 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Minolta Maxxum 5D - New dSLR
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071503kmmaxxum5d.asp "Konica Minolta has today announced the Dynax / Maxxum 5D digital SLR. This new digital SLR is Konica Minolta's answer to the Nikon D50 and Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT), a more affordable digital SLR aimed more at the beginner market. It's both smaller and lighter than the Maxxum 7D and has fewer external controls (although those which are left are the most useful; WB, ISO, etc.). The 5D of course still features Konica Minolta's unique in-camera Anti-Shake system which stabilizes the sensor rather than a lens element." So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 inch LCD display. What else's different? - Siddhartha > So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 > inch LCD display. What else's different? no prism, less LCD resolution, USB 1.1, no exchangable matte, motive programs, smaller (130,5 x 92,5 x 66,5 mm vs. 150 x 106 x 77,5 mm) lighter (590 g vs. 760 g) and hopefully much cheaper than the overpriced 7D There are some more minor differences, such as ± 2 EV in 1/3 steps only and extra white balance. - Martin >> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Martin Well, it *is* an entry level camera.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' Has anyone seen the $US prices for this? Here is some info from photographyblog "The Konica Minolta Dynax 5D is available in September and will cost £599.99 body only, or £649.99 including the AF DT 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 (D) lens. The price of the Dynax 7D has also been revised: body only £799.99 (was £899.99), including the AF 28-100mm f3.5-5.6 (D) lens £899.99 (was £999.99)." Any opinions on the comparison between the konica cameras and the other major brands? > Has anyone seen the $US prices for this? Here is some info from > photographyblog [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Any opinions on the comparison between the konica cameras and the other > major brands? The 5D looks like a very good deal. In the U.S. it's priced at $800 for the body only. It's essentially a de-featured 7D, so they can be in the amateur segment. It'll be real competition for the Nikon D70s, but other than the anti-shake technology, it still isn't quite as good as the EOS-350D. If you have Minolta lenses already, or want the anti-shake in the camera as opposed to in the lens, then it's pretty compelling. I've added it to the website, and based the ranking on the fact that it is essentially a defeatured 7D. The U.S. price is $800 for body only, see http://ww1.onecall.com/PID_29056.htm. Available in September 2005. What's ironic is that supposedly Konica-Minolta was not going to continue in the digital camera business, according to a report a month or so ago. But they would seem to be in the best position to be a real competitor to Canon and Nikon in the DSLR market, with products far better than Olympus or Pentax. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com > If you have Minolta lenses already, or want the anti-shake in the camera > as opposed to in the lens, then it's pretty compelling. Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once. >>If you have Minolta lenses already, or want the anti-shake in the camera >>as opposed to in the lens, then it's pretty compelling. > > Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once. The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. >>> If you have Minolta lenses already, or want the anti-shake in the >>> camera as opposed to in the lens, then it's pretty compelling. >> >> Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once. > > The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. How would anyone actually know which is better? Has anyone published empirical evidence from a rat study? Only my curiosity makes me ask. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. > > How would anyone actually know which is better? Has anyone published > empirical evidence from a rat study? Don't be silly. Canon uses it. Around here, anything from Canon is "known" to be better than anything not from Canon, and studies or other evidence are unnecessary. How dare you question this universal truth?! SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "known" to be better than anything not from Canon, and studies or other > evidence are unnecessary. How dare you question this universal truth?! Holy Silly Boy Batman! I've been known to question my own birth from time to time - but, if one views a particular print image in the family scrapbook, my little fat face was captured with a Brownie Hawkeye shortly afterwards. Damn conspiracy I tell ya. :) Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>> The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "known" to be better than anything not from Canon, and studies or other > evidence are unnecessary. How dare you question this universal truth?! Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments? Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old, though. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments? > > Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old, > though. In other words, no. That's what I thought. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments? >> >> Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old, >> though. > > In other words, no. That's what I thought. Did you ask Google, or was that just a snide comment? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>> Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide >>>> comments? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Did you ask Google, or was that just a snide comment? Well, I googled, didn't find much at all, didn't have time or inclination to delve further. So, yes, it could be taken as a snide comment. But I just found one that was useful, so I may be forced to reconsider my assessment. It's not the brand advocacy, it's the brand slamming that gets to me. I don't, nor ever have, derided another's choice in equipment, except in instances like G. Preddy and the Sigma. And that was only in the context of the blaring advocacy of one brand and the slamming of another. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >It's not the brand advocacy, it's the brand slamming that gets to me. I >don't, nor ever have, derided another's choice in equipment, except in >instances like G. Preddy and the Sigma. And that was only in the context of >the blaring advocacy of one brand and the slamming of another. What gets me isn't even the brand slamming, but the whining about the supposed inane brand advocacy of others. To me, an occasional poster who owns an old Pentax film SLR, an Nikon Coolpix 995 and a Panasonic FZ-20, it is quite clear that this newsgroup as a whole spends about an order of magnitude more time whining about Canon brand advocacy than it spends on actual Canon brand advocacy. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. > >> Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once. > > > > The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. > > How would anyone actually know which is better? Has anyone published > empirical evidence from a rat study? Only my curiosity makes me ask. Check e.g. the dpreview on the 7D. I don't know about any real comparisons and a reproducable test setup. I remember, the German 'Stiftung Warentest' wanted to verify the IS some time ago. But I don't know the results and setup. - Martin >> Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once. > > The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better. Unless you like to use wide, fast lenses. Then you can pretty well forget about IS in a lens, if you shoot Canon. Why yes, this *is* a pet peeve of mine. :-) SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why yes, this *is* a pet peeve of mine. :-) So much has been made about IS v. A-S. IS is indeed better by 1/2 to 1 stop than A-S. A-S _still_ gives you 2 stops or more on most lenses, whether an $80 50mm f/1.7 or a $1,300 80-200 f/2.8. Minolta lens owners like myself are not about to abandon or attempt to sell $10,000+ lens collections that get 2 stops margin with A-S to spend that money all over again on Canon IS lenses. For that matter, a Minolta owner with $1,000 in lenses won't either. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >> inch LCD display. What else's different? > > no prism, > less LCD resolution, > USB 1.1, The 7D is not hi-speed USB 2.0 either. > no exchangable matte, > motive programs, > smaller (130,5 x 92,5 x 66,5 mm vs. 150 x 106 x 77,5 mm) > lighter (590 g vs. 760 g) No optional grip, appparently. > and hopefully much cheaper than the overpriced 7D The 7D has come way down in price, to less than $1200. KM apparently feels that the anti-shake feature is worth paying more for. It was very overpriced to begin with, especially with the more capable Canon 20D selling for much less. > The 7D has come way down in price, to less than $1200. KM apparently > feels that the anti-shake feature is worth paying more for. It was very > overpriced to begin with, especially with the more capable Canon 20D > selling for much less. More capable how? I have a 20D, but lately I'm wishing I'd gone with the K-M. Antishake would be real nice. Of course, the 7D wasn't for sale when I got my camera. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > More capable how? Don't be silly -- it says "Canon" on it. It'll increase your lifespan, make you a sexual powerhouse, and do your laundry without complaint. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >>> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The 7D is not hi-speed USB 2.0 either. This was fixed in the v1.10 firmware update. >> no exchangable matte, >> motive programs, >> smaller (130,5 x 92,5 x 66,5 mm vs. 150 x 106 x 77,5 mm) >> lighter (590 g vs. 760 g) > > No optional grip, appparently. Love my VC-7D! >> and hopefully much cheaper than the overpriced 7D > > The 7D has come way down in price, to less than $1200. KM apparently > feels that the anti-shake feature is worth paying more for. It was > very overpriced to begin with, especially with the more capable Canon > 20D selling for much less. >> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >- Martin Why would you say the 7D is overpriced? Competitively, it's in league with the Canon 20D and once you outfit the Canon with a decent lens, doesn't it cost more than the Minolta? They have both avoided the plastic bodies of the entry-level cameras as well and that is where much of the money comes into play. -Rich > Why would you say the 7D is overpriced? Competitively, it's in league > with the Canon 20D and once you outfit the Canon with a decent lens, The 7D was overpriced when it first came out. When I bought my 20D about nine months ago, the 7D was $1500 and the 20D was about $1200. Now they are both about $1200 for the body only. > doesn't it cost more than the Minolta? They have both avoided the > plastic bodies of the entry-level cameras as well and that is where > much of the money comes into play. Actually this is not an area where most of the money comes to play. The polycarbonate bodies are used mainly because they are lighter and easier to manufacture to the tolerances required. >> Why would you say the 7D is overpriced? Competitively, it's in league >> with the Canon 20D and once you outfit the Canon with a decent lens, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >polycarbonate bodies are used mainly because they are lighter and easier >to manufacture to the tolerances required. Right, cheaper. Face it; If plastic had any merits other than cheapness of mfg. or lightness, they'd use it across the line and they don't. -Rich > Right, cheaper. Face it; If plastic had any merits other than > cheapness of mfg. or lightness, they'd use it across the line > and they don't. That may be true but not necessarily so. Materials too are sometimes chosen for their marketing