D7 vs E-10

[BradQ]

Damp vibration, dampen a sponge. I'd know...part time I assemble hydraulic steering dampers for bicycles.

...as to the E-10 v Minota D7 debate....I've decided to buy the E-10. Why? I didn't have to look past the plastic casing on the Minolta D7. The lens is nice, but for my use a nice heavy metal E-10 with wide angle converter will work perfectly.

-brad

A heavy camera will 'dampen' the motion because
of it's large moment of inertia.

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

When do you find AF on the 2100 usefull.

Nearly all the time. Given the (usual) accuracy of the C2100's
automatic focusing, I have realized that my ancient hostility to
auto-focus devices is, well, out of date (ancient, after all). The
hostility might have been justified at one time, but it isn't
justified any longer. It is likely that trying to focus manually
would in most cases take me longer than it would for the camera to
focus automatically -- assuming sufficient vertical detail in the
subject-matter. This is definitely true with the higher-end cameras
(with abject apologies to Timo, of course, for having said this
). I have seen how fast the D30 focuses. In a word: wow. There's
no way that, given my eyesight, I would be able to focus that
quickly.

As cameras like the D30 have no split-image or microprism device in
the viewfinder, I would be limited to focusing on the ground-glass.
Folks with better eyesight would not have trouble with this. I
would surely find myself "hunting" in exactly the way auto-focus
systems "hunt" when they don't have enough vertical detail. Ergo,
auto-focusing is much faster for me. (I have been told by users of
high-end Canon film cameras that their auto-focus mechanisms are
better yet.)

Yes me too, I have found that I cannot out perform the D30's AF with my poor eyesight. BTW Many people are shocked that the D30 does not have Canon's new AF system, given the cameras price. Canon used the AF module from their APS SLR. The size of the sensor was the reason given.

I would be inclined to focus manually with the C2100 if I had the
camera on a tripod and had all the time in the world. This
particular camera's EVF is not breathtakingly bright and I do have
trouble discerning proper manual focus with it. People with better
eyesight probably have much less trouble.

Judging by the descriptions so far, focusing manually with the
Dimage 7 will be a good deal easier given the much brighter EVF.

The D7 has a dgital zoom button which may help.

Problems achieving good manual focus are increased, I think,
because these camera manufacturers have ALL been stupid about not
supplying rubber eyecups with the cameras (my favorite rant). Some
people believe this is a non-issue, but I suspect they simply
haven't seen the difference between how one of these viewfinder
images -- of any kind -- appears with all of the stray light
blocked. It can make a huge difference; and stray light can be a
real killer when you're trying to focus manually. I do hope there's
some way to put a rubber eyecup onto the Dimage 7...even if you
have to take something, as E-10 and C2100 owners have done with
that eyecup made for telescope eyepieces.

The D30 has a rubber eyecup, but it is not very substantial.

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

I agree that a EVF may eventually become more practical for some or
even most users. However, it can never really become better that a
TTL optical viewfinder in showing you want the lens is seeing. With
an optical TTL viewfinder you are actually looking through the
lens. Even the best recordings of classical musical performance are
never quite as good as being there.

Now you have gone and put your foot in your mouth. The EFV is
looking through the lens. It's already doing better than optical
viewfinders in that it's showing you not only what the lens sees,
but what your image recording system is seeing as well.

The point I was making was rather an academic one in that an EVF places an extra step between you and the lens.

The current EVF is low resolution (QVGA) and a tad slow, but
there's no logical reason that two or three generations won't put
it way ahead of TTL. And the ground glass in your TTL limits
resolution.

That is true, but not that much.

It's just that it's good enough. And that swinging
mirror contraption would embarrass even Rube Goldberg. Can you say
wide angle? The mirror is a major problem there. And mirror
vibration is a major problem in 35mm. EVF does away with it. (As
does the E-10, but at a cost of both viewfinder and image plane
brightness.)

An EVF definitely saves weight and mechanical complexity. They may become standard in compact digital cameras in a few years.

 

[MikeA]

The D30 has a rubber eyecup, but it is not very substantial.

There must be some attachment, somewhere, that provides this small but important accessory. It is insane that camera manufacturers have eliminated such accessories. They must have made conscious decisions to do so. Completely baffling! It's a wheel that did not need re-inventing. They re-invented it anyway. The lack of such accessories on cameras costing so much...inexcusable.

If the D7 has no such accessory -- and I would bet that it doesn't -- I sure hope that the kind of eyecup I've been able to get to work with the C2100 can be fitted over the D7's viewfinder housing.

