Minolta Dimage 7

The Minolta Dimage 7 camera is still use able but there are a lot better and cheaper ones available now.

1. The Minolta Dimage 7 has extremely high power cosumption - have many batteries ready if you want to go out with your Digital Camera for more than one hour!

2. Poor costmer support -- unbelieable poor!

I am a retired commercial photographer and wanted to try digital photography. I bought the DiMage 7 as it looked to have the most pro features for the money. I bought mine on eBay at a very attractive price. The manual requires study if you want to learn all the features this camera can perform. If you want a "point and shoot" camera, this is not it! It is feature laden and worth the time to learn them. That said, it is a great camera and allows you to be very creative.

Battery life is horrible especially in the highest quality mode and with the LCD monitor turned on. Thank God it uses NiMH AA's as they are relatively inexpensive. I now have 24 NiMH 1900ma batteries to keep me going. The only way to conserve batteries is to not use the LCD monitor (which is difficult to view in daylight and low light) and use a lower resolution setting for a smaller file size. Since I like large pictures, I shoot accordingly, using medium resolution only for "snapshots"

After I got it and found the power problems, I thought I might have a defective unit. I emailed Minolta with a description of my problem and only got an automatic response and never did hear from a person. After going to the internet, I found everyone had the same complaint.

When taking action photos, I find the auto-focus cannot do an adequate job keeping up with motion. Switching to manual focus is not much better because the viewfinder is not accurate enough to confirm tack-sharp focus. I do like the pivotal viewfinder. With manual focus, the response time for the shutter is more like a conventional 35mm. The zoom range is excellent and I have not found a need for any further lens ranges. Also, the adjustable ASA/ISO setting is wonderful. This allows the experienced photographer more latitude in controls, especially in depth of field. Typical of some 35mm zoom lenses is the focus changes as zoom length changes. You must be sure to check each shot for sharp focus if you are zooming much. One thing I really like is the adjustable diopter. With old age, so go the eyes. My wife's eyes are the opposite of mine. I need a plus 3 and she needs a minus 2. With this system, we can both see well.

The built-in flash unit is totally inadequate and you must buy the Minolta external flash unit if you intend to do serious photography. I wish Minolta would have added a PC connection so I could use my Metz but I had to buy the Minolta 5600HS flash instead. It does have the benefit of auto exposure which is nice but I don't like prism mounted flash units.

I have added a 128 CF, a 512 CF plus a 1 GB IBM Micro-drive. Also, UV, Skylight and polarizer filters. I only use my 128Mb CF card for movies to keep it simple. I can get about 15 1-minute movie clips. This is great for documenting panels, larger items that don't fit a still shot or family functions. It will never replace a camcorder but is a great feature for special situations.

I would prefer a longer neck strap and a little wider also. The camera is light enough that it does not "cut" into your neck but for over the shoulder, it has a tendency to slide off. Also, the strap fastens too close to the media door and I have found I did not get it shut all the way every time. On the subject of the media door, it should have a latch but doesn't.

Overall performance is excellent once you learn to use all the controls available. On a recent trip to the Yucatan, I took 1400 shots at 1600x1200 image size with fine resolution. This combination gave me excellent 11x14 prints on my Epson 2200 printer. The beauty of any digital camera is the ability to preview and delete bad shots on the spot. I didn't take the time and just kept shooting and viewed them when I returned home. Had it not been for six sets of batteries, I would have had to stop shooting most days. The Minolta EBP-100 battery pack is expensive. Fortunately, Radio Shack, Wal-Mart and others sell NiMH batteries with quick chargers at a very nominal charge. I would urge any buyer of this system to at least get one extra set with a quick charger.

I keep a UV filter on at all times to protect the lens unless I am using a polarizer. The included lens hood is a nice touch and definitely would be expensive if it was an accessory. I have tried a little macro photography and it seems to work fine. I did close-ups of jewelry and it is excellent but I found it would only focus close enough to have a watch fill the screen. A ring filled about 50%. Still, in macro mode it was very sharp and the prints were satisfactory. This is a great way to document your possessions for insurance purposes.

