Minolta DimageX vs DimageXi (2MP vs 3.2MP)

michaelsanford

michaelsanford

Translator, Web Developer
Minolta DimageXi | Minolta DimageX

I'm interested in getting a small, light, digital camera for some non-professional digital photography.

The only cameras I have used are, or are above, 3.2 megapixel, and were used for printed media (newspaper). I don't really know what the difference will look like if I choose a 2 megapixel.

To clarify, I'll probably use it exclusively for images that will end up being on-screen (or on-web) at 1024x768 or lower end resolution, no print media.

So will shelling out extra bucks for 1.2MP more make any difference?
 
Hmm, I don't think you really want to get a DimageX. The picture quality generally sucks, and no matter where the focus is (err, it can't be adjusted manually either), pictures become blurry. I don't know many other cameras, but Canon has some small ones, and they are probably much better.

If you still really get one of these, I'd be more than happy to trade mine for a better quality, but bigger camera ;)

Here are some examples - pictures I took last summer - http://public.urbanturban.no/pictures/norway
(probably a bit slow right now, having trouble with our ISP)
 
Those were all taken on a DimageX eh... wow you weren't kidding. Are the images blurred because the camera's optics are poor, or because it's 2 MP?

And thanks ksv, pictures are exactly what I was looking for! I love finnmark.JPG, we have some of that around where I live hehe, but ours don't stick to one side of the road :p
 
The 3.2 MP camera would probably suit you better because you can size them down to whatever size you need, sharpening along the way. You can also crop a larger image to use as a source if you take a picture where the subject matter is too small.
 
Originally posted by michaelsanford
Those were all taken on a DimageX eh... wow you weren't kidding. Are the images blurred because the camera's optics are poor, or because it's 2 MP?
Click to expand...

Poor optics obviously, I can get better light sensitivity with a low-end video camera :p
Not only are pictures blurry - dark areas become grainy.
A higher resolution camera does of course automatically give better pictures, because they can be scaled down afterwards and the won't look as blurry. But when you buy a 3.2 MP DimageX, it still doesn't give usable pictures unless you scale them down to 1024x768 pixels. You'd still have problems with the light, though, and you really wouldn't want to pay that much for this camera.

Originally posted by michaelsanford
And thanks ksv, pictures are exactly what I was looking for! I love finnmark.JPG, we have some of that around where I live hehe, but ours don't stick to one side of the road :p
Click to expand...

:D
Yea, those are reindeer, owned by some Sami family. I guess I really should have named that picture "reindeer.jpg" instead, Finnmark is the county the picture was taken in :p
 
Yeah, Minolta touts their folded optics in the DimageX/i as being really great--guess not! I'll look around at other cameras, thanks ksv :)
 
Originally posted by michaelsanford
Yeah, Minolta touts their folded optics in the DimageX/i as being really great--guess not! I'll look around at other cameras, thanks ksv :)
Click to expand...

What makes it special for its size is the 3x optical zoom. But that's the only good thing about the optics :p
But the zoom doesn't have much use anyway, as the camera isn't quick enough to shoot pictures when holding the camera in your hand without getting really blurry. That is unless you carry a tripod, which kind of ruins the purpose of a shirt-pocket camera :p
 
Actually, I would have a tripod with me almost 100% of the time I'll use it.

Given that, would you upgrade it's peformance?
 
Originally posted by michaelsanford
Actually, I would have a tripod with me almost 100% of the time I'll use it.

Given that, would you upgrade it's peformance?
Click to expand...

Not really. You still can't adjust focus manually, so pictures get blurry anyway. Look at the pictures at http://deep.urbanturban.no/ - those are all taken with the same camera on a tripod. I had to crop/scale them down to 160x160 pixels and make the grayscale to make them look acceptable. Look, the ethernet connector still looks blurry, and I did three different shots of that one :p

If you can carry a tripod, I guess you could carry a one inch thck Canon, too ;)
 
That picture of the reindeer has a Jetta and what looks like an old Toyota hatchback in the background.

Oh yeah, don't get the Minolta, get a Nikon or a Canon.
 
ksv, you should try taking a picture of that Enet cable through a mag glass or something to try to get a bigger picture.
 
Thanks ksv and arden.

By the way, the tripod I'm thinking of is one of those 'tabletop' ones, which I can stick in a pocket too.
 
Have you actually used a Dimage and compared it to other cameras? Do you buy a car straight off the Internet, or do you go to the dealership and test drive it? You should go to the store and get a Jetta and a Toyota hatchback—I'm sorry, compare the Dimage series to other small cameras, like the Elph or the Coolpix 2500. Actually take a picture, see how the camera performs, see how the picture turns out, and do the same with others, and then make your decision.
 
arden, that's exactly what I'm soliciting.

Because no camera store in my city will let me take out one of their cameras, take a photo, download it, and compare them (sadly!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top