|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Photography >> Digital KonicaMinolta
A2
The new
Sony F828 heralded a significant step up from the previous 5 MP resolution
standard in the high-end digicam market and you just knew that the other
major brands would not allow Sony to have the market all to itself.
And so it was at the PMA show in February 2004 that Canon, KonicaMinolta,
Nikon and
All the
new 8 MP digicams would seem to offer something unique that may appeal
to a prospective buyer, but from my own reading of the reviews of this
latest crop of high-end digicams, all are far from perfect. The Nikon
8700 does not really seem compelling in any way, the Canon Pro 1 has
some good and some bad about it to make about average, while the Sony
had nice ergonomics, but poor RAW handling and purple fringing issues.
The
Then we have the KonicaMinolta A2, a camera that seemed to be the least of all evils with a couple of features that distinguishes it from all the other me too products. BUT, some reviewers expressed concerns about the ultimate resolution available compared to the other 8 MP cameras. One reviewer suspected an older lens design that is not up to 8 MP snuff, but read Luminous Landscape and you’ll find such concerns dismissed as “pixel peeping”. That is, to do nothing more than view an image file at high magnifications without actually seeing what the image looks like on print, because what you see on screen may not translate to lower resolution photo paper. I can go along with this to a certain extent, because I’ve experienced it myself. Photos I have taken with the Nikon D100 at ISO 800 appear pretty noisy to me on the monitor, but when I print them with my Epson 1270, the noise is not as apparent. Viewing an image at 100 percent magnification on the monitor is the equivalent of looking at the image as a huge poster due to monitors having low 72 or 92 dpi resolutions. Doing so is about the only way you can really see all the details, but will those details make it through to the actual print, e.g., going from a huge poster view back down to an 8x10, 11x14, or 12x18 print? It would
have been nice to compare the output of the A2 with another 8 MP camera,
such as the
Digicam versus D-SLR
Many will be attracted by the better economy of buying an all in one package instead of having additional lens costs with a D-SLR (if you did not already have lenses available). Indeed if you look at the Nikon D70 kit, it retails for CAN $1900 versus CAN $1300 for the A2. For many consumers CAN $600 is significant enough to tilt the balance in favour of the A2, plus you can buy those flash cards and other accessories to make better use of the A2. While there is a cost savings and other benefits, such as reduced sized and weight, no CCD dirt build-up, amongst others, there are some disadvantages too. Digicams are not as fast in responsiveness and handling as D-SLRs. The dreaded shutter lag time can be the difference in getting a shot and wondering what happened because from the time you press the shutter release to the time the camera actually takes a picture, can be significant in digicams and virtually non-existent with pro D-SLRs. Related to this performance issue is a low memory buffer, so that even if you could run off a few frames in a row fairly quickly, a small memory blocks you very quickly afterwards with having to wait for the camera to write to the flash card. Then there is the viewfinder, which in an SLR is optical and offers a what-you-see-is-what-you-get view of the world through the lens (TTL). With the top-end digicams, what you get is an electronic viewfinder (EVF) that will also provide a what-you-see-is-what-you-get view, but the trick is can you actually see what you are going to get from a tiny, low resolution LCD? The A2 has the advantage of having the highest resolution viewfinder of all the 8 MP digicams, but for some that is faint praise because it still does not compare to the bright optical view of an SLR viewfinder and that is enough to not consider a digicam as a serious photo taking tool for these critics. The last major Achilles heel to consider (for me) is noise. Digicams use digital sensors that are tiny compared to even half-frame digital sensors used in Nikon D-SLRs. The smaller the sensor the less sensitivity to light, or a worse signal to noise ratio, resulting in image quality that can suffer very quickly after you move up in the ISO range. Small sensors are improving in quality, but a larger sensor will always outperform a smaller one, but to what extent? This is a prime question that I sought an answer to when I compared the A2 to my Nikon D100. In case you wonder why high ISO is so important, it can be as mundane as attending your kid’s Christmas pageant and discovering that even at ISO 800 and with a f2.8 lens, your shutter speed is still a dangerously slow 1/20 in the dim lighting of the school’s gym. If you have VR or anti-shake, it can provide some sharp images at such speeds, but only if your subject is relatively still. Any movement and all you get are ghosted images. The better your high ISO performance, the better the chance of coming home with images that can printed and framed, or put in an album. Other general factors to consider:
