Few questions about Minolta A2

Michael Fritzen wrote:

Hike Pics wrote:

... Also, I noticed that when I set the lens on macro the resulting shot was way overexposed.

Sounds weird because the macro switch shouldn't interfere with exposure parameters but only allow for a shorter shooting distance. Not sure if I remember correctly but I think it engages in two zoom positions only, shortest and longest FL. Or one only?

Correct: you can only use the Macro switch and the tele end and the wide end. It locks the lens so that zooming is no longer possible, but it should not influence exposure.

The macro switch is also recommended in case you use the ACT-100 1.5x tele converter or the ACW-100 0.8x wide angle converter. The purpose is to prevent zooming, since the convertors (that screw onto the lens) are rather heavy.  You also have to set the tele/wide angle converter option in the menu to override the macro function of the macro switch.

The difference in exposure is around 4 stops. No wonder the top one is heavily overexposed.

Maybe the metering was thrown off somehow. I cannot help you really with this, since I always use my A2 in manual mode. I have the live histogram visible in the EVF and check exposure that way, so I bypass the metering of the camera.

Michael Fritzen wrote:

I wouldn't discard completely the possibility that cards >4GB can be used but if I remember correctly the 4GB limit has to do with the file system used (FAT32). Anyhow 4GB should be fine even for shooting in non-compressed RAW. I started in 2004 with 512MB - really small for shooting RAW, then later I got a 2GB.

BTW a nice feature of the A2 is its time lapse operation.

My A2, which I use constantly, has an 8gb card. It affects the photo numbering sequencing in some manner, which is immaterial to me. I just found a Firmware upload link which updates my firmware from it's current 1.1 version to 1.4e. It requires a minimum of 16 GB...which I have on order.

joelbolden wrote:

Michael Fritzen wrote:

I wouldn't discard completely the possibility that cards >4GB can be used but if I remember correctly the 4GB limit has to do with the file system used (FAT32). Anyhow 4GB should be fine even for shooting in non-compressed RAW. I started in 2004 with 512MB - really small for shooting RAW, then later I got a 2GB.

BTW a nice feature of the A2 is its time lapse operation.

My A2, which I use constantly, has an 8gb card. It affects the photo numbering sequencing in some manner, which is immaterial to me. I just found a Firmware upload link which updates my firmware from it's current 1.1 version to 1.4e. It requires a minimum of 16 GB...which I have on order.

You can update to 1.14e with a much smaller card. IIRC I used a 2GB card for the update. If you refer to firmware support for bigger CF cards: yes, for cards > 4 GB you should use 1.14.

BTW, it has little to do with the FAT32 limit: that limit is 2 TB. It is it's predecessor FAT  that is limited to 4GB. So my educated guess is that the 1.14 firmware adds FAT32 support.

There is also another limit: both FAT and FAT32 are limited to a maximum file size of 4 GB per file. To bypass this problem, Microsoft released exFAT.

EXX wrote:

joelbolden wrote:

Michael Fritzen wrote:

I wouldn't discard completely the possibility that cards >4GB can be used but if I remember correctly the 4GB limit has to do with the file system used (FAT32). Anyhow 4GB should be fine even for shooting in non-compressed RAW. I started in 2004 with 512MB - really small for shooting RAW, then later I got a 2GB.

BTW a nice feature of the A2 is its time lapse operation.

My A2, which I use constantly, has an 8gb card. It affects the photo numbering sequencing in some manner, which is immaterial to me. I just found a Firmware upload link which updates my firmware from it's current 1.1 version to 1.4e. It requires a minimum of 16 GB...which I have on order.

You can update to 1.14e with a much smaller card. IIRC I used a 2GB card for the update. If you refer to firmware support for bigger CF cards: yes, for cards > 4 GB you should use 1.14.

BTW, it has little to do with the FAT32 limit: that limit is 2 TB. It is it's predecessor FAT that is limited to 4GB. So my educated guess is that the 1.14 firmware adds FAT32 support.

There is also another limit: both FAT and FAT32 are limited to a maximum file size of 4 GB per file. To bypass this problem, Microsoft released exFAT.

You can certainly use a card smaller than 16GB .

On the page for downloading the firmware on Minolta's website , there is a PDF which explains things .

It says you must use a card of 16MB or greater .

That's 16 Mega byte's , NOT 16 Giga byte's !

Follow the links here ; https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/index.php?id=2308&L=0%2Fi

.

Did they even have a 16GB card out when this firmware update was released ?

In any case , the card just has to hold the data for the cameras firmware .

Some modern cameras I think need a few hundred MB for it , I can't imagine any camera having firmware anywhere close to even 1 GB , let alone 16 .

joelbolden wrote:

Michael Fritzen wrote:

I wouldn't discard completely the possibility that cards >4GB can be used but if I remember correctly the 4GB limit has to do with the file system used (FAT32). Anyhow 4GB should be fine even for shooting in non-compressed RAW. I started in 2004 with 512MB - really small for shooting RAW, then later I got a 2GB.

BTW a nice feature of the A2 is its time lapse operation.

My A2, which I use constantly, has an 8gb card. It affects the photo numbering sequencing in some manner, which is immaterial to me. I just found a Firmware upload link which updates my firmware from it's current 1.1 version to 1.4e. It requires a minimum of 16 GB...which I have on order.

See my above post .

To do the firmware update it states you need a minimum of a 16MB card not a 16GB card .