 

[Joe Peoples]

The ability to instantly see changes in exposure, contrast, and
saturation in the viewfinder is the equivalent of being able to see
your final photograph before you expose your film with a camera
sporting an old-fashioned optical viewfinder. Advantage EVF?

Joe Peoples writes:

My experience with the EVF in the Sony CD1000 was not a pleasant one. Perhaps because of the image stabilization characteristics, the camera seemed like it was two steps behind me, figuratively speaking. I hope the Dimage's viewfinder is more responsive. I'm sure we'll hear about it in a few weeks, as the cameras are shipped.

 

[MikeA]

The ability to instantly see changes in exposure, contrast, and
saturation in the viewfinder is the equivalent of being able to see
your final photograph before you expose your film with a camera
sporting an old-fashioned optical viewfinder. Advantage EVF?

The ability to preview the exposure -- accurately -- in the EVF is a tremendous advantage. Just now I'm struggling with getting a decent print from a shot taken yesterday...the struggle is not with the image itself but with the printer. The image is exposed just right for my purposes -- just as I saw it in the EVF. It's a macro shot of some back-lit flower petals. It would be a bit of a challenge to gauge the precisely correct exposure for this, with transparency film, without a spot-meter (and you'd better hope you aren't getting any lens flare when you use the spot-meter). The amount of detail in the thin, back-lit petals is just right. And it's just right because I was able to see what I was going to get in the EVF...and then I backed off 1/3 of a stop, as if I were shooting transparency film.

I have an odd problem to solve with this particular EVF...but that's off-topic here because it concerns the C2100. I'll post the question in the Olympus forum and hope you'll have a chance to respond there.

If the D7's viewfinder is considerably brighter and more detailed than the C2100's -- and by every account, it is -- then there'll be no need for the question-mark in the phrase "Advantage EVF?"

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I haven't seen anyone arguing -- yet, anyway -- that the image
quality of the D7 equals or exceeds that of the D30. There haven't
been enough hands-on uses of the thing yet. But what if a given
scene, photographed with the D7, results in the photographer's
getting a print whose level of noise is perfectly acceptable? Or in
which the noise isn't visible?

Actually, I have, his name is David Littleboy.

You called? My claim was that it looks to me that the D7 is putting more information on the paper at 8x10. Maybe I'm hallucinating, but that's what it looks like. And when I bounce pairs of 8x10s, one D30 one D7, off my (non-photographer) wife, she reports that the D7 ones appear sharper. The specifications of the cameras and the resolution tests indicate that this could be the case. I really don't think I'm off the wall here, although I've been told I am. We're the D30 images unsharpened? I don't know, but I never even thought to muck with Phil's photographs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[MVittands51617]

My experience with the EVF in the Sony CD1000 was not a pleasant
one. Perhaps because of the image stabilization characteristics,
the camera seemed like it was two steps behind me, figuratively
speaking. I hope the Dimage's viewfinder is more responsive. I'm
sure we'll hear about it in a few weeks, as the cameras are shipped.

The IS on my OM c2100 allows me to take macro shots of wildflowers without a tripod, even using a close-up filter, and is great for low-light photography (meaning down to 1/60 shutter).Photographing action at a soccer game, I prefocus and "pre-IS"at a spot where I anticipate action. Like any action photography, you have to burn lots of film to get that one great shot. I am burning much more digital "film" than I would regular film, so I have more decent shots than I would have if I was using film. I would not use the c-2100 if I was on assignment for Sports Illustrated, but as a prosumer shooting his kid I am satisfied.

Assuming good light, have you tried shooting on continuous autofocus with IS off? This should greatly reduce response time.

If the Dimages focus like my 700si's, they will be fast. I haven't seen the Dimage website extolling predictive autofocus like in the SLR's, so I assume they don't have it. I rarely had an out of focus shot with my Minolta SLR's.

Getting back on point, since I realized that the EVF shows me the actual exposure, I haven't had any overexposed or underexposed shots as long as I was paying attention. The idea here is to avoid spending 10 hours in photoshop just to print a "roll" of family snapshots. I wonder how many of the shots taken with brand new digital cameras and posted wind up being enlarged to 8X10 and hung on the wall with pride or even placed in an album.

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

I haven't seen anyone arguing -- yet, anyway -- that the image
quality of the D7 equals or exceeds that of the D30. There haven't
been enough hands-on uses of the thing yet. But what if a given
scene, photographed with the D7, results in the photographer's
getting a print whose level of noise is perfectly acceptable? Or in
which the noise isn't visible?