On my wish list would be the items I have mentioned in the review with importance on;

. An optical viewfinder and a twist LCD screen for very low angle or over the head photography

. Better power consumption

. A PC connector

. Black or grey body and a better, larger hand grip. I have a large hand and it feels awkward and slippery when handling it

. Of a minor fact is the metric distance markings but rarely do I pre-focus at a given distance but a metric/feet switch would be handy

. Lastly, a depth of field chart or better yet, let the electronics just display it in the viewfinder

I haven't looked at the other DiMage 7 models and they may have some of these items incorporated in them. Am I happy with mine? Absolutely! I am a critic and you asked. It is a fine camera and offers excellent features. When shopping prudently, it is a lot of camera for the money. Perhaps I will buy the Fuji or Kodak full size pro model at a later date but as I age, I find this is plenty of camera for me. Remember the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

I have now been using the Minolta Dimage 7 digital camera in the field for two months and have noticed some inherent problems with the camera. There are two significant problems that I have encountered that can significantly affect the ability of the photographer to capture the images he desires.

The first is the built-in flash. Unfortunately Minolta has seen fit not to allow the option of turning OFF the preflash. Experience has now shown that the preflash is of sufficient intensity that most subjects will involuntarily close their eyes. This means that when the main flash actually fires, the subject will have their eyes either partially or fully closed. This also makes the built-in flash UNSUITABLE for people photography.

The only current solution is to use an external flash that does not use preflash. The best option would be for Minolta to allow the preflash to be turned off, this would also make the builtin flash useable as a trigger for external flash units. Hopefully Minolta will allow this option in a (soon I hope) software upgrade.

The second gripe I have is somewhat more serious. This concerns the autofocus system employed by the camera. Even in daylight conditions the autofocus system is way too slow to allow the photographer to capture fast moving subjects (and no, the continuous focus setting does not help). This results in many lost shots, because the camera will not fire as expected, or you get out of focus shots because it did fire. In low light situitations, where one would normally require the flash, the situitation is even worse, resulting in even more lost shots or out of focus shots.

The ONLY solution here to to set the camera to MANUAL FOCUS and leave it there. Under these conditions, the camera actually performs extremely well. Since the camera now does not have to perform autofocus with every shot, the camera's responsiveness to the photographers demands is very high and few, if any, shots will be lost because the camera would not fire. Of course, the burden of making sure the camera is in focus is now placed on the photographer. This does require some diligence as it is quite easy to knock the focus ring while using the camera. In addition, one must watch the focus carefully if you zoom in on a subject. What might be in focus at the wide end of the zoom, might not be in focus at the long end.

Manual focusing is clumsy, at best. The viewfinder is way too low resolution to allow manual focus determination by eye. The zoom feature for focusing is good, but still too grainy for accurate focus determination. So the photographer is left with distance estimation to determine manual focus. One additional gripe I have here, is that the displayed distance is in meters, not feet. While I can mentally do the conversion, I'm afraid my brain still works in feet.

As long as I am on the subject, the viewfinder(s) require some comment. In bright outdoor situitations, the LCD screen on the back of the camera is useless. Just turn it off and save battery power. The EVF is the only option, but it too is very hard to see in bright light. It can really only be used for framing. Trying to determine manual focus is impossible. Oh what I wouldn't give for SLR pentaprism viewfinder. My next digital camera, I guess.

Best option for outdoor shooting is manual focus with aperature priority exposure control. Set the aperture to f8 or smaller and you will have an excellent depth of field, that should take care of most focus situitations. But one must still pay attention to focus when zooming and the shutter speed if you move from one lighting situitation to another.

The optics of the Dimage 7 does provide excellent results at all focal lengths, provided that the subject is in focus. I have found that the fine JPG setting provides the optimum image quality with maximum utilization of storage space. Unless I was going to do some very large enlargements, I really see no need to use either the TIFF or RAW settings, as they really do take up an awful lot of storage space. The JPG setting is saved with minimal compression (ie: very high quality), so image artifacts from the JPG format are minimized.

