|
Introduction
The digital revolution has struck. Film is no longer king. In fact, for the majority of professional photographers film isn't even an option anymore. The speed of production and the ability to immediately provide the end product to the customer translates to profit for the professional photographer. If I can send a proof book home with a high school senior at the end of the photo session I am able to shorten the ordering cycle by at least one week, usually three. By providing proofs on a website, family members may order prints directly--again shortening the cycle. Wedding photographers can even sell prints at the wedding reception, expanding the number of people buying prints. I won't even get into commercial photography where the immediacy is demanded.
Unfortunately, the cost of entry has been high. A full-time professional is able to justify the purchase of $5,000-10,000 worth of new equipment. A part-time professional is not. As a result, the "weekend warrior" is either using film-based technology (claiming superiority of film to justify its usage) or using poorly designed and built digital cameras to get by.
I'm in the second category. The weekend warrior. But I also shoot for stock and lots of black and white. For black and white, I still proclaim the superiority of film. My main reason is the final print. Tonal response and grainless look of digital is quite good, but I prefer a good silver-gelatin print over digital output. I have a well-equipped darkroom facility and the capability to produce high-quality output. Therefore, film will remain a part of my active kit.
Defining the Need
When selecting any photographic tool, it is important to define the need and specify the application. Do I need digital for black and white? No. Do I need digital for fine-art photography? No. Do I need digital for portraiture? Yes. Do I need digital for weddings? Yes (and no). Do I need digital for commercial work? Yes.
Ok, I've defined my applications. Now let's determine what specific capabilities I need for those applications. What focal lengths are needed for portraiture? 50mm-150mm (35mm equivalent focal lengths specified on this page). What focal lengths are needed for weddings? 35mm-100mm. What focal lengths are needed for commercial work? Typically 50mm-200mm, but a few specialty lenses are desirable.
I didn't specify sports, action or wildlife photography. I shot those things many years ago, but haven't made a business of it for the past dozen years. By defining the scope of my needs I am able to better determine what camera features are important to me.
Do I need 50 shot buffers? 8 fps performance? ISO 1600? Not really. What I need is reliable and flexible integration with strobe lights (both portable and studio) with high sync speeds. I need a zoom lens with halfway decent optics. I need superior handling. I need quiet (for ceremonies and other live events). And I need the ability to shoot as close to final output as possible without cropping. I need accurate colors.
I have one other need that is very specific to me. The camera grip must not bother my wrists. Most modern SLRs and DSLRs have grip shapes that aggravate my wrists and cause numbness in minutes. One very popular camera line causes total numbness in seconds. Obviously, I can't use that line no matter how good it is in every other way.
Other Concerns
A full-time pro may be able to justify a new camera purchase every two years. I cannot. I still have film needs and can't completely convert over to digital. Getting a high-quality DSLR system is desirable, but not practical yet. The systems that are within the price window have substantial weaknesses. The current standard of high quality DSLRs is the Canon 1DS. Cameras with 6 mega-pixels, while currently the industry norm, will become tomorrows backup cameras. We're already seeing that with the Canon 1D Mark II. It hasn't even hit the market and people are planning the replacement of their current "state of the art" 6MP cameras.
Just look at the prosumer market and notice the 8MP cameras hitting the market. Today's prosumers are an indication of what's coming in the DSLRs later this year.
Examining the market
I really like the Olympus E-1. The camera has incredible handling, good image quality and fits my needs very well. But I will not be able to turn enough business through it before it has to be replaced. An E-2, with 8MP will achieve the resolution that will keep it viable for a longer period of time. Canon is the industry standard. I've tried and tried to use these fine cameras, but the grip shape/size makes it not possible for me to use them. It's a shame, really, after all, I can get an adaptor to use my existing Olympus lenses on it. Nikon has the D100, the D70 and of course Fuji has the S2. All fine cameras, but each based on a camera body with gaps in professional capabilities. Yet, with the 6MP sensors, they are in the same boat as the Olympus E-1. In short order, we will see an onslaught of 8MP (or more) DSLRs hitting the market with expanded buffers, better noise characteristics and faster autofocus. Minolta is even upping the ante with image stabilization built right into the camera.
If a person, like me, could wait just a little while longer, but I can't.
Is there a temporary solution?
Yes there is. By limiting the scope of the digital camera to specific needs I am able to find several cameras on the market that meet and exceed my CURRENT requirements. These cameras augment my kit, but don't replace it. By delaying the purchase of a DSLR for even a few months I am able to better invest my money on equipment that gets me closer to a 100% digital solution. And, this temporary camera solution will provide adequate backup or specialty use once I do get the DSLR system.
Enter the Minolta A1
In researching the cameras on the market, I became quite impressed with the Minolta A1. This camera is placed in the high-end of the prosumer market but provides extensive professional features not found on most sub $2000 DSLRs. The A1 is a complex camera with more options and high-end traits than any other prosumer camera.
For the past six years I've been using an Olympus IS-3 "ZLR" camera in addition to my regular kit of Olympus OM gear and various medium and large-format cameras. The IS-3 has proven to be a fine performer and is 90% of what I've needed. A digital version of that camera, with several important improvements would suffice.
Specific strengths of the A1: Image aspect ratio (no cropping required for 8x10 prints). Manual zoom. Nearly silent operation. Quality lens. Neutral and accurate colors. Manual overrides and customizations for nearly every feature, capability and setting. Direct Manual Focus (DMF) provides instant manual-focus override of autofocus. Minolta has also included excellent flash control and an external x-sync connector. It wasn't a deciding factor, but "Anti-shake" is built into the camera.
Specific weaknesses: EVF (electronic viewfinder). Image noise at higher ISO settings. Barrel distortion at wide-angles. Lack of overall resolution due to sensor size and optical limitations in this format. Bokeh, or lack of it.
I was ready to purchase the A1 when Konica-Minolta announced the A2. I seriously considered this camera and delayed my purchase by over a month to see how much of an improvement it is over the A1. The A2 is a better camera with a 8MP sensor, faster autofocus (the A1's is no slouch), high-res EVF and a few other minor enhancements. No functional differences exist between the A1 and the A2. Feature-wise they are nearly identical.
The 5MP A1 was sufficient for my needs, and with the goal in mind of purchasing a DSLR system later this year I decided to pocket the difference ($450 at the time) and get the A1. The A2 is a better camera, but wasn't necessary.
Conclusion
The Minolta A1 has proven to be everything I expected, has no negative surprises, and is not quickly out-grown. This is no "toy camera". It is a serious photographic tool, capable of no-compromise shooting. Image quality is adequate for the task. Skintones are excellent, colors neutral and the camera allows you to shoot portraiture and print with a minimum of post-processing. I can shoot portraits and achieve as good out-of-camera prints as I was able to get with a professional lab handling my printing with film. When is good, good enough? I can post-process when needed, but it's nice being able to achieve quality results without it. I want to post-process because I want to, not because I need to.
On these pages, I will be presenting certain aspects of the A1 along with test results. I'm not going to review the camera in the typical manner. You can jump over to www.dpreview.com to get that. I'll be writing more about usage than technology.
The photo at the top of the page is straight out of the camera and only resized using the Dimage Viewer. No sharpening, curves or other adjustments made. The below photograph illustrates the sharpness of the lens.
Additional sample photos taken with the A1 are available here.
|
|
