Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Minolta announcements

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 15, 2005 2:14:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
be very interesting.

New reduced coverage lenses. Oooh, including an 18-200. That's
sure to be good. I like the way they list Anti-Shake as a lens
feature in the press release. Also:

"To ensure consistently high quality images, the Dynax5D/Maxxum5D uses
an optical system ideally suited to a large (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD, in
addition to spherical lenses to reduce spherical aberrations, AD
(anomalous dispersion) glass, and a special lens coating that reduces
flaring that often occurs in digital SLR cameras."

1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
sure I've seen it on film.
3) I can only imagine that Minolta did not intend to suggest that
their use of spherical lenses reduced spherical aberrations.

- Len

More about : minolta announcements

Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:14:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:

> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD

It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
sensors used in P&S cameras. I don't know the exact size of the
sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLRs having 1.5 and 1.6 crop
factors, but think that I read somewhere that the 20D had a sensor
2/3 the size of a full frame. If that's the case, then the 5D's
sensor would be in turn, about 2/3 the size of the 20D's sensor, so
that would still be a fairly large sensor. Except for those that
lust after full sized sensors. :) 
July 15, 2005 2:14:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:o %LBe.2863$Cr5.1311@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
> the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
> be very interesting.
>
Hmmm, Minolta missed the boat. They are too late the 5D should have been
brought out first instead of the 7D. In fact a year later they finally have
some digital lenses.
Related resources
July 15, 2005 2:14:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:id4fd1pa4nv8e8nrjvm8030j0vg7oesas1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:
>
>> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
>
> It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
> area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
> sensors used in P&S cameras. I don't know the exact size of the
> sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLRs having 1.5 and 1.6 crop
> factors, but think that I read somewhere that the 20D had a sensor
> 2/3 the size of a full frame. If that's the case, then the 5D's
> sensor would be in turn, about 2/3 the size of the 20D's sensor, so
> that would still be a fairly large sensor. Except for those that
> lust after full sized sensors. :) 
>
The KM, Nikon and Pentax all have the same sensor size, because they all use
the same sensor. This is a APS-C (23.5 x 15.7 mm) size CCD. The Canon 20D
has a 22.5 x 15.0 mm, or a sensor or 8.5% smaller than Nikon, Pentax and
Konica-Minolta. All of these are "full-sizes" sensors. If you are talking
about a 35mm frame (24x36mm) sized sensor, I doubt it will happen. All the
makers are building more and more DX/EF-S (DA/DT et al) format lenses.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:32:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Leonard wrote:
> Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
> the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
> be very interesting.
>
> New reduced coverage lenses. Oooh, including an 18-200. That's
> sure to be good. I like the way they list Anti-Shake as a lens
> feature in the press release. Also:
>
> "To ensure consistently high quality images, the Dynax5D/Maxxum5D uses
> an optical system ideally suited to a large (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD, in
> addition to spherical lenses to reduce spherical aberrations, AD
> (anomalous dispersion) glass, and a special lens coating that reduces
> flaring that often occurs in digital SLR cameras."
>
> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
> 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
> sure I've seen it on film.
> 3) I can only imagine that Minolta did not intend to suggest that
> their use of spherical lenses reduced spherical aberrations.

One thing that Minolta don't shout about is that, because they move the
sensor rather than lens elements to achieve image stabilisation, the lens
image circle has to be proportionately greater than the actual sensor size
to cover both the sensor and its movement.

Whilst this means that Minolta cannot take full advantage of the smaller
image size on the CCD in the lens design, it could mean that their lenses
remained suitable for 35mm full frame. However, these new lenses "cannot
be used on 35mm cameras". It is a great feature, though, which
automatically turns existing lenses into image stabilised ones - and a
good selling point for their system.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:32:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:30 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
>
> One thing that Minolta don't shout about is that, because they move the
> sensor rather than lens elements to achieve image stabilisation, the lens
> image circle has to be proportionately greater than the actual sensor size
> to cover both the sensor and its movement.
>
> Whilst this means that Minolta cannot take full advantage of the smaller
> image size on the CCD in the lens design, it could mean that their lenses
> remained suitable for 35mm full frame. However, these new lenses "cannot
> be used on 35mm cameras".