I’m sure there are other comparison points to make, but the above are the ones that I would look at to decide if a digicam could work for me, with Ultimate Quality being the primary factor. Ultimate quality entails a few factors besides the obvious resolution, but also noise characteristics, purple fringing, speed and handling for RAW files. The KonicaMinolta DiMage A2 DP Review et al. have already posted feature reviews with everything you need to know about the A2 while Luminous Landscape has already reviewed it from a field photographer’s perspective, so there is no need for me to get into too much description about what the A2 is all about. I’ll just add a few personal comments about the A2. Of all the 8 MP cameras to come to market, the A2 was the one that got my attention wholly undivided because of one primary feature, image stabilization (IS). As far as I know (but am likely wrong) the predecessor A1 was the first digicam to offer IS built into a digicam chassis. While the traditional IS/VR developed by Canon and Nikon is built into the lens, the A1/A2 went about it a different way and incorporated it into the body, a seemingly good idea for this class of camera and one that is going to be taken to the next step when KonicaMinolta produces their first D-SLR. Pop Photo magazine indicated that KonicaMinolta went this in-camera IS route to avoid the patents that Canon and Nikon have for in-lens IS/VR mechanisms. The advantage of this approach is that every lens offered by KonicaMinolta (or third party brand) becomes an IS/VR lens; a new lease on life for older lenses. Nikon expert Thom Hogan speculated that Nikon could release a VR capable teleconvertor, which would achieve much of the same result for the lenses that need it the most, larger super telephoto lenses. I certainly hope Hogan’s speculation turns into reality. After reading of the usability of the A2 by Luminous Landscape, it confirmed in my mind my initial impression that the A2 is the top-end digicam to beat even if its lens is not up to 100 percent magnification snuff for other reviewers. However, what you think is good and what it actually ends to be in personal handling can sometimes be very different. My photo junk box is testament to that experience. The A2 in Hand
The A2 does have an accessory grip, but I did not have access to one. It is as small a camera as I would want to use for serious photography, even so, the A2 felt right in my hand, so kudos to the ergonomic designers at KM. Most of the controls are pretty obvious and I could begin shooting with the A2 almost instantly without referring to the manual. Just a couple of not so obvious buttons and menu access required a review of the manual. With my old Coolpix 950 (now on its last legs of usage, so I’ll be shopping for a replacement soon) I always used the rear LCD instead of the optical viewfinder for greater framing accuracy. With the A2, I found myself instinctively using the EVF for all of my serious usage with the camera. No, the high resolution EVF still does not compare to an optical viewfinder for quality, but for most general applications, I had no problems with framing and focusing. In very low light environments, the EVF provides a B&W view instead of color. Focusing was satisfactory as was shutter lag, which while not as good as the D100, is certainly far better than lower cost digicams. It is also very thoughtful of Minolta to have provided the ability to switch on the fly from the rear LCD to the EVF automatically based on a sensor detecting when your eye is near the EVF. As with Minolta film SLRs, the A2’s handgrip also has sensors to detect when to activate the auto focus of camera if you have the grip sensor and full time auto focus settings on in the A2’s menu. The handgrip sensor works with the EVF sensor to activate the AF, otherwise, the A2 goes into a power saving mode. Focusing through the viewfinder was generally quite acceptable for speed and lock on. It wasn’t as a bad of a transition for me to go from a rear button controlled AF on the D100 to the shutter release controlled AF. I don’t prefer this method as it means having to activate AF every time one wants to be ready to take a photo. However, it was really spiffy to have a movable focus point. The A2’s manual indicates that the focus point can moved anywhere in the frame via the old styled Nintendo game pad like control at the back of the camera (Nikon was the first to adopt this approach with the groundbreaking F5 in 1996). This isn’t true, as the focus point cannot approach the very edges of the viewfinder frame, but the usable space is still very generous. Pressing the central button in the game pad control brings the AF point back to center. Exposure metering bias appears to be tied to the focus point, as I noticed the exposure change depending on where the focus point was aimed at, even though I was mostly in evaluative metering mode for most of my time with the A2. Metering seemed accurate enough and the ability to see a live histogram is a fantastic feature to fine tune the exposure.
Where the EVF primarily fell short for me was in macro distances where there did not seem to be enough resolution for me to really determine if the subject was in sharp focus, or slightly off focus. With macro photography, depth of field can be so short that every single mm of distance counts, but I found that the DOF of the A2’s lens was great enough to mask any focusing errors that might have been made. I also believe that it may just be that my eye needs to adjust to what the EVF displayed for macro ranges and that continued use would see me become more comfortable with it. Speaking of the lens, it is a 7.2 – 50.8mm zoom with a variable aperture of f2.8 wide open to f3.5 zoomed out. The lens barrel is thoughtfully marked in 35mm format equivalent of 28 – 200mm, which makes for a much more meaningful way to use the zoom lens.
