D7Hi review from Phil!

[Ulysses]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7hi/

Enjoy!

Sorry if this is redundant.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[David Martin]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7hi/

Enjoy!

Sorry if this is redundant.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Hi Ulysses!

Be interested to know the extent to which you go along with Phil, or if there is any respect in which you feel his methodology is artificial and does nopt reflect real-life situations. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for this forum and the analysis therein, but I do feel to a certain extent that the methodology takes over from real-world use. How do you feel?
Phil purely has to be joking if he rates the 717 above the DHi!
What do you think?
Who cares about CA, WA, RAW and saturation?
Regards to both of you,
--
DaveMart

 

[csbrown]

David,

Please read my post above (I didn't see this thread). I have poo-poo'ed many posters that have claimed that Phil has a bias. I think I even called one guy ridiculous. I was wrong! I can't understand these conclusions. Not real life at all.

What scares me is that people take his reviews at face value and may make a buying decision before reading this forum.

As far as thoroughness goes, Phil is the best in the biz. I greatly respect (and appreciate) his work. But he is way off here.

Regards,

Craig

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7hi/

Enjoy!

Sorry if this is redundant.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

Hi Ulysses!
Be interested to know the extent to which you go along with Phil,
or if there is any respect in which you feel his methodology is
artificial and does nopt reflect real-life situations. Don't get me
wrong, I have a lot of respect for this forum and the analysis
therein, but I do feel to a certain extent that the methodology
takes over from real-world use. How do you feel?
Phil purely has to be joking if he rates the 717 above the DHi!
What do you think?
Who cares about CA, WA, RAW and saturation?
Regards to both of you,
--
DaveMart

 

[Steven Lyons]

I know its silly to argue about this. This site is great and free and all that good stuff. But I had to jump in for the benefit of others considering the Minolta 7HI. To anyone looking at the 7HI, take the "Recommended" rating with a grain of salt. The reviewer got the price wrong. I paid $998 for my 7hi(as have many others here). That's less than the Nikon and equal to the Sony(which I never considered seriously due to storage limitations). It really comes down to the Nikon and the Minolta if one wants manual control in this price range.The higher rating here for the Nikon makes no sense. The 7HI is faster than the Nikon. Wider than the Nikon. Better Autofocus than the Nikon. Image quality is on par with the Nikon(very subjective I know). I looked seriously, loyally, hopefully at the Nikon (have had 2 Nikons in the past) and was amazed at its inferiority(the zoom alone is a killer - its so slow). The Minolta has its own limitations, but its easily on par with the Nikon 5700. The 7HI "Recommended" rating is hard to understand in the grand scheme of the other reviews on this site. Other website reviews (admittedly not as critical as this one) have heaped praise on the 7HI. Maybe I am easily impressed. Maybe the reviewer got a bad camera. Maybe he didn't use it long enough. All I can say is the 7HI has been a total joy to take pictures with. The prints on an Epson 1270 are absolutely beautiful and the camera is ready to shoot in an instant.

 

[PeterY]

I maybe wrong but I think what Phil meant was that 7Hi is not worth the price difference from the 7i. That's it and nothing more. And hence the "Recommended" rating. Everyone knows that 7i and 7Hi are the same camera picture quality, auto focus and general spec wise.

Here in Canada there is a $500 difference between the 2 cameras. I personally do not think that the difference is worth that much. But that's just me.

Peter

 

[José B]

Steve,

I totally agree with you that the 7Hi is one fantastic camera that takes gorgeous pictures. I never had a problem with noise and even at CDN$ 1800 was a great value. I have much respect for Phil but even experts could go wrong too (i.e., so-called stock market seers, economists and Sports Illustrated).

