still blown away by how good my hi-res shots look, and I'm definitely no professional photographer. I just have to wonder how high the megapixel bar can be raised...
Andrew
|
Mar 23 '04
5:44 pm PST
|
|
This sounds (Reply to this comment)
by ifif1938
like one incredible camera....When you say I highly recommend it that is quite a statement!
Enjoyed another of your most helpful reviews and reading about your days out in the field
Sounds like things are warming up a bit for you,at least on day one..:)
Take care,
Barbara
|
Mar 22 '04
2:14 pm PST
|
|
tyros! (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
Forgot if you told me what they were. This is a whole 'nother language, Howard. Hot shoe?? You'll enjoy my new review about post-Civil War, both sides working together. :-)
Jan
|
Mar 22 '04
10:51 am PST
|
|
Best Ever (Reply to this comment)
by grandgram
I read a review on this camera in one of my newspapers and they did a comparison of the ones you mentioned. I liked your review better as your field trips are always interesting. This is a Minolta and one I should consider when I upgrade. :-)
Letta
|
Mar 22 '04
6:48 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.