The importance of camera styling and appearance

[BadMan]

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera. Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens. Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy- sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big factor in that decision.

 

[The Man]

Styling IS important, IF YOUR IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY. When it come to photographic equipment or any type of "tool" do do a job, the only important consideration that truly counts is the end result.

Reading all through this forum I've seen many intelligent discussions relating to the D7 and some truly asinine comments also. Many of the comments regarding the appearance of this model camera lean more toward the asinine. Listen people, its real simple, just like a car, a house, clothing, etc some people will like the appearance of a new product and other people won't. Everyone is definately entitled to their opinion, BUT, when the only result that really counts is the end result, in this case the picture, to make a decision not to buy the D7 because of its looks before you really give the camera a try is not an intelligent decision. Thats cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Personally, I like the looks of the Dimage 7 but thats NOT why I'm now using one (yes, I DO have one here not 5 feet away and have already taken about 100 pictures with it and they are nothing short of spectacular!). I choose the Dimage 7 because of its FEATURES, its PERFORMANCE, and its VALUE. All I care about is the end result and this camera delivers everything I wanted in terms of the picture quality. The appearance was never a factor because its not important to how the camera performs. Am I a pro photographer? No, not anymore. I used to be - its how I made my living and even during that point in my life the looks or appearance of a camera is not relevant. The only thing that was relevant was the pictures that I took that I got paid for and If I used a Nikon F5, a Minolta SRT-101 or a piece-of-crap anything camera I didn't care as long as the results were good.

As for standing in public to take a picture, I don't care what ANYONE else thinks of the equipment I use, I'll let the pictures speak for themselves. If all you care about is how YOU look or how impressive of an image you are trying to project of yourself while you take your pictures than maybe you should rethink your priorities in buying a camera. Do you decide that you want a particular wrench or socket set to repair your car just so you look good or look like a professional mechanic while your under the hood??

DooDah, I respect your decision not to buy the D7 because you don't like the looks of the camera - it will be in very short supply for the next month or two anyway and you now free up an additional unit for somebody else. Someone who will probably end up taking better pictures than you will with whatever "pretty' camera you finally decide upon.

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Martin45638]

To follow up, but not in regards to the styling of the D7 as I think digital photography is a progressive industry, and I feel that the D7 has a progressive look to it ... so, no problems on my end with respect to styling, I want great pictures! Period.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Kate Smith]

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious.

Only the ego could feel self conscious! The serious photographers will just get on with the job in hand! Why not have the unusual looking camera as a 'conversation piece', nice way to make friends with people. I am going to enjoy my camera and who knows...it could turn into the next 'must have' accessory for all those label snobs out there!

These threads only fill in time until the majority of us can get our hands on our cameras...then the real discussions can start in earnest! and those that aren't going to get one can go and play in another forum!

Kate

 

[The Man]

AF speed seems very quick to me, both in the single mode and also in continous AF mode. My wifes cat runs and jumps around the house like a pycho with dyanamite up its a** and the focusing is fast enough to keep up with her. I haven't have a chance yet to try it out on any other fast moving subjects though. Regarding the shutter lag that I've seen discussed in other threads, the D7 is very responsive. of course, its faster when you prefocus otherwise you have to wait for the focusing system to comfirm focus before the shutter fires, just like on all AF cameras. But as I've just related, I'm very happy with the speed and especially the accuracy of the focusing system. With prefocusing, the camera is very quick to fire.

As for the EVF and LCD, they are the best i've ever seen. I think I understand what was being discussed in the other thread regarding "delay" but I don't agree with it. You can't directly compare an electronic viewfinder with an optical one - they are two different animals. For example, if you are looking through an optical viewfinder and very quickly shift the camera your eye can lose the subject because you are moving across the scene so fast. This can actually cause more of a delay in the picture because your eye has to refind the subject for you to recompose. With the EVF, things "seem" to move more slowly although I find they really aren't. Because of the electronic nature of the EVF and the very fast refresh rate of this particular one, by the time you shift the camera to a new position the EVF has already caught up with you but its done so without the apparent "blur" you can get with an optical viewfinder. I feel this may be the "delay" being discussed in the other thread. I have NOT found this has affected my ability to capture an image that i've wanted or caused lost shots. all its really doing is showing you in the EVF the proper scene but electroniclly and I can understand how this may be difficult for some people to get use to if they are not familiar with using one. I do find both the EVF anf LCD screen bright enough and accurate enough even for manual focusing. As for the quality of the LCD back display, its by far the best I've seen on any digital camera to date.
I hope this helps you.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent
AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another
thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would
greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Homer40784]

