IN SUMMARY:

Good New Camera Value:  The Minolta G400. $234 online, $299 retail. This is a very small 4 megapixel,  camera (built like a tank) that takes very sharp and accurate images at nearly 1/4th the cost of my Sony S85 from 3 years back. It outperforms the S85 in some ways (though not all ). The 400 rivals and in many ways I preferred it over its 5 and 6 megapixel big brothers (G500 and G600).  At 15% smaller size, lighter, faster, and $100-$150 cheaper- It's an excellent value.

G400 sample photo: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/g400/samples/PICT0150.JPG

One of my own G400 photos : http://www.neilslade.com/gifs/Mchurchweb.jpg 200K 

I took the time to actually compare the $240 (online) G400 and the nearly twice as expensive $425 (online)  Sony T1 in detail, examining results on a computer monitor as well as 8X10 prints on the state of the art Canon i960 printer. Here's what I found out:

1) SIZE   The T1 is thinner and 1/8" less wide, but 1/4" taller. The G400 and is actually 2/10 lighter than the Sony with card and battery installed.  

2) CONTROLS The T1 has very limited manual controls, all menu driven. The G400 has extensive, easy to access manual controls, the important F stop and extensive shutter speed controls, and white balance all adjustable without leaving the LCD menu.

3) COLORS Sony and Minolta G400 render colors a bit differently- Sony towards blue, Minolta towards green. Both have excellent color rendition. Some reds look better on the Minolta, some look better on the Sony. (The G600 looks identical color wise to the Sony.)

4) SHARPNESS (resolution) The T1 has an extra megapixel resolution, and in extreme enlargements/cropping creates sharper images. HOWEVER, without significant enlarging  even at the 8X10 print size, there is no discernable difference in sharpness even with the Sony is set to 5 MP and the Minolta at 4 MP. Most users could not tell the differences in general use. ALSO, Sony cameras (including the P100) employ noise reduction- apparently when you don't want it (and not only in the official low light situations). Look at the chimney and roof tiles above. This may offset sharpness in some areas of the image where the T1 SHOULD be sharper, but its not. The Sony P100 is particularly guilty of this.

5) CONTRAST AND DETAILED EXPOSURE The G400 shows a bit more detail in areas of high contrast, and doesn't blow out the highlights as the T1 can more easily do. The T1 tends to overexpose, and needs to be set for lower exposure in general than the default, which can correct much of this, if not all.

6) MEMORY The T1 requires the new Sony Memory Stick Duo cards, whereas the Minolta takes both the less expensive but faster more reliable SD cards AND will take regular AND Duo Memory Stick cards too.

7) INDOOR w/ FLASH ALL small cameras generally have more limited flash capability than bigger cameras. I don't like using flash at all, so for me, this is a non-issue. I hate the look of flash photos in general- except for special effect. If you do a lot of flash photography of large indoor subjects- get a camera with a sizable flash. Otherwise, small non-running around group and portrait flash for cameras like the G400 will be fine. The T1 has a very limited suggested 5 foot flash suggested range. The G400 suggested Minolta range is 6.9 feet. NEVERTHELESS- the flash on the G400 seems to be quite adequate-- although Minolta claims a flash range of 6.9 feet at wide angle-- I mean, where do they get this???   Below is a photo taken in my TOTALLY dark basement in automatic mode (no, this is not a slowed shutter setting)- the distance of the wall from my camera is a full 25 feet. As you can see, the flash totally lights up things even at a distance nearly three and a half times the claimed limit of the flash. Note, you can read print on the Brother box 25 feet away.

8) LOW LIGHT Alas, the G400 is generally much better under low light and challenging light because you can fine tune exposure in conjunction with ASA and shutter speed. In some situations and most low light situations it was difficult if not impossible to get a good T1 photo. The G400, could manage this- albeit not as good as my big S85 with an inch of glass and an F2.1 lens.

Below is a photo of a DARK CLOSET in my house- the first photo shows what it looks like to the naked eye in terms of light.

