View Single Post
  #11  
Old 06-29-2002, 01:23 PM
UncleMeat777's Avatar
UncleMeat777 UncleMeat777 is offline
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 204
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to UncleMeat777 Send a message via AIM to UncleMeat777 Send a message via Yahoo to UncleMeat777
I was looking at the Cannon Powershot G2, Nikon CoolPix5000, Minolta Dimage 5

I took the Minolta over the rest because:

A) it cost about $150 less than the G2, $200 less than the Nikon
B) it has a 7x optical zoom, the others have 3 (has a 14x digital)
C) it will accept standard 49mm lenses, the others need adapters and special lenses only made for the camera
D) the human eye can only see something like 3-3.5MP anyways, so what's the point of having more (it's like recording music on a 24 bit studio when it's going to get compressed to a 16bit CD)
E) it just looked cooler

Side by side, aside from the zoom, the Canon and the Minolta are pretty close in quality and the all important macro mode. The Nikon was a little better for macro, however, when you add a #4 close up lens ($12), Neither camera can touch the Minolta.

Examples?

EDIT - got out a tripod and redid the pics

Pics are done in Standard quality mode (economy, standard, fine, super fine, RAW)

Here's just a normal picture... just to give you an idea.
http://www.jayratkowski.com/pics/far.JPG

Here's macro with a no. 4 lens
http://www.jayratkowski.com/pics/close.JPG

I just have to work on holding the camera more steady. :-P
__________________
'91 VR-4 - not running
'02 Hayabusa - winter storage
'03 WRX - running


Click here for my site and 1:24 car pics!
Reply With Quote