DooDah (Now there's a name that inspires confidence that this person is one who has cognicent thoughts on industrial design)

I'm really getting tired of you immigrants from other forums coming into our house calling our camera ugly.
Have you even SEEN one of these cameras, you pinhead?
Most of us have not.

We, and I would assume you, are working off Review photos, which are NOT posted to show how good looking the camera is. They show as many attachments, etc deployed as possible. Do you even know what a lens hood is? Do you have half an ides why it is shaped the way it is ? And it is shaped that way for YOUR camera too.
The most reasonable photos I have seen are at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7/D70A3.HTM

Look at the first head on shot.
Ugly?
I think not. I find it quite handsome. Compared to ANY Digicam.

Quite obviously if you find the camera unattractive, and that is suffucuent information for you not to choose it, then by all means buy something else. But we didn't need to hear your thoughts. And you didn't have to come in here talking about "dog ugly' (You really are a head case if that measn something to you........I also like dogs) unless you are a troll. And that seems eveident.
BTW, Have you checked out the new Barbie Cam? Right up your alley I would think.
Not handsome of course. But pretty, very pretty.
You would just love it.

Homer

PS NOTHING does candid shots like a good zoom.

H

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Bernard Carns]

Uhhh....maybe you should go up to the Gucci counter the next time you're in Nieman Marcus (did I spell that right, I never buy there...) and ask them where the Gucci cameras are....

BC

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Sam Moore]

Look at the first head on shot.
Ugly?
I think not. I find it quite handsome. Compared to ANY Digicam.

Quite obviously if you find the camera unattractive, and that is
suffucuent information for you not to choose it, then by all means
buy something else. But we didn't need to hear your thoughts. And
you didn't have to come in here talking about "dog ugly' (You
really are a head case if that measn something to you........I also
like dogs) unless you are a troll. And that seems eveident.
BTW, Have you checked out the new Barbie Cam? Right up your alley I
would think.
Not handsome of course. But pretty, very pretty.
You would just love it.

Homer

PS NOTHING does candid shots like a good zoom.

H

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

Everyone is gonna have their own opinion on the looks of this camera.. I for one look at the style of the camera as well as its features. Its like saying.. a car goes from A to B so any will do even if it is a Pacer. People that own the camera or have one on order should stop getting so upset by the remarks of it being so ugly. I think the Nikon 990 looks diabolical, probably worse than the dimage 7. I like the styling of the olympus 2100, fuji 4900/6900, even the D7 to me is preferable to the likes of say a Kodak Dc290 or fuji 4700,6800. There is no doupt the Dimage D7 will be an excellent camera, but if the Fuji 6900 and D7 were identical in features and performance.. in all honesty which would you choose??? the better styled camera of course

Regards Tim

 

[dave37420]

Actually - and I know i'm out there compared to the traditionalists - I really like the styling. I think it's cool looking - modern, high tech, new. Styling will definately not be a concern for me with this camera, unless the ergonomics are bad. For that, will have to get my grubby hands on one.

dave

BC

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Giovanni]

Let me say only two things.

The perception about what it's ugly and what it's nice it's strongly depending on the cultural influences.

In many fields these cultural influences get organised in some waves, commonly called "fashioins".

The fashion change making a changement in the perception of the beauty from the peoples: e.g. who consider today nice a wear typical of years '70 ?? Who now wear like Austin Powers???
All say that these wears were terribles, ugly etc..

Probably they will say the same about the our wears of today in the year 2010 or 2020.

In this moment the people consider nice only the cams that are similar to 35mm and are preferably are black.
More the digicams are far away form this design more are considered ugly.