The lens has a 49mm filter diameter, meaning that you can use pretty much any kind of filter you desire, but given that this is digital, filters are a lot less important than with film cameras, except for the polarizer, which still has a place in every photographer’s bag, film or digital. The lens has a macro mode switch that can only be engaged when the lens is either at the minimum or maximum focal lengths, but not at any setting in-between. Macro mode is a somewhat generous term despite being able to focus very close to the subject, the magnification is nothing that is going to be an insect photographer's delight.
The A2 provides manual focusing capability of the lens via a ring placed at the base of the lens. It’s somewhat loosey-goosey in feel and combined with having to use the EVF for focusing, not a very high use feature for me. Since the A2 I used is a loaner from a kindly manager at work and given that I only had two-weeks with it, I’m not going to say much about the ergonomics of the camera. Everything seems fairly easily accessible, but I’m one of those guys that believes that ergonomics cannot be fully commented until there has been regular long term usage of a camera. Two-weeks do not qualify me enough to speak well or ill of the camera, other than some very broad, but generally positive comments. Unlike the D100 that put shooting modes (the PASM, or SPAM if you prefer) and major picture quality controls on one dial, making for a shooting inconvenience, KM separated the two functions onto two different dials.
This second dial has a button in the middle that has to be pushed to engage the camera into the selected function and then one of the two main command dials is rotated to select the desired setting. The A2 also offers an effects feature that can produce a B&W image or have that image sepia toned. Interesting for some perhaps, but not of interest to me when I can do that and much more with Photoshop with better control and finesse. There are also auto modes that reveal that the A2 is targeted to the consumer market, as much as to the photo enthusiast (the usual Portrait, Sports, Night or Landscape mode among others). Video mode is available and in the form of Quicktime movies, which would seem to make the A2 a very versatile camera, especially since the video appears to not suck like those of cheap digicams with less than VGA resolution and only 15 fps quality. However, what looks promising on paper is much less so in practice. While one can obtain close to VGA resolution video files (640x480) of 544x408 at 30 fps for up to 6 minutes, the quality leaves much to be desired. The A2 allows one to zoom the lens while filming a video clip, but the focusing during video mode is that of still frame mode, meaning focus hunts continuously unless one sets manual focus mode at a set distance and then touches up manually when shifting to a different subject. The A2’s video mode is too Jekyll and Hyde for my liking and I prefer the simple video mode offered by a cheaper digicam such as the Sony P10, that while not offering zoom capabilities, does not hunt for focus all the time. Aside from the fps difference between the $600 Sony, the A2 and P10 seem to offer similarly bad video quality. For simple
web site use or e-mail sending, the A2’s video mode will do, but for
those looking for a camcorder replacement, I’d suggest you keep looking.
Unfortunately, true bridge cameras that can do good stills and good
video are likely to be a couple of years away still, but I hedge these
comments until I can see the output from the newer MPEG 4 capable digicams
from
Flash mode appears to be pretty decent. You can set flash compensation to obtain more pleasing outdoor fill flash photos, or use an accessory flash. The unfortunate aspect of the A2’s flash shoe is that it is proprietary to KonicaMinolta flash units. While the proprietary hot shoe is lauded for being a great improvement over the Leica designed and ubiquitous shoe used by almost every other company, it makes for a limiting experience for external flash use. A PC sync socket is available and if I really needed to, I could use my wireless trigger with some studio strobes. However, what KM takes away, it does give in providing compatibility with a flash system that was quite advanced in its day for wireless flash control, albeit long in the tooth now when compared to the wireless TTL systems offered by Nikon and Canon. The A2 can be used as a control with other wireless KM flash units and interestingly, the built-in flash utilizes distance measurements from the lens as part of the pre-flash calculations for more accurate flash exposures. If it sounds somewhat familiar to Nikon users, that’s because this is basically Nikon’s much lauded 3D Matrix Flash technology that Nikon users have had since 1992 with the original F90 and SB25 flash unit. KM even has D lenses that have a distance chip in them just as Nikon’s D lenses have had since 1992.