Really? What is the necessary increased image circle when going
from 23.5 x 15.7 mm to 24 x 36 mm? If I remember my trig. formulas,
that corresponds to image circle diameters of 28.26 and 43.27 mm.
Do you think the maximum sensor excursion would require an image
circle as large as 43 mm? In the horizontal plane that would allow
the sensor to move (43.27 - 23.5)/2, or about +/- 9.9mm. I'd be
amazed if any IS system could cope with camera movements that need
such large corrections. While I don't know how much the sensor
travels, it seems to me that it might be in the neighborhood of plus
and minus a millimeter or two (for a 23.5 x 15.7 mm sensor), which
could be accommodated by a much more modest increase in the size of
the image circle. That doesn't mean however that the lenses don't
actually have image circles large enough for full frame cameras.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:06:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:30 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
>>
>> One thing that Minolta don't shout about is that, because they move
>> the sensor rather than lens elements to achieve image stabilisation,
>> the lens image circle has to be proportionately greater than the
>> actual sensor size to cover both the sensor and its movement.
>>
>> Whilst this means that Minolta cannot take full advantage of the
>> smaller image size on the CCD in the lens design, it could mean that
>> their lenses remained suitable for 35mm full frame. However, these
>> new lenses "cannot be used on 35mm cameras".
>
> Really? What is the necessary increased image circle when going
> from 23.5 x 15.7 mm to 24 x 36 mm? If I remember my trig. formulas,
> that corresponds to image circle diameters of 28.26 and 43.27 mm.
> Do you think the maximum sensor excursion would require an image
> circle as large as 43 mm? In the horizontal plane that would allow
> the sensor to move (43.27 - 23.5)/2, or about +/- 9.9mm. I'd be
> amazed if any IS system could cope with camera movements that need
> such large corrections. While I don't know how much the sensor
> travels, it seems to me that it might be in the neighborhood of plus
> and minus a millimeter or two (for a 23.5 x 15.7 mm sensor), which
> could be accommodated by a much more modest increase in the size of
> the image circle. That doesn't mean however that the lenses don't
> actually have image circles large enough for full frame cameras.

I think you're right - I don't know the amount of sensor movement either,
but to stabilise for some long lenses might mean quite a lot of movement
was required (this is one aspect where moving the lens element wins). In
any case, a small falloff at the corners under image stabilisation might
well be an acceptable compromise.

What the Minolta announcement means is that the sensor doesn't move enough
to cover the full 35mm frame, and might tell us something about what the
system limits are with longer focal length lenses. Some sort of objective
test of stabilisation systems would be most helpful in establishing both
performance and limitations!

Cheers,
David
July 15, 2005 7:04:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:
>
>
>>1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
>
>
> It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
> area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
> sensors used in P&S cameras.

It's certainly a lot larger than those sensors. But all of the
other Minolta SLR lenses you can get are designed for a somewhat
larger sensor.

- Len
July 16, 2005 3:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:
>
>
>>1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
>
>
> It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
> area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
> sensors used in P&S cameras. I don't know the exact size of the
> sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLRs having 1.5 and 1.6 crop
> factors, but think that I read somewhere that the 20D had a sensor
> 2/3 the size of a full frame. If that's the case, then the 5D's
> sensor would be in turn, about 2/3 the size of the 20D's sensor, so
> that would still be a fairly large sensor. Except for those that
> lust after full sized sensors. :) 
>
The Minolta sensor is larger than a 20d or 350d sensor.
It's about the same size as a Nikon DX sensor.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:12:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:12:48 +1200, frederick wrote:

> The Minolta sensor is larger than a 20d or 350d sensor.
> It's about the same size as a Nikon DX sensor.

You're probably right, and thanks for the correction. But since
my last msg. I found the article that had the info. I recalled. In
a piece referring to hands-on evaluation of a 20D it said:

> The 20D might just be the answer. Canon claimed to have put more
> pixels (eight million of them) onto the same 2/3 film-size chip as the
> one used on its 10D, without increasing the noise, a nice trick if true.

Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
July 16, 2005 3:23:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Leonard wrote:
> 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
> sure I've seen it on film.

