A1 Is it worth it??

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has used it ??

Joe ... I don't mean to be off-putting, but that's what this forum is all about. So read. You'll find opinions on each side -- mostly favorable, given the partisan participants + a fine camera. You'll find pictures people have taken, some wonderful, some less so. You'll find tips, etc. There's lots here. So read, and get your answers.

Joe Guagliardo said:

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks
impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has
used it ??

Click to expand...

Joe Guagliardo said:

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks
impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has
used it ??

Click to expand...

In a word - absolutely!

Joe Guagliardo said:

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks
impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has
used it ??

Click to expand...

It depends on the value you put on a number of factors:

The handling is superb

The feature set is the best of any 5Mp camera - 28 to 200mm zoom, AntiShake, visible live histogram, good autofocus, good colour (if you use the 'vivid' setting IME), no, or very little 'purple fringing' and so on

BUT

The resolution in jpeg is not as good as other 5Mp cameras, or even the 4Mp Canon G3. This is not just my opinion, but has been commented on by experienced reviewers such as Phil Askey on this site, Megapixel.net, and others, as well as a number of users on this forum. Competitive resolution can be restored by using RAW, although this generates 7Mb files, but the snag here is increased noise. Adam-T is a professional photographer who has contributed to this and the Canon forum, and he suggests that the jpeg algorithm includes some noise reduction process which reduces resolution, whereas RAW of course does not.

However I've recently come across some noise-reducing software called 'NeatImage'; this goes a long way to keeping noise under control, but with only slight effect on resolution. I now feel I'm getting closer to the best possible results from the A1 which are very good indeed.

From all of this you'll gather that 'yes, it is worth it', but only if you are prepared to put in a lot of effort in post-processing. IMO this effort is worth it for the unequalled feature set in such a compact package, and the excellent picture quality which can be attained.

A week after I'd bought it I was going to sell it; now, six weeks later and after a steep learning curve, I shall keep it.
--
TonySD

Tony SD said:

BUT

The resolution in jpeg is not as good as other 5Mp cameras, or even
the 4Mp Canon G3. This is not just my opinion, but has been
commented on by experienced reviewers such as Phil Askey on this
site, Megapixel.net, and others, as well as a number of users on
this forum. Competitive resolution can be restored by using RAW,
although this generates 7Mb files, but the snag here is increased
noise. Adam-T is a professional photographer who has contributed
to this and the Canon forum, and he suggests that the jpeg
algorithm includes some noise reduction process which reduces
resolution, whereas RAW of course does not.

However I've recently come across some noise-reducing software
called 'NeatImage'; this goes a long way to keeping noise under
control, but with only slight effect on resolution. I now feel I'm
getting closer to the best possible results from the A1 which are
very good indeed.

From all of this you'll gather that 'yes, it is worth it', but only
if you are prepared to put in a lot of effort in post-processing.
IMO this effort is worth it for the unequalled feature set in such
a compact package, and the excellent picture quality which can be
attained.

A week after I'd bought it I was going to sell it; now, six weeks
later and after a steep learning curve, I shall keep it.
--
TonySD

Click to expand...

Not a criticism, but why do so many digital camera users seem to look on post-processing as a negative (no pun intended)? If we were still in the film only era, serious photographers would put a lot more effort into post-processing in the darkroom/scanner/software, or go to expensive pro labs. If all you print is happy snap size images and put these in an album, why bother even getting a high-end camera? I actually enjoy the post-processing work (in the digital darkroom), as I feel it is as much a part of thephotography as pressing the shutter in the first place. IMHO anyway.

Boy, I'm all the way with you on that one. I'm in digital photography mostly because it gives me a dry, tidy, and low-footprint way to do post-processing. The digital camera is just a handy way to get images to feed to Photoshop. (Well, that may be a slight exaggeration, but ... )

OzRay said:

Not a criticism, but why do so many digital camera users seem to
look on post-processing as a negative (no pun intended)? If we were
still in the film only era, serious photographers would put a lot
more effort into post-processing in the darkroom/scanner/software, ...