Follow the links to the download page and see the PDF here ; https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/index.php?id=2308&L=0%2Fi

Your 16GB card won't go to waste though , it'll fit a heck of a lot of shots on it in this camera !

Just see Z5 for about $45. Have always liked the shape. Important reasons not to buy? I need few reasons to buy, it seems...;-)

I have the Z6, a slight update to the Z5 (6 MP vs 5). It's a nice shape, easy to hold, easy to use. To be honest though, since I got my Dimage A200 it has gathered dust. Not sure why but I just like the A200 a whole lot better. You may find the same with your A2.

If you just want to collect a range of Dimage cameras, I guess it's worth having, and $45 is not a fortune (though my Z6 was half that).

Brian Chichester wrote:

I have the Z6, a slight update to the Z5 (6 MP vs 5). It's a nice shape, easy to hold, easy to use. To be honest though, since I got my Dimage A200 it has gathered dust. Not sure why but I just like the A200 a whole lot better. You may find the same with your A2.

If you just want to collect a range of Dimage cameras, I guess it's worth having, and $45 is not a fortune (though my Z6 was half that).

Well, the seller did get a few bad reviews, so maybe not. It would not bee used much, but easier than A2, which is a bit awkward, even if the quality is fine. Most Z5 reviews mention noise even at ISO 100, but it's got 50 too. I think more will appear, really big sale for $150 some years ago.

A200 seems more practical than A2, but maybe not the same IQ?

The consensus at the time was that the A200 was a slight improvement on the A2 for IQ, because of an upgraded processor and lower base ISO. Of course the downgraded EVF was a disappointment but that only affects viewing and has no impact on output image quality.

Brian Chichester wrote:

I have the Z6, a slight update to the Z5 (6 MP vs 5). It's a nice shape, easy to hold, easy to use. To be honest though, since I got my Dimage A200 it has gathered dust. Not sure why but I just like the A200 a whole lot better. You may find the same with your A2.

If you just want to collect a range of Dimage cameras, I guess it's worth having, and $45 is not a fortune (though my Z6 was half that).

I bought a few of the Z range of cameras several years ago , 8-10 years ago maybe ...

They seem to have raised in value since as I didn't pay more than about £15 for mine , boxed with bits etc .

Nice little camera to play around with but I do prefer my a200 .

I had last week off work and got out into the Yorkshire Dales , between that and a film camera it got the most use as it for nicely under my coat to protect it from the rain !

Having had a good battery in it for a while this last month or so seems to have brought the internal battery / capacitor back to life .

Now when I change batteries the date and other settings are retained !

I did notice the main batteries don't get anywhere near as many shots as they used to .

I don't know if they need conditioning ( I.e used , charged , discharged etc ) or replacing yet .

I'll see how they get on , only got about 50 shots out one of them .

Brian Chichester wrote:

The consensus at the time was that the A200 was a slight improvement on the A2 for IQ, because of an upgraded processor and lower base ISO. Of course the downgraded EVF was a disappointment but that only affects viewing and has no impact on output image quality.

It is a shame about the viewfinder , but where it gains is the tilt swivel rear LCD .

Great for those low down shots , especially close-ups like shots fungi .

Brian , you seem to be using your a200 quite a bit recently .

Have you noticed how many shots you get out of a fully charged battery ?

I'm off on holiday again in six weeks and thinking if going out with mainly this and my large format film gear .

I'm undecided if I need to get new batteries for reliability .

I know my batteries for the Dynax 7d and A2 are still spot on and hold a good charge , I just can't remember how much  I should be getting out of these .

Cheers .

I have an original battery and a fairly new third-party; both perform about the same.

The manual reckons 260 shots from a full charge but I think I get 120-180 (depending on how much I use the screen) As both batteries do about the same, I put it down to ageing of components in the camera.

Also my internal battery is dead so I have to reset date and time when I change batteries.

Brian Chichester wrote:

The consensus at the time was that the A200 was a slight improvement on the A2 for IQ, because of an upgraded processor and lower base ISO. Of course the downgraded EVF was a disappointment but that only affects viewing and has no impact on output image quality.

I did not know much about these cameras. But to the great expert here, A2 was kind of holy, he never mentioned A200. So I just had to buy A2. Fine for photo walks, but not for carrying along, like others could be. A200 could be better. Instead of Canon S3, have not compared.

Brian Chichester wrote:

I have an original battery and a fairly new third-party; both perform about the same.

The manual reckons 260 shots from a full charge but I think I get 120-180 (depending on how much I use the screen) As both batteries do about the same, I put it down to ageing of components in the camera.

Also my internal battery is dead so I have to reset date and time when I change batteries.

I thought it took about that on a charge .

As I use it as a secondary camera I know during a week away I've rarely had to change the battery .

I've got quite a few batteries so I need to check them out . It was lucky I had a spare in my pocket !

.

The internal battery had died in mine easier in the year .

Even after a few weeks of the main battery being in it hadn't improved .

As soon as I changed it for a fresh one , I had to reset the time and so on again .

It seems to have sorted itself out now as when I change the battery , everything's still there .

I think after a year or so of not being used it had gone really flat , and after a few months of being back in use it's recovered !

Has your camera been out of use , or has the internal battery died over time ?

The camera has spent long periods out of use, and has been charged up and in regular use for about 12 weeks now. I will use it through the summer and hope the internal cell regenerates, but I don't hold out too much hope, After all, it's a 15-year-old camera.

I can cope with resetting date and time anyway. I'm grateful that's all that is wrong with it.