Actually, I have, his name is David Littleboy.

You called? My claim was that it looks to me that the D7 is
putting more information on the paper at 8x10. Maybe I'm
hallucinating, but that's what it looks like. And when I bounce
pairs of 8x10s, one D30 one D7, off my (non-photographer) wife, she
reports that the D7 ones appear sharper. The specifications of the
cameras and the resolution tests indicate that this could be the
case. I really don't think I'm off the wall here, although I've
been told I am. We're the D30 images unsharpened? I don't know, but
I never even thought to muck with Phil's photographs.

If they were images from Phils review, they would not have been sharpened. Did you interpolate the pixels for either image?

 

[Terry Sessford]

If you are buying an SLR (film or digital), I would recommend
either Canon or Nikon. Buying an SLR because of the body's feature
set is stupid. The system of lenses available is the most important
thing.

For the professional or very keen enthusiast this is probably true, however for the vast majority of users I believe that your point is invalid. Most people I know who own 35mm film SLRs either only own one lens (usualy the lens that came with the camera when they bought it) or all their lenses but one are stuck in a cupboard gathering dust. Most people appear to be content to use a single zoom lens that adequately covers most of their needs. They buy an SLR (as opposed to a 35mm compact or APS) because they like the feature set if offers -- TTL viewing (no parallax worries), opportunity to use filters (polarizers etc), flash hot shoe, and so on.

For these people, who I suggest are in the majority, it IS the body's feature set that is most important, NOT the system of lenses available. And with regard to the former the Minolta Dynax 7 is currently the 'Camera of the Year' here in the UK (as awarded by Amateur Photographer magazine).

I have never owned a Minolta camera before (over the past thirty years I have owned film cameras from Canon, Nikon and Pentax, and a digital camera from Olympus), however the next camera I buy will almost certainly be the Minolta DiMAGE 7. My final decision is almost entirely dependent on Phil's review here on DPreview, when it appears, and my own conclusions when I download his pictures taken with a production DiMAGE 7 and print them at home.

Terry.

 

[Thanasis Siozos]

You are largely and (amusingly) mistaken. I don't know what kind of fight you have with Olympus users but I couldn't care less. Perhaps it's like that Windows/Linux debate. lol
Is it so important to you to defend this camera?

FYI, I'm a Kodak user and quite a happy one for the money i paid for my 3400. I was considering to upgrade soon and waiting for the D7 to make a decision but i think i'll postpone for a year until the price of the D7 drops to the typical 50-60%.

Anyway, I hope you'll win the war with those despicable Olympus monsters. lol

However, the signs are much more readable in the E10 pic. Look at
the one on the left that reads "Summer Collection" and the red one
on the bottom right that reads "LARKOne". These are hardly
comprehensible in the DiMAGE pic.

They are BOTH 'comprehensible' to me! And remember that the D7 pic
was taken from a wider zoom position than the E-10 was...

To me, these comparisons mean absolutely nothing. We have no idea
of how much sharpening was used in either camera (it appears that
the D7 has more sharpening applied to it though) for just one thing.

And remember that the E-10 still lists for about $500 more than the
D7, so it SHOULD perform better eh? Not to say that it really does
though.

And one comment about the noise in either picture. They are about
eqaual in noise level in the sky I would say..

Now get on back to your Oly forum before they realize that you're
gone!

Bob Dolson

 

[Curt A]

Hi Tricia and Andrew,

Why don't you try to arrange to meet and have coffee sometime? Seems like you'd really have a great time together. I sure have had teriffic fun "eavesdropping" Curt A.

Andrew Grant wrote:
If you don't like what I have to say, don't read
my posts.

Believe me, if this forum had an ignore button I would use it.
However, pressing "Next" all too often puts me in contact with your
posts.

Try selecting the posts directly. You should be able to avoid me
that way. I am surprised though that you respond to my posts if you
wish to ignore me.

 

[Tricia]

You know, Curt, after the chocolate and strawberry thing I thought that you were rather sensitive to women's feelings!

Putting me in the same room with Andrew just wouldn't work out...he's got a very nice camera, but I think that he's just into the tech end (I looked at his photos in the S&G forum) - not the artistic composition end. He doesn't even have any cute little models!! Not much in common, I'm afraid...

Tricia

Hi Tricia and Andrew,
Why don't you try to arrange to meet and have coffee sometime?
Seems like you'd really have a great time together. I sure have had
teriffic fun "eavesdropping" Curt A.