If the digicams will become very popular and the D7 will be a top seller and other producers will start to copy this desing in 7-8 years the people will start to consider "ugly" all the cams that will not have the apparence of a D7 and a strict requiremnt for a nice cams will be to be silver.

What more indicate the future on the styling is in this moment is the functionality: this trend is clear if You see the line of the new European cars.

In Europe now the typical design of actual amercan cars is considered absolutely ugly. Instead the deign of the american SUV is considered nice as the desing of Japanese SUV.

The perception of what is ugly and what is nice is absolutely relative and frequently guided by the current fashion.

De gustibus not disputandum est.

PS I'm Italian, I wear Armani and my shoes are by Missoni.

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

 

[Martin45638]

Thanks very much for your detailed thoughts, and I guess now I will simply have to wait until some shops around Toronto get in some shipments ...

I would ask you one other question, but it may be outside the scope of your knowledge considering it involves a difference between the D5 and D7, if you look at Minolta's dimage site ... it seems to indicate that the CCD does NOT gain up in low light situations on the D5, only on the D7 ... have you read any remarks to this effect?

It would be a real shame, considering the otherwise slight differences between the 5 and 7 ... but if low-light shooting takes a hit on the 5, then I'll probably be happier with the 7 ... any other comments regarding this point would be welcomed.

Thanks again!

Kind regards,

Martin

To follow up, but not in regards to the styling of the D7 as I
think digital photography is a progressive industry, and I feel
that the D7 has a progressive look to it ... so, no problems on my
end with respect to styling, I want great pictures! Period.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent
AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another
thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would
greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

 

[Hugo Martinez]

I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

B*lls*ht, Mr DooDah, or Carstairs, or Codpiece... or whatever other name you choose to go by at this minute... so how is that little Oly C700UZ you recently bought? My guess is that you are suffering from both Buyer's Remorse and Sour Grapes Syndrome.

People, check out his profile. This guy has been posting at DPReview for only one week, has written just 12 messages and yet has already gone through three aliases.

Hugo
http://hugomartinez.com

 

[probepro]

I'll come clean too - I actually like the looks of the D7, and I really couldn't care less what anyone who sees me with a D7 thinks. Having said this, I remember being very impressed by the craftsmanship (and looks) of my first Nikon SLR, especially the silky smooth Nikor lenses. Cameras like watches are a delicious blend of craftsmanship and technology, but cameras are not a fashion statements, unless of course you just want to impress people. There was one such phony individual in the Oly forum who went on and on about how the looks of the E-10 (which is a very handsome camera) inspired him to take great pictures. Apparently he sold some expensive Canon SLR to buy the E-10. For him, the classic looks of the E-10 legitimized trading in the film camera for a digicam.

Chuck

Actually - and I know i'm out there compared to the traditionalists

• I really like the styling. I think it's cool looking - modern,

high tech, new. Styling will definately not be a concern for me
with this camera, unless the ergonomics are bad. For that, will
have to get my grubby hands on one.

 

[JCDoss]

...[since you are not buying a D7 because you find it ugly, you will] now
free up an additional unit for somebody else. Someone who will
probably end up taking better pictures than you will with
whatever "pretty' camera you finally decide upon.

It is really possible to judge someone's photography skills based on whether or not they find the D7 ugly?!

JCDoss

 

[MikeA]

Egad, it's endless, isn't it? No sooner does one thread like that end than someone else decides to "troll" again...

Have you even SEEN one of these cameras, you pinhead?
Most of us have not.

Egad, what will the "trolls" do if someone buys a Dimage 7 and says: "I think this thing is beautiful?" Then, the "trolls" have a serious problem. Cuz then they have to prove it's not beautiful.

I think not. I find it quite handsome. Compared to ANY Digicam.

Well, there it is. But "DooDah" will probably do the classic "troll" thing -- post the one message and then not be heard from again.

 

[The Man]

Martin,

The "Automatic Monitor Amplification" as it is called is only on the D7, not on the D5.

Also, when the lighting is very low and the monitor automatically increases gain it will switch to black and white but the sharpness and detail is still outstanding. It's more than enough quality to still be able to frame precisely and also manual focus.

