Geir Eivind Mork wrote:
I'm as one might guess a Minolta user with lots of minolta lenses. I'm
at last considering going digital, but Minolta hasn't exactly been
releasing tons of cameras to consider.

I currently have a Minolta 700si which predates the Minolta 7 which the
Minolta 7d is based on. And I really like the build of it compared to
the cheaper 5-series. But the Minolta 7d is still 6 megapixles and goes
for about US$750-up on the used marked (where i know to look at least)
and the 10 mpx a100 do go for US$1000-up.

So, Either the build quality and (in some way) better handling of the
7d, or do the a100 pack that much punch to be prefered at that price point.

It IS the image quality that is important. I love doing landscapes,
nature, mountainbike / skiing shots and urban nightlife. So it have to
be the one of the two that gives me the best result in that under same
conditions.

Anyone help me choose?


I use both. If you shoot landscapes, there is no contest; the A100 wins.
It has finer detail processing as well as more megapixels, and it
retains far more of the 'grass and twigs' info than any other camera I
have used or own. That includes the Canon 400D and the Nikon D80, which
equal it in megapixels, but just are not as high in resolution for the
sort of fine marginal detail which makes landscape stuff come to life.
The 7D has rather nicer landscape colours and I far prefer its user
interface and feel, but for detail - the A100. That covers landscapes
and nature (the A100 also wins out for fur and feathers).

For mountainbike and skiing shots, the A100 wins when the light is
excellent - when you can shoot at 100 or 200 ISO. It has faster, more
accurate focusing and although the shooting speed is about the same (2.8
frames per second or so, using either JPEG large fine or RAW+JPEG) with
a good card the A100 will shoot 9 or 10 continuous RAW and - I have
tested it.. - over 500 continous JPEGs in a burst! The 7D will lock you
out after a burst of only 3 RAW images or half a dozen JPEGs. There's
not much in the shutter lag between them; they are not as good as the
film 7 or the 700si, maybe about 10 milliseconds lost between pressing
the button and getting the capture. But the A100 will generally be ready
to shoot every single frame you take even when the action is fast.

Where the A100 would fall down would be mountainbike forest trail shots
under tree shade in winter. I've done this, using the original Nikon
D100, at ISO 6400 and even that was barely enough. At 1600, the 7D beats
the A100 hands down; the A100 gets very grainy and noisy. The 7D is
better even at 400 and 800. Low light, fast action, high ISO essential -
you need to do lots of NR post processing on A100 files and lots of
shadow detail is lost.

Urban nightlife, not sure. If you use flash+slow speed synch, which is
my preference for atmosphere and effect in club and carnival type shots,
the A100 does it better out of the box. The flash exposure is more
accurate. Setting the required different compensation factors for flash
and ambient is tedious, through menus, where the 7D offers real dials
you can just turn - and three user memories where you can save such
presets, and get to them instantly. Urban nightlife pix are not wanted
huge generally and ultra fine detail is not critical. I'd rate the 7D
better if you have the skill to test and set up flash, and ideally get a
thyristor-sensor auto flash instead of a 'mock TTL' job. But again the
A100 is smaller, and this can help in clubs, crowds.

Overall I would pick the A100. I just took mine to Barbados for two
weeks, along with our 5D (the 7D stayed at home in the studio, light
cameras preferred for travel). 5D - quite a lot of sensor spots! A100 -
not a sensor spot in sight, dust free. Lots of lens changing, sand, jeep
safari, rain, wind, sun, etc and as yet I've not found one frame out of
a thousand and more from this trip with any sensor dust.

David