J

I know its silly to argue about this. This site is great and free
and all that good stuff. But I had to jump in for the benefit of
others considering the Minolta 7HI. To anyone looking at the 7HI,
take the "Recommended" rating with a grain of salt. The reviewer
got the price wrong. I paid $998 for my 7hi(as have many others
here). That's less than the Nikon and equal to the Sony(which I
never considered seriously due to storage limitations). It really
comes down to the Nikon and the Minolta if one wants manual control
in this price range.The higher rating here for the Nikon makes no
sense. The 7HI is faster than the Nikon. Wider than the Nikon.
Better Autofocus than the Nikon. Image quality is on par with the
Nikon(very subjective I know). I looked seriously, loyally,
hopefully at the Nikon (have had 2 Nikons in the past) and was
amazed at its inferiority(the zoom alone is a killer - its so
slow). The Minolta has its own limitations, but its easily on par
with the Nikon 5700. The 7HI "Recommended" rating is hard to
understand in the grand scheme of the other reviews on this site.
Other website reviews (admittedly not as critical as this one) have
heaped praise on the 7HI. Maybe I am easily impressed. Maybe the
reviewer got a bad camera. Maybe he didn't use it long enough. All
I can say is the 7HI has been a total joy to take pictures with.
The prints on an Epson 1270 are absolutely beautiful and the camera
is ready to shoot in an instant.

 

[ShutRBug]

Yes, you have it right, Peter.

If you take another look at the 7i review, you will see the scores identical except for "Value for money". It would appear that its' lower score is exactly what is keeping the 7Hi from a "Highly Recommended" rating.

While I have great respect for Phil's reviews, I never did put much stock in the his final recommendation of a given camera. I have to decide for myself whether the camera meets my needs based on the results of the detailed parts of his review. At that point, either I buy it or I don't. In the case of the 7i, I bought it.

Steve

I maybe wrong but I think what Phil meant was that 7Hi is not worth
the price difference from the 7i. That's it and nothing more. And
hence the "Recommended" rating. Everyone knows that 7i and 7Hi are
the same camera picture quality, auto focus and general spec wise.
Here in Canada there is a $500 difference between the 2 cameras. I
personally do not think that the difference is worth that much.
But that's just me.

Peter

 

[Sanpete]

Phil's comments on the 7Hi are rreally very positive on the whole. Here's the closing quote:

If the price isn't an issue and you feel that the noise levels are acceptable it
would be difficult to recommend any other five megapixel prosumer digital
camera. However I personally wouldn't be able to justify the additional $300
for the number of improvements over the DiMAGE 7i.

He has two main reservations, noise and price, especially relative to the 7i. He basically says that apart from the noise it's the best in its class. But why recommend the 7Hi highly when the 7i is available for 2 or 3 hundred less? For most users, it's not worth the difference. Still a very fine camera, competing with itself, as it were.

 

[Marko Björkroth]

Once again he manoeuvres quite nicely through the review without having to comment the advanced flash features the competition (his favorite brands) are lacking.

Note how he failed to find anything wrong with the flash system of the F707, but after Sony fixed the problem with the F717 he did not fail to praise that.

Marko

 

[Jared Hunter]

Are those samples really typical of the D7i/Hi? That is some of the worst dynamic range I've seen out of a digicam. Looks like Phil was trying real hard not to blow the highlights (only partially successful) at the expense of underexposed shadows. I checked some of the images in Photoshop and found the lighter portions practically pure white while the shadows were almost pure black.

If the price isn't an issue and you feel that the noise levels are acceptable it
would be difficult to recommend any other five megapixel prosumer digital
camera. However I personally wouldn't be able to justify the additional $300
for the number of improvements over the DiMAGE 7i.

He has two main reservations, noise and price, especially relative
to the 7i. He basically says that apart from the noise it's the
best in its class. But why recommend the 7Hi highly when the 7i is
available for 2 or 3 hundred less? For most users, it's not worth
the difference. Still a very fine camera, competing with itself,
as it were.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7hi/

I wonder if Phil's move has affected his proofreading. There were gobs of errors in the review (I caught about a half a dozen in the D7Hi/D7i comparison table, and in his Conclusions he incorrectly states "One RAW/TIFF file can be taken at a time, file must be written before next shot" -- which misrepresents the biggest single difference between the D7i and D7Hi.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[Marko Björkroth]

Are those samples really typical of the D7i/Hi? That is some of the
worst dynamic range I've seen out of a digicam. Looks like Phil was
trying real hard not to blow the highlights (only partially
successful) at the expense of underexposed shadows. I checked some
of the images in Photoshop and found the lighter portions
practically pure white while the shadows were almost pure black.

