Minolta DiMAGE 7i review

Before I had Sony DSC-S70. I was disappointed with image blurring it produced. Then I wanted to buy Sony F717, but despite the reviews, which said its image quality was superb and optics was very sharp images showed other thing: like in S70, images were BLURRY! So, I decided to take Minolta 7i. And the most thing I am impressed with is color producing. Colors are TRUE! No color distortion with red hue on human faces which many other cameras suffer of!

Problems:

AF seems to be not very good. I can't produce sharp images - always handshake warning, even on short exposure times! :((( and images appear blurring (I'm sure - not coz of optics, but coz of AF... Dunno how to handle this - I don't want to use tripod on every shot

Macro is not a macro actually... But I've already bought macro lens set.

Battery consuming is noticeable, even on my Power2000 2500mAh set...

I still have my collectable Minolta DiMAGE 7i which I purchased in October 2002. There was a recall for a defect which was initiated by the distributor. Service was prompt as was the return to use. As an early mirrorless/EVF camera, it produced goof photos--as long as the batteries held out. I used rechargeable AA batteries which kept the cost down. Later models were produced with improved battery longevity, but at greater expense as they were model specific. After Minolta was absorbed into Konica, this camera was supported briefly by Sony -- fortunately I needed to further service, firmware, or software until my 2011 purchase of a Canon EOS 60D with EF-s 15-85 mm IS USM lens -- the perfect all-round crop-sensor standard zoom lens.

These cameras from Minolta with the 28-200 mm lens and abundant manual controls, were some of the best digital cameras ever made. The last in the line was the Konica-Minolta A200, which I used for many years. That lens with its manula zoom was superb, and combined with the excellen Minolta JPG engine, gave superb pictures.

I have each of the Minolta bridge cameras , 7,7i,7hi,A1,A2 & A200 , all in good working order , I quite often take the A200 out with me when I'm out shooting large format film as it can do all that's needed at low ISO .

The A2 also gives good results , but the A200 is small enough , partly due to the curves the A2 doesn't have , that it will fit in a pocket .

To give me 28-200mm equivalent my A and E mount bodies are much bigger .

Our Max , up on the Moors .

RE: Dimage-7, when it was possible the results were very good and the lens is sharp, but I've said this before, the EVF is garbage and I was lucky to get three shots with AA batteries, because of that I hardly used it. BTW, I still have it.

Sanyo Eneloops would keep you going for the day , I've used them in mine as well as flash guns .

I don't know how many shots I could get out of a charge , but they certainly lasted all day .

I seem to remember that the original 7 could sometimes develop a fault somewhere in the power supply side that could help drain the battery .

I lent one of mine that I had spare to a friend who didn't have a digital camera ( he was a film only shooter ) for a project he wanted to do .

After a while that one developed that fault , but I had another one spare to lend him and never got around to stripping it down to investigate further .

Actually I used it as a part's camera to the front lens element to replaced the scratched one on the other one I lent him , so didn't bother .

.

Did you get any further using it for infrared photography , but on a tripod ?

.

Thanks for your response, yes I finally bought some Sanyo batteries and that helped a lot. I've seen some fantastic IR work with the 7, my efforts weren't as good but I haven't used t with a tripod.

photoholiko wrote:

Thanks for your response, yes I finally bought some Sanyo batteries and that helped a lot. I've seen some fantastic IR work with the 7, my efforts weren't as good but I haven't used t with a tripod.

The 7 does block some infrared but still let's enough through , though a relatively long shutter speed is needed .

With the 7i Minolta put a much stronger i.r blocking filter on it .

For a sharp image a tripod is essential , otherwise you'll get motion blur , and stop the lens down a bit for best results .

Either use the self timer or remote release to fire the shutter , otherwise camera shake might also creap in with it being such a light camera .

.

The camera I use for I.R is a Sony NEX 3 that i removed the hot mirror on , and replaced with an I.R filter .

Shutter speeds are the same as visible light with this , so hand held is fine .

Thanks neilt I made a note of that.

Nafiganado wrote:

Macro is not a macro actually... But I've already bought macro lens set.

Well, thanks to the 49mm filter thread the good old Minolta achromatic macro lenses are perfectly usable on the D7i. This enables together with the flash and the CD-1000 diffuser quite good macro capabilities:

IMHO still good enough for web-publishing, even for today's standards. These pictures are from 2002, i.e. 16 years old.....

ThomasB wrote:

Nafiganado wrote:

Macro is not a macro actually... But I've already bought macro lens set.

Well, thanks to the 49mm filter thread the good old Minolta achromatic macro lenses are perfectly usable on the D7i. This enables together with the flash and the CD-1000 diffuser quite good macro capabilities:

IMHO still good enough for web-publishing, even for today's standards. These pictures are from 2002, i.e. 16 years old.....