Before setting off on a digital only trek, I did some informal testing of the different image formats as saved by the camera. Much to my surprise, I found that the fine JPG setting produced LESS artifacts when enlarged 300 - 500% than did the TIFF or RAW camera formats. My brain says something is not right here, even though I did repeat my test and came up with the same results. It would be a good project for the more ambitious of you out there to run similar tests and confirm, or explain my results. I shot outdoors, on a bright sunny day with the camera on a tripod. Camera was in full auto mode (autofocus & exposure). I tried different focal lengths to test the lens at wide, mid and full zoom settings. I changed the image format between shots to have three identical shots for each focal length. I used the self timer to maximize camera stability.

Even with this setup, I found autofocus problems. Exposure was fairly consistant, and image quality overall was quite good. It was when I enlarged the images in Photoshop 6 and compared the three formats side by side that the image artifacts became noticable. I processed the raw files into both TIFF and JPG. The incamera JPG images showed less artifacts than any other format. Artifacts were most noticable on diagonal lines and fine detail. The artifacts showed up as increased blockiness in the fine detail, with the JPG (incamera) images being less obvious than the TIFF or RAW images. I should point out that the differences were not really noticable at a 1x enlargement of the image.

Summary, I love the image quality of the camera, but strongly dislike the builtin flash's preflash and the autofocus is virtually useless in a situitation where things are happening quickly. Even in a static shooting environment, the autofocus is still a royal pain. With autofocus turned off, the camera performs very well and there is almost no lag time when you press the shutter release. It is still not as fast and responsive as a good SLR, but it comes in a close second. With autofocus on however, responsiveness drops way down as you wait for the autofocus system to make a decision. I still consider the Dimage 7 good value for the (discounted) price. But, if you are looking for the responsiveness of an SLR, look elsewhere.

I've been looking for a digital camera for use in my work as a journalist for the last couple of years. I have too much stuff to lug about to conferences so a small digital camera had to be the choice. I've been using a canon S10 but the limitations are obvious. The Dimage is as near as damn to a the manual Nikon SLR I bought years ago but better. It took me about two days to get comfortable with the settings and controls and it's a real pleasure to use. Other manufacturers could learn from this - real functional controls are a lot easier to work with than menus... looking forward to what comes next - a dimage with changeable optics? Well done Minolta...Once you've used it the price doesn't seem at all bad!

A really good digital camera that has helped me to produce some great shots. Of the bad points the battery life is really unacceptable, who wants to spend a further £250 on a battery pack and carry the extra bulk? So dispense with the EVF and gives us true through the lens viewfinder or at least a GOOD optical viewfinder. At the same time mount the LCD on an articulated arm as Canon G1 etc. A rubberised grip would be good and the camera would be more to my taste in black.

I was looking forward to testing out this digital camera which apparently won digital product of the year according to the Minolta website.

I found the image quality lived up to expectations and the ccd screen very good. It produces good quality prints as large as A3.

The camera body felt a bit small in the hand, but the controls and menus were easy enough to master.

On the downside, I found that the electronic viewfinder was really poor, compared to other digital cameras that I have tried. This is an importantant point, especially if you're after a camera verging on professional quality, with a price to match.

Be aware that the battery pack that you WILL need and the extra adapter are expensive!

Overall try before you buy, this camera may not be to your taste, especially if you are after a professional piece of kit.

Would love a bigger rubberised hand grip (like new Nikon 995), occassionally it almost slips out of the hand. Would love a fold up rear LCD so camera can be at waist level on tripod, and you can look down at finder without having to grovel on hands and knees (like Canon Pro 70). I have already produced some superb A3 prints from this beast, and they are some of the best I have seen. The camera is a little agricultural being festooned with knobs, but it does work very well. A nice charcoal grey case wouldnt go amiss, it might give it a little more of a classy look than the gaudy silver case.