The default contrast setting is very high and better suited for cloudy days or indoors. Because Phil always refuces to change any settings his ratings are only useful for people looking for point'n'shoot cameras. For anyone looking for a more advanced camera the ratings are meaningless.

Marko

 

[David Martin]

Are those samples really typical of the D7i/Hi? That is some of the
worst dynamic range I've seen out of a digicam. Looks like Phil was
trying real hard not to blow the highlights (only partially
successful) at the expense of underexposed shadows. I checked some
of the images in Photoshop and found the lighter portions
practically pure white while the shadows were almost pure black.

The default contrast setting is very high and better suited for
cloudy days or indoors. Because Phil always refuces to change any
settings his ratings are only useful for people looking for
point'n'shoot cameras. For anyone looking for a more advanced
camera the ratings are meaningless.

Marko

I hate to say it as I usually have the utmost respect for Phil's reviews, but if you check out Imaging Resources review of the 7Hi it's a lot more useful.

Dave has made a real effort to get to grips with the camera and sets the contrast etc correctly and hence obtains shots more representative of it's real world use.

Although not usually a conspiracy theorist, I'm slowly becoming more paranoid about my D7. I'd stop being paranoid if they'd stop picking on me!
Regards,
--
DaveMart

 

[Marko Björkroth]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7hi/

I wonder if Phil's move has affected his proofreading. There were
gobs of errors in the review (I caught about a half a dozen in the
D7Hi/D7i comparison table, and in his Conclusions he incorrectly
states "One RAW/TIFF file can be taken at a time, file must be
written before next shot" -- which misrepresents the biggest single
difference between the D7i and D7Hi.

Nah, the same thing happens every time. He's going to correct most errors in the tables during to next few days, but "in order to maintain consistency" he never changes his ratings - not even if he has made a mistake.

For example, histogram has always been awailable in the quick review mode of the D7 (I had a D7 with the 014 firmware!), but Phil still claims it's missing. BTW, this function is well documentd in the manual.

Marko

 

[David Martin]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7hi/

I wonder if Phil's move has affected his proofreading. There were
gobs of errors in the review (I caught about a half a dozen in the
D7Hi/D7i comparison table, and in his Conclusions he incorrectly
states "One RAW/TIFF file can be taken at a time, file must be
written before next shot" -- which misrepresents the biggest single
difference between the D7i and D7Hi.

Nah, the same thing happens every time. He's going to correct most
errors in the tables during to next few days, but "in order to
maintain consistency" he never changes his ratings - not even if he
has made a mistake.

For example, histogram has always been awailable in the quick
review mode of the D7 (I had a D7 with the 014 firmware!), but Phil
still claims it's missing. BTW, this function is well documentd in
the manual.

Marko

Never thought I'd live to say it, but even Steve's review in Steve's Digicams gives a more accurate 'feel' for what the camera is about than Phil's review!
Check out Steve's Conclusions.
Regards,
--
DaveMart

 

[Phil Askey]

You may believe what you like but I have no intentions of "making it bad" for any brand or camera. The D7Hi performed very well, as did the D7i.. I made very positive noises about both cameras, I simply don't think the D7Hi is worth the price difference between it and the D7i and I was also disappointed that Minolta had done nothing to address the number one image issue raised by myself, other reviewers and many owners.. Noise.

I'm always amused when people get so defensive about their camera especially when I give that camera a "Recommended" (look that word up in the dictionary and you'll realize what I mean).

If you'd rather I didn't review Minolta's in the future, just drop me an email.

Although not usually a conspiracy theorist, I'm slowly becoming
more paranoid about my D7. I'd stop being paranoid if they'd stop
picking on me!
Regards,
--
DaveMart

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Phil Askey]

We're not talking about quick review mode, we're talking about instant playback (D7Hi manual page 100), the immediate display of the image you've just taken. This is the single most useful place to have a histogram display because it allows you to immediately make a decision about shooting again with a different exposure compensation. If I've missed how you enable this then please let me know.

For example, histogram has always been awailable in the quick
review mode of the D7 (I had a D7 with the 014 firmware!), but Phil
still claims it's missing. BTW, this function is well documentd in
the manual.