 

[Dolan Halbrook]

D30 is much better than D7, I think.

I sure wish Canon would put the D30's imager in a camera like the
E-10 (minus the E-10's manual focus calibration problem). That
would be my dream camera. Well, a little big and heavy but I think
I could cope. Life is full of sacrifices.

Oh well. Back to reality (and Minolta).

Actually, I wish Kyocera would put any digital imager in a Contax G2 body. That would be my dream camera. Guess my E-10 will have to do for now.

 

[Curt A]

Hi Tricia,

It certainly seemed an interesting idea, a potential "Hollywood Scenario". I would say that I am pretty aware of "feelings" male and female, most of the time. My response was in fact meant as an act of "humorous diffusion", although as I mentioned your interactions were pretty entertaining!

I also would think that my "joking around" was not taken too seriously by you, because although we all have our sensitivity "issues", your postings in this interaction sequence certainly suggest that you are more than able to hold your own, in dispute or disagreements with any men here. Your "strengths" and posting comments have been a welcome and appreciated addition to all of the Dpreview Forums to which you have contributed. Hope I haven't 'stuck the "proverbial foot" in my mouth here! Curt A.

Putting me in the same room with Andrew just wouldn't work
out...he's got a very nice camera, but I think that he's just into
the tech end (I looked at his photos in the S&G forum) - not the
artistic composition end. He doesn't even have any cute little
models!! Not much in common, I'm afraid...

Tricia

Hi Tricia and Andrew,
Why don't you try to arrange to meet and have coffee sometime?
Seems like you'd really have a great time together. I sure have had
teriffic fun "eavesdropping" Curt A.

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

You know, Curt, after the chocolate and strawberry thing I thought
that you were rather sensitive to women's feelings!

Putting me in the same room with Andrew just wouldn't work
out...he's got a very nice camera, but I think that he's just into
the tech end (I looked at his photos in the S&G forum) - not the
artistic composition end. He doesn't even have any cute little
models!! Not much in common, I'm afraid...

Sorry you don't like my photos Tricia. My wife might object to cute little models. Where are your photos BTW. You must be quite the artist I am sure.

 

[Frank B]

Tricia,

There is no need to criticize Andrew's photos.

I often disagree with Andrew, but I have looked at his photos and they are good - and artistic.

Frank B

Putting me in the same room with Andrew just wouldn't work
out...he's got a very nice camera, but I think that he's just into
the tech end (I looked at his photos in the S&G forum) - not the
artistic composition end. He doesn't even have any cute little
models!! Not much in common, I'm afraid...

Tricia

Hi Tricia and Andrew,
Why don't you try to arrange to meet and have coffee sometime?
Seems like you'd really have a great time together. I sure have had
teriffic fun "eavesdropping" Curt A.

 

[Tricia]

Sorry, Frank - I shouldn't have stated my opinion, I guess. I just expected better composed, professional-quality photographs after all his comments re his D30 and Photoshop. I have seen so many great D30 photos taken by others, and was a bit disappointed by his.

Now that Phil's review has been put up, I see that your friend has toned down his comments about his opinions somewhat, although he's still upsetting others in this forum.

I apologize for upsetting you, and think that you're a nice person to jump to his defense.

Tricia

Tricia,

There is no need to criticize Andrew's photos.
I often disagree with Andrew, but I have looked at his photos and
they are good - and artistic.

Frank B

 

[Andrew Grant27981]

Sorry, Frank - I shouldn't have stated my opinion, I guess. I just
expected better composed, professional-quality photographs after
all his comments re his D30 and Photoshop. I have seen so many
great D30 photos taken by others, and was a bit disappointed by his.

I think perhaps your are a little biased. Where are your images BTW. I would like to see what you consider professional. I am no Micheal Reichman, neither do I have a studio. In fact I am not a pro, but I consider myself reasonably competent.

Now that Phil's review has been put up, I see that your friend has
toned down his comments about his opinions somewhat, although he's
still upsetting others in this forum.

Frank and I have had many exchanges in these forums and though we mostly disagree, they have not become personal. You could learn a thing or two from Frank.

Regarding the D7. Almost everyone has toned down their comments, Phil's review was quite a shock. Even I expected the camera to do better than it did.

I apologize for upsetting you, and think that you're a nice person
to jump to his defense.

I don't think Fred was upset, however I appreciate his comments. He shows a lot of class defending someone who he often disagrees with. It adds weight to his opinions.