The second photo is one I took using the G400s extensive manual adjustments HAND HELD of INSIDE this dark closet. Hell, I couldn't see the shoe and box with either the LCD or the viewfinder! It looks pretty good as is, but with a little Photoshop lightening, even better. Please note, these photos are very compressed for web- the uncompressed detail and lack of noise is apparent in the originals. The T1 could do nothing like this at all without flash, much less hand held.

Right from the camera   

After a little Photoshop

9) MACRO Both great, little difference, maybe the 400 edges the T1 by a small margin in macro sharpness, maybe not.

10) BATTERIES Face it, the battery life on all small cameras with all small batteries STINKS. That's one trade off on sub-compact and compact cameras. Have several spare batteries charged and on hand at all times when  you plan on a moderate number of pictures or more. Get perfectly fine spare lithium batteries on Ebay and save a ton of money. No need to pay ridiculous name brand prices for these, lithium is lithium. Just note the mah (milliamp hours) and make sure your extra batteries are close, or exceed the stock battery, and buy from someone with a decent feedback rating.

For some, the G400 is preferred, especially at half the cost, and it has manual adjustments that make it a better low light indoor camera. The T1  enlarges better when serious enlargement is necessary, but has less manual adjustment capability, and poorer low light response at twice the cost. 

Sony W1 Considerations

The Sony W1 seems to be Sony's most popular under $1000 quality camera at present. It offers more manual control, and better imaging that the T1, and the smaller P100. It has a bigger LCD than the more "enthusiast" V1, but is lighter, and cheaper- albeit less advanced features. Never the less, it's a very nice camera. HOWEVER, when it comes to imaging sharpness- surprise, the G400 offers better clarity. Even without in camera sharpening, the contrast subtlety and the fine details of the $235  G400 still better the $399 W1 if we examine the same subject sample photos from each camera. times of day a bit different, but general brightness the same for each session. Note how in the typical present generation Sony photos, fine details are smeared- see grass and bricks. Admittedly, 5MP resolution will create a smoother image at great enlargement, but what good is this if all the details are lost in the first place? Quite amazing if you consider that the G400 is 4 MP and the Sony 5 MP. Like I've said- megapixels are not the only way to judge camera image quality. Kudus to the Minolta engineers:

The difference between the Minolta G400 and the Minolta G500/600 is much lesser than between the G400 and the Sony T1. The G500 has now been replaced by the G600 model, so although you may find a G500 here and there, brand new G500s are rare. Any of these Minolta seem better than any of the Sony camera's under $1000. The G400 is lighter, small, faster, and nearly takes the same quality pictures as the G500- only detectable when the 500/600 is set for resolution higher than 4 MP. The G500 has an additional megapixel, or the G600 which has two additional megapixels.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/g600/samples/PICT0267.JPG 

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/g500/samples/PICT0267.JPG 
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/g400/samples/PICT0203.JPG

The G500 may appear to show more shadow noise than the G400-  as the photos below show- but after GUT WRENCHING examination, this may be more due to ASA settings- in this case ASA50 for the G400 and ASA100 for the G500, and the slightly larger image of the G500 which can give this appearance. It's a minor point if possible- but look for yourself below to see the difference in image between these cameras. The G400 is supposed to have more noise on paper, but it doesn't seem to be the case in general. Same goes for the G600-  none of these are very noisy cameras except in the highest ASA.

The difference in sharpness between cameras at the same resolution  is extremely difficult to spot- sometimes impossible- and this includes comparing the G400 and the G600. Of course, the difference of sharpness at the highest settings these cameras will allow, i.e. 4 MP versus 6 MP is more noticeable, but will only be apparent at full resolution enlargements. In practical terms, little difference in sharpness between all of the Minoltas-- but a good difference between either of these Minoltas and other similar sized cameras- either in megapixels or physical size. These Minoltas are SHARP cameras. Set the G400 at +100 sharpening will increase its definition, without increasing artifacts and noise. (Probably should be default for this camera).

