minolta dimage Z2?

[thai3]

 

 

Anyone used one of these cameras?-peter

[pattaya127]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Konica_Minolta/konicaminolta_dimagez2.asp

[John_Betong]

Hi thai3,

 

Another link for a dozen more reviews:

http://www.dealtime.com/GS2/GS2StatReDirect/?bParent=on&nFormID=0&nParentFormID=0&linkin_id=3005961&uid=1738108048&keyword=minolta+dimage+Z2&submit=Search

 

Another very good and extensive review link:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/z2.html

 

pattaya127's link:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinion_text.asp?prodkey=konicaminolta_dimagez2&opinion=22678

 

Quote:

Unfortunately, we ended up returning the camera after a couple of weeks. The big problem was that the AF simply did not work in anything other than bright light. Example: Taking a picture of our nephew in a chair. He was three feet away in filtered afternoon light

through a patio door. The camera couldn't do it. It would hunt like crazy and finally settle on the wrong target. No matter what I did, I could not get it to focus properly. Every time I took an indoor picture, it would take two or three tries to get the camera focused properly

 

I noticed the above in one of the reviews and have found similar problems with the two Finepix cameras I have used extensively. An

"AF illuminator" solves this problem but the feature is not available on all cameras.

 

My latest camera has just packed up completely and I have been quoted 10,000 baht for the repair and advised it would be cheaper to buy a replacement:( If you are in Thailand then I would suggest finding good dealer support for whatever camera you choose!

 

Cheers,

 

John Betong

[thai3]

 

I should have asked before I bought one! So far though it seems to have been OK. It has to be very dark where flash would be needed in order for the auto focus not to work. Maybe your was faulty? I always said I would not get a digital as I hate the viewfinders, but the zoom and video function makes this one attractive. IMO they are still not as good as even a cheap SLR but will be in time. Thanks for replies-peter

[thai3]

 

 

Horrible and it's going on ebay as soon as I get home. All the digital cameras I have tried are very inferior to an SLR and this is not an execption. Maybe OK for some subjects but for flash at a concert the delay between focusing (if lucky enough) and exposure means you are taking shots almost blind. Good camera for the hard of seeing maybe, just close you eyes press the shutter and hope for the best.-peter

[thai3]

 

 

Hurray the horrible digital toy pretending to be a proper camera is in the post to a new home. The only ones worth buying IMO are the expensive digital SLR's but I cannot justify that amount of spending on one. I am back to film, big lenses and bulky flash units. Digital have some good points but looking at the results, I've taken far better pics and of higher image quality with cheap compacts.Handy if you want to take shots of spotty arsed tarts or of landscapes, but if it moves forget digital-peter

[lopburi3]

You might be surprised with the new Casio models. They have very fast response time. Shutter delay is 0.01 seconds and the new QV-R61 has manual focus so you do not have to wait the normal half second of AF mode (or do pre focus) if shooting action. You can shoot candid shots with this camera and get what you expected (and I had the same issues as you with older models).

[Stickman]

Interesting what you say about digitals and that you have gone back to film. I do not know many people who have done this. My previous digital camera was a Sony 717, which is a 5 megapixel camera with a nice 5 X Zeiss optical lens. You could print up to a little bigger than A4 with excellent quality. The only problem with this camera was the dynamic range wasn?t as good as it could have been. But yeah, DSLR is the way to go. The difference between DSLRs and the more compact digital cameras is huge.

 

Stick