Marko

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Graham Hunter]

I'm always amused when people get so defensive about their camera
especially when I give that camera a "Recommended" (look that word
up in the dictionary and you'll realize what I mean).

If you'd rather I didn't review Minolta's in the future, just drop
me an email.

Although not usually a conspiracy theorist, I'm slowly becoming
more paranoid about my D7. I'd stop being paranoid if they'd stop
picking on me!
Regards,
--
DaveMart

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Couldnt help chuckling about the "positive noises" when you refer to the 7i and 7Hi. No pun intended there eh Phil ? (LOL).

Anyway whats not clear from this thread but plainly obvious if one looks at the 7i review is that the 7i was awarded a "Highly Recommended" accolade. Since we know that the 7Hi is an improvement on the 7i in all ways except for its price, I think I can figure out the reason why the 7Hi was placed only in the "Recommended" category.

And as a 7Hi owner I'm not upset. Not at all.

Great review!

 

[Marko Björkroth]

For example, histogram has always been awailable in the quick
review mode of the D7 (I had a D7 with the 014 firmware!), but Phil
still claims it's missing. BTW, this function is well documentd in
the manual.

Hmmm. Perhaps he tried to say that there's no real time histogram.

But then again, this table shows weird preferences
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf717/page18.asp

Once again the review mode histogram is missing.

NiMH batteries are listed as a con, but the smaller and more expensive Nikon Lithium-Ion Battery is OK. Must be that magic "N" word.

If changing the batteries after 100-200 shots is such a big problem, why the max. 50 shots memory sticks are not a con? Because Sony will soon release a bigger stick? Hey, that's what he said after reviewing the F707!

Marko

 

[Chuck Gardner]

Phil,

I'm a D7Hi owner and I feel that on balance your review was objective and fair with respect to the technical merits of the camera. You are correct that the D7Hi is not worth a $300 premium over the D7i, but that's Minolta's problem. Fortunately the street price dropped rapidly and the camera is now available for under $1,000, a point worth mentioning because anyone smart enough to read your reviews certainly will not pay MSRP for their camera.

I too wish the images were less noisy, but if that was of paramount importance I would have spent an extra $4,000 or so and purchased a D60 and a couple of lenses. I too have noticed the pepper-like artifacts in converted RAW images and your review was the first which explained the cause and urged Minolta to fix it. You are to be applauded for highlighting flaws like this because your past critiques of the D7 and D7i led to improvements -- regretably not the noise problem yet -- which at least shows Minolta is apparently listening.

Why don't you also listen to the user populations in your forums and factor their real life experinces into your review summaries when reviewing third generation cameras like the D7Hi? Your review was late enough to include feedback from dozens of actual D7Hi users. Congrats on the move BTW.

For example, you could mention that D7 and D7i owners posting to DPreview have found that noise really isn't an issue at all for prints and photos resized for the web. Adding a noise reduction action as part of the post processing workflow takes care of any visible noise. Comparisons of picture quality are necessary, but doesn't tell the whole story with regard to the D7Hi and the Nikon 5700. I tried the 5700 and was shocked by how slow the AF and zooms were. Sample photos I've seen showed great color, but horrible barrel distortion at wide-angle.

I think it would be a great service to also include a benchmark printing test in your reviews in which a full res image standard test subject is printed at 300ppi to evaluate noise and sharpness. A printer like a Epson 2200 which could accommodate a wide range of sizes would be good benchmark printer. Doing the same type of benchmark evaluation of a full-res image resampled to 25-33% would also offer a more realistic evaluation of typical on-screen web use. In otherwords balance your microscopic lab evaluation with some standardized, controlled real life examples. The sample photos you include are great, but they are not standardized from camera to camera.

Chuck Gardner

I'm always amused when people get so defensive about their camera
especially when I give that camera a "Recommended" (look that word
up in the dictionary and you'll realize what I mean).

If you'd rather I didn't review Minolta's in the future, just drop
me an email.

Although not usually a conspiracy theorist, I'm slowly becoming
more paranoid about my D7. I'd stop being paranoid if they'd stop
picking on me!
Regards,
--
DaveMart

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com