The theory behind it is that the sensors / low pass filters are more
reflective than film, so they multicoat the rear element to reduce the
effect of reflections off the sensor, onto the rear element, and back to
the sensor causing flare.
My experience leads me to conclude that this is a marketing driven
effort to boost lens sales. No - flaring is not specific to digital
cameras. No, I've never seen a flaring problem with a DSLR using "old"
film camera lenses that wouldn't have caused just the same problem with
film.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:23:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:

> My experience leads me to conclude that this is a marketing driven effort
> to boost lens sales. No - flaring is not specific to digital cameras. No,
> I've never seen a flaring problem with a DSLR using "old" film camera
> lenses that wouldn't have caused just the same problem with film.

Since I'm grumping at you in another corner of this thread, I'll take this
change to point out that you are spot on here<g>. The vast majority of the
problems digerati whimper about are problems they just never noticed on
their film cameras since they never looked closely. With digital we look at
every image at 100% pixels and see all the infelicities we never noticed
with film.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:23:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

frederick wrote:
> Leonard wrote:
>> 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
>> sure I've seen it on film.
>
> The theory behind it is that the sensors / low pass filters are more
> reflective than film, so they multicoat the rear element to reduce the
> effect of reflections off the sensor, onto the rear element, and back
> to the sensor causing flare.
> My experience leads me to conclude that this is a marketing driven
> effort to boost lens sales. No - flaring is not specific to digital
> cameras. No, I've never seen a flaring problem with a DSLR using "old"
> film camera lenses that wouldn't have caused just the same problem
> with film.

I tend to agree - I've seen recent ads for the reissued Sigma 50-500
zoom touting its 'digital friendly' tweaks. I have the previous Bigma,
and it not only has very nice anti-reflection coatings on the rear
element, but takes darned nice photos on my Maxxum 7D.

Bob ^,,^
July 16, 2005 4:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:12:48 +1200, frederick wrote:
>
>
>>The Minolta sensor is larger than a 20d or 350d sensor.
>>It's about the same size as a Nikon DX sensor.
>
>
> You're probably right, and thanks for the correction. But since
> my last msg. I found the article that had the info. I recalled. In
> a piece referring to hands-on evaluation of a 20D it said:
>
>
>> The 20D might just be the answer. Canon claimed to have put more
>>pixels (eight million of them) onto the same 2/3 film-size chip as the
>>one used on its 10D, without increasing the noise, a nice trick if true.
>
>
> Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
> film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
> making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
> frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
>

I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
confusion.
2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
purpose. Information is here:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 4:22:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:22:10 +1200, frederick wrote:

>> Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
>> film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
>> making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
>> frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
>>
>
> I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
> exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
> confusion.
> 2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
> Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
> purpose. Information is here:
> http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes

Well now I'm confused. :)  I thought that the 20D had a
reasonably large, though not full frame sensor. But 8.8 x 6.6 mm
(58sq.mm) is tiny, only 1/15th the area of 24 x 36mm (864sq.mm).
That seems more like the smaller size I thought was used by some of
the P&S dcams. Guess I'll have to follow your dpreview link to see
what I'm missing.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 4:22:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:22:10 +1200, frederick wrote:

> I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
> exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
> confusion.
> 2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
> Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
> purpose. Information is here:
> http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes

I guess I was doubly confused. I read the above too quickly and
thought that you were saying that the 20D's sensor was 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
On re-reading it I got it the way you intended, which strangely
enough was exactly how you wrote it. :) 

Back now to the strange "2/3 film-size chip" mentioned in the
article I previously quoted. Armed with the 20D's sensor size (22.5
x 15.0 mm per dpreview) I got approx. 27mm for its diagonal (the
diameter of the smallest image circle that would completely contain
it). For a 36 x 24 mm sensor, the diagonal would be about 43mm.
The 27mm diagonal turns out to be very close to 2/3 the size of the
24 x 36mm full size frame's diagonal. So that may be what was
behind the above "2/3" figure mentioned in the article.