A little light painting with the rear-curtain sync mode>> The built-in flash is a manual pull-up type that I prefer over automatic pop-up flashes, but it does not pull up very high, so red-eye could become an issue at distances greater than the 12 or so feet that the flash is good for. There is also a tiny bit of vignetting seen in the corners when the lens is set to 28mm and the subject is at relatively close distances to the camera. At 200mm, I was surprised to find no vignetting at normal distances, but at macro distances, there is ample vignetting seen, as the lens and its hood cast a shadow over the bottom third of the frame. When the flash is up and you are in P or A mode, the shutter speed defaults to 1/50, which is not so strange for me as a Nikon user as Nikon cameras default to 1/60 when in the same modes. However, once slow or rear curtain is set on my Nikons, the shutter speed then returns to whatever speed is required to obtain an accurate ambient exposure based on the aperture chosen. Not so with the A2, as the shutter remains at 1/50 even when the rear-curtain flash mode is set. Only by going into M or S modes can you over ride the default shutter speed. If the ambient light conditions warrant, the A2 will increase the speed to faster than 1/50. Minolta
surprised me with the quality of their flash accessories for the A series
of cameras. For macro photographers, you get not only a ring flash unit,
but a twin flash bracket setup that offers the potential for some pretty
high quality flash lighting. Canon and I believe
The anti-shake mechanism does work with the effectiveness being dependent on how steady an individual user is. Use of the anti-shake feature likely contributed to the less than expected battery life of the A2, as my experience with my own 70-200 VR lens is of a major power drain whenever VR is used. The A2 also becomes quite warm whenever the anti-shake feature is on. The heat buildup is right where the battery and flash card chambers are located in the bottom and rear right of the camera’s grip. While the heat buildup did make me initially wonder about the long term health of the A2, I don’t really expect it to be an issue. Many other digicams also produce prodigious heat, such as my old Coolpix 950. I found that the anti-shake feature was not as effective for me as I expected. Even at 200mm and 1/20 of a second, I found I was able to hold the A2 steady enough that the anti-shake frame was much more modest than compared to the VR of my 70-200 lens. In the comparison photos below, it quite obvious how unsteady I am with the big 70-200 lens.
One of the big distinguishing features of the A2 besides the anti-shake feature is the ability to do a very modest burst of shooting of up to 3 frames in RAW mode. I did not test burst mode in JPEG mode since I do not shoot JPEGs unless I absolutely have to. It is telling of how restrictive the performance of top-end digicams is when the A2 is considered amongst the best of the lot with its tiny 3 RAW file buffer. I did some test shots for noise and resolution comparisons with the Nikon D100 and while I was able to get my shots on the D100 in pretty quick order, I had to wait and wait for the A2 to flush its buffer. What took a couple of minutes on the D100 probably took me 15-20 minutes to do on the A2 because the buffer and write speed to the flash card were inadequate. Many have remarked on the low-level performance and buffer capabilities of the D100 class of cameras, but the D100 is a speed demon compared to the tortoise A2 for buffer flushing. Image Quality At 8 MP, the A2’s RAW file is just under 12 MB in file size, about 2 MB more than the D100’s 6 MP RAW file size at just under 10 MB. At 300 dpi print resolution, the A2 outputs a 8.16x10.88 inch print. At 200 dpi, the A2 provides a 12x16 inch print, which should be just fine for printing and framing. I’m not big for interpolation, so I did not test how well the A2’s image files could be scaled up.
Much has been made of the purple fringing demon that seems to have afflicted the first generation of 8 MP digicams. The Sony F828 being first off the mark also bore the brunt of criticism for purple fringing in some everyday shooting conditions. One friend of mine had high hopes for the F828, being a user of the predecessor F717 and F707 cameras, but he was quickly turned off by the purple fringing characteristics of the F828. For the A2 in my hands and usage, purple fringing was non-existent for general everyday shooting. I “thought” I saw the barest hint of purple fringing at the 28mm lens setting with a wide-open f2.8 aperture when I did what I thought was a torture test. This was from taking photos of a thin dining room window that faces west right into the sun. As the sun streams through the white curtain, it creates an extreme contrast range between highlight and shadow regions, but I saw next to nothing. Next up was the classic purple fringing test of taking photos of backlit tree branches and leaves, which did reveal some pretty ugly purple fringing at the widest angles. However, keep in mind that I purposefully went looking for purple trouble and the sample below is not indicative of the A2’s everyday performance. In fact, my comparison to the Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S lens revealed that this lens can also produce some pretty ugly looking purple fringing, as can my Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 wide-angle zoom lens. This is one area where SLR lenses may not have any superiority over the digicam, depending on the quality of the lens.
