The thing I'd like to hear from Michael is a head to head comparison of the Electronic Viewfinders in the three cameras. I started out with a Minolta D7 early on and found the EVF to be unusable. Are they better now? Which is best? Until convinced that I can tolorate an EVF, I'm still leaning toward a G5 as a carry around camera.

Greetings! Having used both the Sony F828 and the Minolta A2, I can offer a somewhat educated opinion about these two cameras' EVF and performance in general.
The F828 is a solid, robust, comparatively large digicam with a beautiful Zeiss lens. For outdoor shooting, nature, landscapes, school sporting events (soccer, etc.), I can wholeheartedly recommend this camera. It focuses very fast, with virtually no shutter lag, and seems reliable. However, the porblem I have with it is in studio, where I must be able to critically focus on small product details. For this reason, I investigated the Konica Minolta A2, with its high-res EVF, among other things. I can say without a doubt that the A2 wins the studio shooting hands down! The EVF is very nice, and the 922K pixel viewfinder, coupled with Direct Manual Focus that works in tandem with autofocus, has resulted in some incredibly sharp and detailed images. For an example, please see this link:
http://www.totalqualityphoto.com/product.i...40&size=big
In addition, the author of this site (LL) has kindly furnished lens tests and has concluded that the lens on the A2 is at least as sharp as the 828 Zeiss optic at mid-range focal lengths! That was good enough for me to try the A2!! And so far, I am not disappointed! The apparent lack of Chromatic Aberrations (and noise at higher ISO ratings) that plagued many 828s, and that the incredibly powerful dedicated Maxxum 5600 HS(D) Flash allows wireless remote TTL synched flash photography out of the box, not to mention the myriad customizable features and functionality of the A2! I think the A2 must be the most feature-rich camera made to date. Plus, the two things that turned me away from the Canon Pro 1 were lack of a mechanical manual focus and the need for a separate filter adapter.  However, I do understand tha the images from the Canon can be quite good as well. Bottom line: If critical macro focus and low light (high ISO shooting) are not issues for you, the Sony F828 should be fine. However, for the reasons listed above and other advantages, including high image quality, great EVF, compact size and varied accessory options, the A2 should work nicely! Good luck!
Steve
steve@totalqualityphoto.com

My Stock Photography Webpage

Any thoughts on how to get a good A2? Or the best way to test the one you get. Seems they do not always ship a good one.

this guy had a bad experience also:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007hOE

I think all of the previous replies say that there's no clear "winner," only a choice of compromises.

As I recalled, deep in Michaels Pro 1 review there was a small link about the 8700. He said he couldn't get Nikon to give him one to test! He borrowed one for a short time from a local store, but didn't fully test it.

This was in the DXO review of the Pro 1:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...-8700-non.shtml

One comment on who wins - I was able to buy an A2 at my locat Costco (Costco is very good about returns/exchanges).  The closest "local dealer" handling the other 3 is 270 miles away in Seattle!

Who wins the 8 megapixel all-in-one challenge?

Did the Pro1 beat the A2?

Michael?

Spyro...

Nope  ::

Michael

 I've used both the 828 and Pro 1.  The Pro 1 is nice and small, but I've found that the shutter lag when using autofocus is very long as compared to the 828.  The viewfinder also locks in a image too long - by the time the shutter fires, the subject can move out of the frame.  I'm still new to the Pro 1, so it may be something I'm doing wrong, but I found the 828 much faster and easier to use - and I'm a Canon 1Ds person!

have also used the 828 and the pro1. my main camera is the 1Ds. the 828 is faster, the pro1 is smaller, slower, sharper.
was actually suprised how small the pro1 is, it fits in a coat pocket.  got rid of my 828.
mike
www.mikekobal.com

Mike, what did you think of the lens on the Pro 1?  Did it seem like it was truly "L" glass?

Is the Nikon 8700 not going to be reviewed here? Michael says that the Pro 1 is the last of the series, but I do not remember the 8700 being reviewed, and most of the comparisons in the latest review are "four way", S-O-M-C.

Just a counterpoint to Steve's experience - I use the F828 for precisely the reason that I get near perfect focus on closeups and macros. I'm just wondering if there was a problem with Steve's F828. My work involves photographing fine art and typically I use my Kodak digital back and my 1DS, and sometimes large format film for this purpose depending on individual circumstances. But there are a number of times when it's inconvenient or even impossible to set up my lights, backdrops, speculars and tripod in a client's gallery, but I still need quality images with great depth of field and detail for medium sized (up to 11x17) prints. In these cases I frequently reach for my little F828 which produces stellar results. Here's a link to a typical application. This is a small, but highly detailed piece of Jon Anderson's fiore polymer clay art. The turtle is about six inches from tip of tail to nose and has incredibly detailed colored clay designs (no paint). This is a hand held F828 shot which gives me more than adequate depth of field and was taken in about 30 seconds. To get similar results with my 1DS or MF back would require a minimum of about 30 minutes of set-up and lots of equipment.

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/smallturtle.jpg