Look at the two photos below- a close up scan of an 8X10-- one is the G400 set at 4MP (sharpening at +1), the other is the G600 set at 4 MP.  Which is which?  (ignore the paper crease)   That's how close it is. Answers on the bottom of this page:

Extreme 3 times 8X10 enlargement                        

actual 8X10 size     

Both set at 4 megapixel fine resolution, I found that when I set the G400 at +1 sharpness, it was nearly IMPOSSIBLE to see any detail difference between it and the G600 whatsoever without a magnifying glass (top porch light magnified greatly), even on a printed 8X10, on a VERY sharp printer- the Canon i960. 

In any case, one would be hard pressed to tell these apart unless greatly enlarged. And with a little tweaking-- (sign below) Very very close. The color rendition of the G400 and G500 is a little more apparent, with the 400 having a bit more saturation, and warmer slant, while the G500 appears very neutral. See the hand rail, and the white wall to see what I'm talking about. Nothing of big consequence whatsoever.

At the same resolution settings at the same size of enlargement, I can spot a very minor difference between the G400 and the G600. When the G600 is set to 6 megapixels, the difference is more apparent of course, 6 megapixels having a"finer" look to it, a bit smoother, and finer detail- but only visible at 8X10 size.  Since most of my work is done 8X10 or smaller, internet web, and email, I have never actually had a need for 6 MP photos- it would be a waste of camera memory most of the time.

Steve's photos below show the difference between G400 4 MP details, and the G500 5 MP details, which is somewhat more apparent- although the bricks look a bit better on the G400 in this set because they're better lit.

SPEED Other than resolution settings, this is where the biggest difference in camera performance lies. Given all of the above differences between the G400 and G500- there is a bigger gap between the G400 and the G600. The G600 is the G500 with image and some performance improved- mostly shutter lag. The G600  and G500 are very fast startup and shooting cameras at ready to go at 1.3 seconds- but not quite as instantaneous as the G400 is- ready to go at .7 second. The biggest difference in speed is noticed in the CONTINUOUS PICTURE mode- you just hold the shutter down and the camera snaps pictures as fast as possible without stopping until you run out of memory. 

Using a standard SanDisk SD memory card, the G400 snaps a picture about every 1 to 1.36 seconds (4 MP fine setting). for some reason, subject matter- likely complexity or light- will either make the camera faster or slower. Same deal with the G600.  The first three pictures, however, apparently use a buffer, so you get the first 3 in about 3 seconds, then the camera slows down a bit and continues at the1.25 second rate. The G400 also offers a super continuous mode, which shoots these burst shots- then saves, then allows another burst, etc. etc. In the regular continuous mode, you get one burst at the beginning- and then the regular 1 to 1.36 speed, until you allow the buffer to regain again.

The G600 does not offer the burst, but only the continuous mode (with the first three photos a hair faster), which seems almost twice as slow at the 6 and 4MP setting-  a little faster at the 2 MP setting. It's just not as fast a camera in this regard as the G400. Steve's digital Cameras reports one picture every 1.7 seconds with a SanDisk Ultra SD card, a regular SanDisk SD card is a little bit slower. AVOID PANASONIC cards- like the one that comes with the camera-- DREADFULLY SLOW, nearly twice as slow.

For some funny reason, the G500 has the same 1.3 second start up time, but faster continuous mode, apparently just a hair slower than the G400, at 1 picture every 1.2 seconds with a SanDisk Ultra card.

Shutter lag measured without pre-focus is another story altogether. G400 is nearly instantaneous at .03 second, the G500 is the slow boat of the bunch with a shutter lag of 1 second, and the G600 is twice as fast with a .5 second shutter lag. To some, a 1 second shutter lag seems an eternity, and why one professional photo reviewer declined to recommend the G500 as a Best Buy.

COLOR This has been a tricky one to figure out- but I think I've got it- The G400 has stronger yellow-- this translates into greens that pop a little more, and reds that bend towards orange-red a tiny bit, generally a little warmer feel than the 600.The G600 comes off initially as more neutral- like Sony color, slightly cooler, and doesn't have as much yellow, so the reds are more neutral and accurate, and the greens are not quite as racy. Brown/yellow surfaces may be more understated in the G600, so its a trade off. Both cameras can be considered to have excellent color. My friend preferred the G400 color in one photo, I prefer the G600 in another photo. It's a toss up. Look at the porch photos-- that's how close it is.