Nice shot's , and from a usability point of veiw , a nice size print can still be made , and the resolution of the camera is still grater than the average P.C screen or T.V to view it on .

neilt3 wrote:

IMHO still good enough for web-publishing, even for today's standards. These pictures are from 2002, i.e. 16 years old.....

Nice shot's , and from a usability point of veiw , a nice size print can still be made , and the resolution of the camera is still grater than the average P.C screen or T.V to view it on .

Thank you.
You're absolutely right. Maybe I will take it on my next vacation trip instead of my large and heavy FF cameras. Most probably more than good enough...

ThomasB wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

IMHO still good enough for web-publishing, even for today's standards. These pictures are from 2002, i.e. 16 years old.....

Nice shot's , and from a usability point of veiw , a nice size print can still be made , and the resolution of the camera is still grater than the average P.C screen or T.V to view it on .

Thank you.
You're absolutely right. Maybe I will take it on my next vacation trip instead of my large and heavy FF cameras. Most probably more than good enough...

The main problem with these older cameras is the limited dynamic range the sensors have .

In fairly even lighting there fine , but with harsh lighting it's easy to get blown out highlights or blacked out shadows .

Modern software such as Lightroom helps a lot though with RAW files .

neilt3 wrote:

ThomasB wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

IMHO still good enough for web-publishing, even for today's standards. These pictures are from 2002, i.e. 16 years old.....

Nice shot's , and from a usability point of veiw , a nice size print can still be made , and the resolution of the camera is still grater than the average P.C screen or T.V to view it on .

Thank you.
You're absolutely right. Maybe I will take it on my next vacation trip instead of my large and heavy FF cameras. Most probably more than good enough...

The main problem with these older cameras is the limited dynamic range the sensors have .

In fairly even lighting there fine , but with harsh lighting it's easy to get blown out highlights or blacked out shadows .

Modern software such as Lightroom helps a lot though with RAW files .

You're right. Maybe it's a better idea to take my more modern Ricoh GXR P10 (introduced 2010) instead.
It features a 28-300 mm lens (35 mm equ.) in a much smaller body with anti shake image stabilization and a 10 MP sensor. Like the D7i It has a tiltable EVF and external flash capabilities as well. Additionally the macro capabilities are simply stunning with the Ricoh, without any accessory.  
It's time to do a comparative photo session between these two cameras.

ThomasB wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

ThomasB wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

IMHO still good enough for web-publishing, even for today's standards. These pictures are from 2002, i.e. 16 years old.....

Nice shot's , and from a usability point of veiw , a nice size print can still be made , and the resolution of the camera is still grater than the average P.C screen or T.V to view it on .

Thank you.
You're absolutely right. Maybe I will take it on my next vacation trip instead of my large and heavy FF cameras. Most probably more than good enough...

The main problem with these older cameras is the limited dynamic range the sensors have .

In fairly even lighting there fine , but with harsh lighting it's easy to get blown out highlights or blacked out shadows .

Modern software such as Lightroom helps a lot though with RAW files .

You're right. Maybe it's a better idea to take my more modern Ricoh GXR P10 (introduced 2010) instead.
It features a 28-300 mm lens (35 mm equ.) in a much smaller body with anti shake image stabilization and a 10 MP sensor. Like the D7i It has a tiltable EVF and external flash capabilities as well. Additionally the macro capabilities are simply stunning with the Ricoh, without any accessory.
It's time to do a comparative photo session between these two cameras.

If your going to do some comparison shots with the Ricoh GXR P10 , please post them .

Always interesting to see how these things compare .

neilt3 wrote:

If your going to do some comparison shots with the Ricoh GXR P10 , please post them .

Always interesting to see how these things compare .

Sorry, but I've cancelled the plan to do a direct comparison. For me it's clear now that the Ricoh was the better choice for various reasons.

I can say now after return from holidays with my Ricoh that it's quite a capable camera for this purpose; i.e. low weight and small size with high versatility. In this respect the Ricoh is definitely the better choice.

The picture quality on small sensor unit is comparable. Most probably the Minolta lens is a little bit better in terms of CA's but the Ricoh lens offers more focal length; i.e. 28-200 vs. 28-300. On the other side the Ricoh offers a higher resolution. Additionally the Ricoh offers the possibility to exchange the lens unit hence I've had also my 28mm/F2.5 and 50mm/F2.5 lenses on APS-C sensor with me. The Minolta lacks of this feature.

Here are example pictures from the Ricoh with the P10 (small sensor unit):

Panorama from 6 pictures

And another one from the 28 mm unit (Actually 18.3 mm/F2.5 APS-C):

Particularly the 28mm unit with the 12MP APS-C sensor is awesome.