The ZLRs I own

Harkhof wrote:
[]
 > I'm coming to this thread late, but would you mind posting the
 > reasons you rejected this camera?
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Hark

I've written about this before but:

- the images did not deliver the quality I expected

- the images were no better than the Nikon 5700 the Minolta A2 was due to
replace

- in-camera JPEG mode had nasty artefacts, requiring that you shoot RAW.
(The software supplied RAW to JPEG convertor didn't have these artefacts).

- there were faults in the Minolta A1 which were not fixed in the A2

- the image stabilisation indicated that it didn't work at lower shutter
speeds (e.g. 1/10s)

- the viewfinder was of "tinny" construction and did not articulate fully

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: The ZLRs I own 

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message
 > Harkhof wrote:
 > []
  >> I'm coming to this thread late, but would you mind posting the
  >> reasons you rejected this camera?
  >>
  >> Thanks,
  >> Hark
 >
 > I've written about this before but:
 >
 > - the images did not deliver the quality I expected
 >
 > - the images were no better than the Nikon 5700 the Minolta A2 was due to
 > replace
 >
 > - in-camera JPEG mode had nasty artefacts, requiring that you shoot RAW.
 > (The software supplied RAW to JPEG convertor didn't have these artefacts).
 >
 > - there were faults in the Minolta A1 which were not fixed in the A2
 >
 > - the image stabilisation indicated that it didn't work at lower shutter
 > speeds (e.g. 1/10s)
 >
 > - the viewfinder was of "tinny" construction and did not articulate fully
 >
 > Cheers,
 > David


Thanks, David!
 >> Stay informed about: The ZLRs I own