value instead of their practical usefulness. If people are willing to pay extra for some fancy materials, they will be gladly introduced into the product. After all, the additional cost is usually only a fraction of the increased sales price :-) Ton >> Right, cheaper. Face it; If plastic had any merits other than >> cheapness of mfg. or lightness, they'd use it across the line [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ton True, there isn't much point in owning a camera made of polished brass or gold plated but they have been sold, but then a stainless steel chassis or magnesium chassis or body panels do have attributes that are practical such as stength or lightness of weight. -Rich >> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > and hopefully much cheaper than the overpriced 7D ??? Our shop is selling them at £699- that's £300 less than the 20D body price. Martin > >> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 > >> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Our shop is selling them at £699- that's £300 less than the 20D body price. I checked geizhals.at for German/Austrian prices. 2004-01 2004-05 2004-08 2004-10 2004-12 2005-02 2005-05 2005-07 K 7D 1490 1350 1319 1149 1023 955 C 20D 1323 1258 1216 1173 1249 1175 N D70 1100 999 1045 999 887 707 709 649 Don't ask me about a 2004-08 price legend when it was announced 2004-09 I guess it's some date rounding effect. dpreview compared it to the D70 - that's why I chose the same models. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/page20.asp (K+N: 6 MP, C: 8 MP) Prices are in Euro. Since these prices include the German tax (16 %), it's almost 1:1, taking the price as USD. Maybe you can share similiar prices for UK? >> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >> inch LCD display. What else's different? > > no prism, Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means. Isn't the prism this bit the image bounces around to the eyepiece? What exactly does this mean in performance and function? Would I/you miss it? cheers Steve > less LCD resolution, > USB 1.1, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Martin >>> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >>> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cheers > Steve It's cheaper and lighter to make the pentaprism that redirects the incoming light from the reflex mirror up to the viewfinder out of mirrors and empty space, than to use an actual all-glass prism. Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker viewfinder image. >> less LCD resolution, >> USB 1.1, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> - Martin > >> no prism, > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker > viewfinder image. I was told about some kind of 'tunnel' impression when it's done by mirrors. Maybe it has some extra effect for higher eyepiece-to-eye distance (e.g. wearing lenses). Maybe it's less precise along the full range of operating temperatures. or maybe it's just some kind of tradition: every better camera has a prism. Attempts to make something cheaper use mirrors. >> >> no prism, >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >distance (e.g. wearing lenses). Maybe it's less precise along the full >range of operating temperatures. Since little or no magnification is involved, this would not be an issue. The "tunnel" effect could be the result of using mirrors that are too small to maintain full image illumination. Prisms can suffer the same effect if they aren't made of the correct glass. Previously, prisms made of BK4 did have the effect. It can bee seen in cheap binoculars if you hold them up and look at the "exit pupils" those tiny discs of light that seem to be in front of the eyepiece lenses. If the exit pupil isn't uniformly illuminated (the edges of disk have a squarish dark area superimposed) the prisms are either too small for the light cone or they are made of inferior glass. >or maybe it's just some kind of tradition: every better camera has a >prism. Attempts to make something cheaper use mirrors. Prisms have one main attribute; They are strong and there is only one optical element (the prism) that needs to maintain optical alignment. Multiple mirrors don't have those attributes. Also, if the light path is open to the outside air you will eventually get dust on the mirror surfaces. -Rich >>>> So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >>>> inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker >viewfinder image. There is no reason why this should be the case. There are dielectric coatings now that reflect over 99% of the incident light therefore loss at each mirror surface is negligable. In fact the prism, with it's internal light path (traversing glass) results in a certain amount of light absorbtion which means the prism system shouldn't be able to produce as bright an image as the mirrors. In other areas apart from cameras, no one uses prisms when mirrors can be employed. Binoculars use prisms because they are robust and can be kept in position more easily than a group of mirrors. -Rich >>>>So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 >>>>inch LCD display. What else's different? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker > viewfinder image. Thanks, that clears that term/issue up nicely for me. I will pay attention when I can get a 5D/7D side by side. I will go back and have another look at the D70/50 specs, and Canon's too now. cheers Steve >>>less LCD resolution, >>>USB 1.1, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> >>>- Martin > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071503kmmaxxum5d.asp > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5 > inch LCD display. What else's different? The 7D also has a 2.5" LCD (which my crappy 20/150 eye appreciates no end), but appears the 5D has far fewer pixels (115,000 vs 207,000). The green asterisks in the specifications at the URL above indicate differences between the 5D and 7D. Bob ^,,^ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.