To tie up a loose end, the article was "Shootout In The Old West"
(Four Pros In A Digital SLR Showdown) by Steve Anchell which
appeared in the current (July 2005) issue of Shutterbug. It's
nothing like the reviews seen on the web (dpreview, Steve's Digicam,
etc.). Here, each of the four were given a camera (that I think
they had little or no previous experience with) to simply take
pictures (in the Rockies) and report their impressions, along with
pros and cons. The four cameras evaluated were Canon's 20D, Konica
Minolta's Maxxum 7D, Nikon's D70 and Olympus's E1.
July 16, 2005 5:01:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:22:10 +1200, frederick wrote:
>
>
>>> Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
>>>film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
>>>making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
>>>frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
>>>
>>
>>I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
>>exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
>>confusion.
>>2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
>>Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
>>purpose. Information is here:
>>http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes
>
>
> Well now I'm confused. :)  I thought that the 20D had a
> reasonably large, though not full frame sensor. But 8.8 x 6.6 mm
> (58sq.mm) is tiny, only 1/15th the area of 24 x 36mm (864sq.mm).
> That seems more like the smaller size I thought was used by some of
> the P&S dcams. Guess I'll have to follow your dpreview link to see
> what I'm missing.
>
Yes - 2/3" sensor is small.
The smallest dslr sensors AFAIK are the "4/3" size - just to add more
confusion they are 18 x 13.5mm.

There are countless arguments in these forums about sensor size, noise,
and diffraction limited resolution. Much of the arguments are IMO
fairly pointless, as is the argument that 35mm film "full size" sensors
are desirable - except to make the most out of existing 35mm lenses.
Mamiya have just released a 22mp DSLR with a huge sensor, a huge price,
and some huge disadvantages over smaller format dslrs. I have yet to be
convinced that this is the way of the future. We'll have to wait and see.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:01:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> There are countless arguments in these forums about sensor size, noise,
> and diffraction limited resolution. Much of the arguments are IMO fairly
> pointless, as is the argument that 35mm film "full size" sensors are
> desirable - except to make the most out of existing 35mm lenses.

It's about the image quality. If you don't understand or care about image
quality, you won't care about larger sensors.

> Mamiya have just released a 22mp DSLR with a huge sensor, a huge price,
> and some huge disadvantages over smaller format dslrs. I have yet to be
> convinced that this is the way of the future. We'll have to wait and see.

It's only the way of the future if you care about image quality, and are
willing to sacrifice convenience for said image quality.

As long as photography involves collecting photons focused onto a planar
sensor with a lens, a larger planar sensor will provide better image
quality, and a smaller planar sensor will provide greater convenience. It's
an engineering tradeoff, and it's never going away.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:52:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> "Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:o %LBe.2863$Cr5.1311@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
>>the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
>>be very interesting.
>>
>
> Hmmm, Minolta missed the boat. They are too late the 5D should have been
> brought out first instead of the 7D. In fact a year later they finally have
> some digital lenses.
>
>
>

It seems to be the same sales politics as in classics - Dynax 7 and then
Dynax 5, then Dynax 4, Dynax 60...

--
Pea C
(ask me for the right e-mail address)
***
If I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:56:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Leonard wrote:
> Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
> the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
> be very interesting.
>
> New reduced coverage lenses. Oooh, including an 18-200. That's
> sure to be good. I like the way they list Anti-Shake as a lens
> feature in the press release. Also:
>
> "To ensure consistently high quality images, the Dynax5D/Maxxum5D uses
> an optical system ideally suited to a large (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD, in
> addition to spherical lenses to reduce spherical aberrations, AD
> (anomalous dispersion) glass, and a special lens coating that reduces
> flaring that often occurs in digital SLR cameras."
>
> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
> 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
> sure I've seen it on film.
> 3) I can only imagine that Minolta did not intend to suggest that
> their use of spherical lenses reduced spherical aberrations.
>
> - Len

Any comparison between 7D and 5D can be found on the net somewhere? I've
read there are some limitations in adjusting of the 5D. And what about
the material of the body - glass fiber plastics? Any price level already
known?

--
Pea C
(ask me for the right e-mail address)
***
If I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants.
July 16, 2005 5:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pea C wrote:

>
> Any comparison between 7D and 5D can be found on the net somewhere? I've
> read there are some limitations in adjusting of the 5D. And what about
> the material of the body - glass fiber plastics? Any price level already
> known?
>


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071503kmmaxxum5d.as...