If you are choosing between the D7 or D5 and money isn't the primary consideration, I'd recommend getting the D7 if for no other reason than the higher resolution. I may not always need the 5.2MP for what i'm doing, but having it allows me to do any additional cropping or other work in Photoshop (which always reduces the pixel count) and still have enough resolution or pixels left over to be able to print what size picture I want. If I try that on a lower 3.3MP camera I usually have to end up with a smaller size final picture becaure with the cropping, etc, I've reduced the file size enough that to get the quality I'm looking for I can't get the print size I may want or need.

Other than the Automatic Monitor Amplification, the other differences between the D7 and D5 are:

1. focal length of the lens on the D5 is 35-250mm compared to the 28-200mm on the D7. This is because of the difference in the CCD chip size although the lens is actually identical to what is on the D7.
2. 3.3MP CCD chip on the D5 as opposed to 5.2MP CCD chip on the D7

3. The D5 has a 256 segment Super Multi-segment metering where the D7 has a 300 segment super Multi-segment metering. Both systems do also read and meter for color.

4. The D7 has a 4x magnification switch for the LCD which also helps while manual focusing, etc., the D5 doesn't have this feature.

5. Drive mode: the D7 can do 1.1 fps up to 7 frames in hi-res mode. The D5 can do 1.6fps for up to 20 frames in hi-res mode.

I hope this helps

I would ask you one other question, but it may be outside the scope
of your knowledge considering it involves a difference between the
D5 and D7, if you look at Minolta's dimage site ... it seems to
indicate that the CCD does NOT gain up in low light situations on
the D5, only on the D7 ... have you read any remarks to this effect?

It would be a real shame, considering the otherwise slight
differences between the 5 and 7 ... but if low-light shooting takes
a hit on the 5, then I'll probably be happier with the 7 ... any
other comments regarding this point would be welcomed.

Thanks again!

Kind regards,

Martin

To follow up, but not in regards to the styling of the D7 as I
think digital photography is a progressive industry, and I feel
that the D7 has a progressive look to it ... so, no problems on my
end with respect to styling, I want great pictures! Period.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent
AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another
thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would
greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

 

[SweetCharity]

I am sure that Minolta will be heart-broken over your choice to not purchase their Dimage 7. However, I think that your reasoning is rather misguided.

Any digital camera will attract a certain amount of attention in public. I was one of the original digital camera users, long before removable memory. Anybody remember the Kodak 25? I can't tell you how many strangers would walk up to me and ask me about my digital cameras. And that was a somewhat normal looking camera by comparison.

Its still a new arena. People are still curious. Get over it. Otherwise, cough up three grand for a Canon D-30 body, a few more hundred bucks for a lens (maybe 2) and flash and get the hell off Minolta's back.

Now, to address this Dimage 7 issue.

Its hot. Its happening. And it'll blow any other equally priced camera out of the water (and probably a few higher priced digitals too). The lens ranges from a 28mm to a 200mm with macro, and does well in low light situations.

I've seen some 11x14 photos produced from the Dimage 7 and let me tell you, the clarity and color is un-f* ing-believable. I just got mine and I love it.

The Dimage 7 is far from a "kid's toy."

 

[David Roberts]

Hi Sweet Charity,

Now that you own a D7, please give us who are waiting with bated breath a thumbnail review of it from the user's point of view.I know we'll get one from Phil soon enough, but how does it perform for you?? Never mind thihs ugly/beauty nonsense, does it take photos?
Dave

 

[Bob the Printer]

All of your thoughts and observations about your D7 have been invaluable to a lot of us and for that I thank you very much.

Now, do you perhaps have any 'samples' to share with us??

Thanks in advance!

Bob Dolson

 

[Bob the Printer]

These threads only fill in time until the majority of us can get
our hands on our cameras...then the real discussions can start in
earnest! and those that aren't going to get one can go and play in
another forum!

Kate

Ain't THAT the truth! (On both points!)

I haven't seen THIS much excitement about a digicam in a long time (if ever)...

Bob Dolson