In reviewing photos taken at the lowest default ISO 64 setting, I see little to complain about. After an appropriate amount of sharpening has been applied, the image files from the A2 are quite good. I will note that at times, there seems to be a gritty, pepper-like quality to the A2’s image files when reviewed at 100% magnification on the monitor, a grain that isn’t seen in my D100 image files when the lowest ISO 200 is used. Does this grain-like quality show in prints? Given the criticism Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape received when he reviewed the Sony F828 late last year (2003), I’m hesitant to answer, but yes, it “can” be something seen in prints, but this is dependent on subject matter, editing and sharpening levels applied, which can accentuate the grain. On some image files, I don’t notice it, but I do on others, so I don’t wish to make too much of it and detract from the fact that the A2 is quite capable of producing some very good looking prints. On a pure resolution basis, I don’t see much advantage to 8 MP versus 6 MP from a D-SLR like my D100. The A2 and the D100 appear to resolve the same level of resolution, which is saying a lot for a small sensor equipped camera. Again, it depended on individual images, but for some subjects I thought the A2 gave bit more than the D100 and on others the D100 appeared to resolve more. Keep in mind that this is only true of the lowest ISO levels on the A2, which are 64 and 100. Going into the higher ISO ranges generates too much noise to be of much use, even when filtered with a great application such as Noise Ninja 2.0. Resolution Comparisons to the Nikon D100 Image files were sharpened with a USM of 300%, Radius 1, Threshold 0. All JPEGs have been saved at maximum quality. First subject, a US $20 bill. D100 lens used is the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR.
High ISO Noise and Filter Factor Along with the buffer and memory limitations of digicams versus D-SLRs, noise is the other critical factor to consider. In a previous look at mid-level digicams versus the D100, I found that the D100 to be obviously superior, but not by as big a factor as I thought there would be. I also found that my ancient Coolpix 950 outshone some current digicams when used at the maximum ISO 400 sensitivity levels. So, I was very curious to see how well the A2 would fare. In reading other reviews and users comments, almost all concluded that ISO 800 is unusable even with Noise Ninja or Neat Image Pro noise reduction treatment. Other commentators that were more critical also declared that ISO 400 was unusable for serious applications with ISO 200 being the usable limit for these new 8 MP digicams. Thus, while my comments here are specific to the A2, they probably can be extrapolated to cover the other 8 MP digicams, because of the use of the either the same or very similar CCD chip. In short, I was very surprised at how poorly the A2 performed at even ISO 200. Regular readers will know that I have no love of the high ISO qualities offered by my D100. I curse when I have to use ISO 800 and I’m apoplectic if I have to go as high as ISO 1600, which I consider to be barely acceptable for any kind of serious application. So far as I’m concerned, ISO 800 and ISO 1600 are strictly for reportage style photography and we don’t even want to touch the ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 with a giant 10-foot Gitzo tripod on the D100. With the A2, starting at ISO 200 and doing comparisons to my D100, I see that the A2’s ISO 200 is worse looking than the D100’s ISO 800. It isn’t quite a three-stop slam dunk for the D100, but my estimate is of a two-and-a-half stop advantage enjoyed by the D100 over the A2 when looking at how much noise is generated at one ISO and compared to another on the D100. If you don’t believe my words then look at the sample images below. Yes, I sharpened each image file because all digital files converted from the original RAW require some sharpening. While it can be argued that each ISO level requires a custom amount of sharpening, my application of the same sharpening amount at all ISOs is consistent and equal. What we’re seeing is just how much the little CCD in the A2 is pushed to its limits and beyond when set to anything higher than ISO 100. Keep in mind again that while these samples speak poorly of the A2’s noise characteristics, this is generally the same for all the other 8 MP digicams on the market. Image files were sharpened with a USM of 300%, Radius 1, Threshold 0. Images on the left have only been sharpened, while those on the right have been filtered through Noise Ninja 2.0. All JPEGs have been saved at maximum quality. D100 lens used is the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR.