Pay attention to the green asterisks in the spec section. Rumored to be
available in Sept for $800 bo.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 9:33:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell(?) wrote:
>> Hmmm, Minolta missed the boat. They are too late the 5D should have been
>> brought out first instead of the 7D. In fact a year later they finally have
>> some digital lenses.

K-M was just following the industry-wide strategy of releasing a high-end
prosumer DSLR: Canon released the D30/D60/10D followed by the 350D, Nikon
released the D100 followed by the D70, and Olympus released the E-1 first.
I don't see how you can fault K-M for doing what everybody else did.

> It seems to be the same sales politics as in classics - Dynax 7 and then
> Dynax 5, then Dynax 4, Dynax 60...

There is no market pressure for K-M to release a 4D. The 5D is about
the same price as low-end DSLRs from other vendors. However, rumors say
there will be a possibly full-frame 9D next year.
July 18, 2005 3:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:42daf8db@news.meer.net...
> Darrell(?) wrote:
>>> Hmmm, Minolta missed the boat. They are too late the 5D should have been
>>> brought out first instead of the 7D. In fact a year later they finally
>>> have
>>> some digital lenses.
>
> K-M was just following the industry-wide strategy of releasing a high-end
> prosumer DSLR: Canon released the D30/D60/10D followed by the 350D, Nikon
> released the D100 followed by the D70, and Olympus released the E-1 first.
> I don't see how you can fault K-M for doing what everybody else did.
>
>> It seems to be the same sales politics as in classics - Dynax 7 and then
>> Dynax 5, then Dynax 4, Dynax 60...
>
> There is no market pressure for K-M to release a 4D. The 5D is about
> the same price as low-end DSLRs from other vendors. However, rumors say
> there will be a possibly full-frame 9D next year.
>
What "full-frame" sensor will they use? I am not aware of any at this time
that can make it into a 2006 dSLR. Rumours are just that, rumours. KM may
not be in the market next year, as they are feeling financial hardship right
now. With earnings falling well short of projections.

I don't see KM strategy as good, Nikon (D1, D1X, D100) and Canon (1D,
D30,D60 et al) released their high-end cameras in 2000-2001. K-M finally
launched their 7D in late 2004, but with stupid marketing, in Canada you had
to buy a body, grip and enemic flash for CDN $2,400 in when it appeared on
the shelves early December 2004. Last week they finally released several DT
lenses. Too little, too late. The 5D will hit shelves late summer/fall 2005,
or several months after the D50. They (KM) arrived at the party, when
everyone else was going home...
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
>> However, rumors say there will be a possibly full-frame 9D next year.
>
> What "full-frame" sensor will they use? I am not aware of any at this time
> that can make it into a 2006 dSLR. Rumours are just that, rumours.

Supposedly Sony is busy designing a 12 Mp CCD that's physically larger
than APS-C. Again, that's just a rumor.

> KM may not be in the market next year, as they are feeling financial
> hardship right now, with earnings falling well short of projections.

True, but I predict K-M will continue past 2006.

> I don't see KM strategy as good, Nikon (D1, D1X, D100) and Canon (1D,
> D30,D60 et al) released their high-end cameras in 2000-2001. K-M finally
> launched their 7D in late 2004, but with stupid marketing, in Canada you had
> to buy a body, grip and anemic flash for CDN $2,400 in when it appeared on
> the shelves early December 2004. Last week they finally released several DT
> lenses. Too little, too late. The 5D will hit shelves late summer/fall 2005,
> or several months after the D50. They (KM) arrived at the party, when
> everyone else was going home...

Agreed. They delayed far too long. And although their DT lenses are
nothing more than rebadged Tamrons, it's fortunate for them that Canon,
the market leader, has no clear winner in the partial-frame lens arena.
The best partial-frame lenses are the Pentax 16-45/4 and Nikon 17-55/2.8,
but the former is Pentax-only and the latter costs $1350.

I think the 5D, with antishake, gives them a fighting chance to survive.
What I disliked about the 7D was the large size, as much as the price.
There's no reason a partial-frame DSLR should be twice as big, and weigh
three times as much, as my full-frame SLR.
!