Click to expand...

morepix said:

OzRay said:

Not a criticism, but why do so many digital camera users seem to
look on post-processing as a negative (no pun intended)? If we were
still in the film only era, serious photographers would put a lot
more effort into post-processing in the darkroom/scanner/software, ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Amen to that:

I quit using my film cameras becuase I didn't have a darkroom (nor want one), so I had no control over cropping, brightness, sharpness, saturation etc. etc..

If you want a point and shoot, you can get off a lot cheaper.

If you want the best stuff under a thousand dollars, it's the A1 and photoshop -- you'll be very pleased with the wonderful things you create.
--
Z-Man

Ditto - If you read about the lengths to which film afficianados go in the dark room (only now aka "post-processing") you see that digital manipulation is the analogue (twisted pun) of dark room tweaking. I say, get the image you want regardless of what it takes (chemicals or ones and zeros). Morepix is right on the money.

morepix said:

OzRay said:

Not a criticism, but why do so many digital camera users seem to
look on post-processing as a negative (no pun intended)? If we were
still in the film only era, serious photographers would put a lot
more effort into post-processing in the darkroom/scanner/software, ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Smitty

do you need to ask? It's not perfect but it is capable of impressive pictures. It does take a while to learn to use correctly, and its pictures can be improved considerably with good post processing (like many digicams that don't over process pictures in camera).

Paul

Joe Guagliardo said:

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks
impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has
used it ??

Click to expand...

Hello,

Very much so indeed !

Take a look here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=6867672

My A1 album at: http://www.objective.no/geirove/web/

Geir Ove

Joe Guagliardo said:

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks
impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has
used it ??

Click to expand...

Have A1 for 4 days and delivered back.To mutch noisy pictures.

Joe Guagliardo said:

I have been reading the reviews on the new A1 and it looks
impressive. Is it as impressive at it looks from someone who has
used it ??

Click to expand...

--
per

OzRay said:

Tony SD said:

BUT

The resolution in jpeg is not as good as other 5Mp cameras, or even
the 4Mp Canon G3. This is not just my opinion, but has been
commented on by experienced reviewers such as Phil Askey on this
site, Megapixel.net, and others, as well as a number of users on
this forum. Competitive resolution can be restored by using RAW,
although this generates 7Mb files, but the snag here is increased
noise. Adam-T is a professional photographer who has contributed
to this and the Canon forum, and he suggests that the jpeg
algorithm includes some noise reduction process which reduces
resolution, whereas RAW of course does not.

However I've recently come across some noise-reducing software
called 'NeatImage'; this goes a long way to keeping noise under
control, but with only slight effect on resolution. I now feel I'm
getting closer to the best possible results from the A1 which are
very good indeed.

From all of this you'll gather that 'yes, it is worth it', but only
if you are prepared to put in a lot of effort in post-processing.
IMO this effort is worth it for the unequalled feature set in such
a compact package, and the excellent picture quality which can be
attained.

A week after I'd bought it I was going to sell it; now, six weeks
later and after a steep learning curve, I shall keep it.
--
TonySD

Click to expand...

Not a criticism, but why do so many digital camera users seem to
look on post-processing as a negative (no pun intended)? If we were
still in the film only era, serious photographers would put a lot
more effort into post-processing in the darkroom/scanner/software,
or go to expensive pro labs. If all you print is happy snap size
images and put these in an album, why bother even getting a
high-end camera? I actually enjoy the post-processing work (in the
digital darkroom), as I feel it is as much a part of thephotography
as pressing the shutter in the first place. IMHO anyway.

Click to expand...

That's a very good point! And I must admit pp is a lot of fun, and source of learning as well. And when I think of the hours I used to spend in the darkroom producing 20X24 colour prints it's a real pleasure to sit in front of a computer in a nice cool room, knowing that if you screw it up you can always recover the original!

Yes, I do enjoy my digital darkroom!

TonySD