But for all the nice little improvements the G600 makes over the 400 and 500, it comes at a price- not only is the camera $100 more (still inexpensive for this level of quality), but the camera is about two ounces heavier than the G400, but thicker as well. It also drains the battery a tad faster. (Although I should mention a bought an extended life 1100mah battery on ebay for $25 that outlasts by a good margin the stock NP-600 battery.) 

The extra two ounces weight of the G600 tends to knock it out of the sub-compact category-- yes, throw them both in your pants pocket, and the G400 is lighter and more un-noticeable. Definitely. But the G600 is still a VERY small camera.

The G600 controls are slightly different from the G400, but honestly after using them both for a while-- no real difference of substance. In Manual mode, both cameras allow good control of manual settings from the LCD, without having to access deeper LCD menus- a nice touch which many of these small cameras lack. For some curious reason however, the G400 lets you know the manual ASA on the LCD in manual, which the G600 does not- ??.

The G400 is very marginally a wider angle camera, with less telephoto than the other two due to its focal length. It is also more right handed friendly- direction of lens cover slide, as well as battery door. It also has its viewfinder on the left corner- so your nose has a place to go when you hold the camera up to your eye!

All three models have the brightest sharpest LCD I've ever seen on a camera, though not the biggest at 1.5 inches. So what. I have a camera to take pictures, not to watch a TV screen. I can see everything I need to see on the Minolta LCD, and you can zoom in up to 12X or 14X to examine details in shots. The G600 has a finer pixel LCD than the G400-- not of much consequence however in practical terms.

All take really really excellent pictures-generally. The G400 and G600 are generally recognized as faster performers, and the G400 the fastest starting up extended lens camera made. Some have complained about the G500 shutter lag, others don't make a big deal out of it. The design of the G400 halved the performance times of the earlier released G500. Keep in mind that Minolta replaced the G500 with the G600, so most places don't even carry the G500 new any more.

Personally I just didn't see a strong point in paying $100-$150 more for a slightly slower, slightly heavier, slightly bigger,  camera that essentially didn't take better pictures except in great enlargements- (I couldn't get the same generous online discount for the G600 or G500 as I could for the G400). I've seen a couple G600 blur on the edges in widest mode, so this is something to keep your eye out for on any individual camera. I've seen it on a couple, and not on others.  If I couldn't get a G400---I would still opt for the G600 over every other small camera, and I'd find one that didn't exhibit the blur problem. 

I do not envy anybody trying to decide between any of these two cameras. If you REALLY really need the extra two megapixes and plan on lots of heavy enlarging or cropping a 6 MP, then the G600 would be the choice. If you don't need the extra pixels, the G400 is cheaper, small, lighter, faster, and produces the same quality images at 4 MP and under, and seems the clear logical choice.

Minolta comes out with a 5.4 megapixel version of the G400 this week, and calls it the G530. Exact same camera, performance and specs with an extra million pixels. But word is it that it is a noticeably noisier CCD than either the G400 or the G500/600 imager. Same caution for the X50 model. Don't buy without giving one a good test drive, and comparing results with the G400/500/600. UPDATE: I've looked briefly at the X50- nice color, but with the super small size, despite 5 megapixels, you sacrifice battery life as this camera has a RIDCULOUSLY small capacity battery, and the images are not nearly as good as the larger (but still small) G500/600). The G400 is $100 cheaper, better battery, and the pictures are as good, if not better in detail and sharpness at 4 MP. And its still a really small camera. Further the X50 does not have the extensive manual controls of the G400/500/600. So, like the T1, cute cute, but limited. Other manufacturers are coming out with super sub-compacts, and my educated guess is that all of these cameras will be lacking performance and imaging in the end, despite all of them flaunting five megapixels. They sure are cute- but how far will cute take you? Maybe nice for snapshots, but I enjoy the wide versatility of the G400/500/600- these are serious cameras when you need serious.