Conclusion I really wanted to like the KonicaMinolta A2, because it seemed like it would be a great camera to have around the house for kicks. Family picnic? No problem, toss the A2 in a waist pouch and off I go without the need for any additional lenses or accessories. Family birthday, same thing, or for when the kids are being especially cute, snap off a few shots for posterity or future embarrassment and blackmail. You could even go on vacation secure in knowing that with a bit of stability, the A2 could produce many keepsake photos. The A2 is compact compared to a D-SLR, but not that compact, as my D100 sans MB-D100 and with a relatively compact lens attached, is not really that much larger and can fit into the same waist pouch referred to above. The D100 provides the additional benefit of a longer lasting battery, superior handling and performance and better RAW file buffer flushing and writing to the compact flash card. If I did not already have the D100 and if my film shooting background did not have Canon or Nikon products in play, then a camera such as the A2 and its ilk could be a reasonable purchase. The A2 offers an all-in-one package and I didn’t see much to criticize the lens used in the A2, so one could obtain very high image quality that is the equal to a 6 MP D-SLR when used at the lowest ISO settings and of course with the obligatory tripod to steady those Starbucks’ grande latte shakes. For those times that no tripod is available or desired, the anti-shake feature is a valuable feature that alone puts the A2 at the top of the 8 MP heap in my opinion. Ergonomically, the A2 seems fine. I could easily get use to it after long-term usage and familiarization with where all the controls are and what they do. As mentioned at the beginning, most controls are straightforward and one could start taking photos almost immediately. However, it would have been nice to have a metering bar that most film cameras offer to indicate how far or under what the meter calculates is the correct exposure (the live histogram is a nice alternative though). And it would have also been nice for a frame counter to be shown even when the camera is powered off, just as the D100 does, and lastly, a buffer counter to show how many frames are left, or when a shot is available instead of a little red light indicating the files are being written to the card. Unfortunately, as I do have some experience with a D-SLR and given my Nikon using past, I personally could not justify the A2 as a viable purchase. Performance wise, the A2 does not compare to the D100 and given that experience, I could not live with a camera as limiting as the A2 is. For people such as myself, with a Nikon or Canon pedigree, the D70 or Digital Rebel makes a lot more sense because of the nearly same money involved to buy a D-SLR body alone. Add to the performance restrictions the quality offered by the A2’s high ISO settings and it becomes a nearly impossible sell. I do have a need for a usable ISO 800 and as much as I grouse about the D100’s own ISO 800 quality, it completely wipes the floor with the A2. While the A2 may not be the right kind of camera for me, it could very well be for many others. Certainly for those willing to extract the maximum the A2 can provide, the images can be very rewarding. As for myself, I’m still interested in a good digicam and if the A2 were a lot smaller and cheaper, it would be a killer compact camera, but as a high-end bridge camera, the bridge isn’t long enough to reach my shores yet. For those of you that own one of the 8 MP digicams and are very happy with its quality, please don’t send me all of the reasons and justifications for your purchase, because my comments are strictly from my perspective with all of my own inherent biases about what I need and want out of a digital camera. My comments do not invalidate your decision either already made or pending. A2 Images
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
In
late 2003, Sony fired the latest salvo in the digicam wars when they
announced and then released their F828 camera. A camera that boasted
8 megapixels of resolution thanks to a new chip developed by Sony that
could see beyond the standard tri-fecta of red, green, and blue (RGB)
to add cyan to the mix.
Some
call high-end digicams bridge cameras, ones that attempt to bridge the
gap between low cost digicams with high cost D-SLRs. The bridge camera
usually offers even more features than a D-SLR, mated to a decent lens
and with 8 MP of resolution; you have the potential for a good sized
enlargement.
The
KM A2 in hand is very good. I’m not one for small cameras, even if my
hands are not so big. I like having beefy cameras for a good grip and
there was no question that I would not have a grip for any camera I
own since I first bought the MB10 grip for my long gone F90x SLR. I
have MB15s for the F100 cameras I use and the MB-D100 for the D100.
The
ability to raise the viewfinder from straight up to its normal straight
down is a big plus when using it on a shorter tripod such as my Manfrotto
190. No more back stooping pain. Unfortunately, KM provides a rear LCD
that can only be raised up and down like the EVF, but not pulled out
and twisted as is the case on a number of the better digicams from Nikon
and Canon. Frankly, it would have been better to have offered an LCD
that could tilted downwards since the EVF already tilts up. At least
this way, one could do the overhead quick grab shot favored by journalists
and frame properly instead of shooting blind.
The
zooming felt rather cheap though, just like a consumer zoom lens made
of plastic, which, 
The
typical PASM dial is on the top right of the camera while the picture
quality dial is found on the top left side of the camera. This second
dial accessed such parameters as ISO, White Balance, Drive and Metering
functions among others. I’m not entirely satisfied with this, but it
is a good way to keep the clutter to a minimum and not have too many
buttons all over the place, a good compromise.
There
is no slow-sync mode, but there is rear-curtain sync which is just as
good for still life subjects and more useful for moving ones, along
with the usual red-eye reduction feature.
