Minolta rumors: Maxxum 9D and possible 5D to be announced ..

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

True211 wrote:

> I've been seeing chatter in various web forums that Minolta is rumored to be
> working on a Maxxum 9D, and a possible 5D, to be announced later this year.
> Steve of Steve's Digicams posted about this rumor in one of the forums on
> his site. He said not to expect anything at PMA because they are busy
> marketing the 7D. Steve is not quite Phil Askey, but he is an insider who
> undoubtedly has good relationships with the manufacturers, so I would
> imagine that he would not spread a rumor on a whim.
>
> Speculation for Minolta gearheads: Would the Maxxum 9D be something on the
> level of, say the Canon 1D Mark2, or would they go full-frame like the 1Ds?
> Would it make sense for Minolta to offer the 9D and 5D at 6MP, or would it
> be almost necessary to jump to 8MP to compete with the new Rebel XT? Should
> the 5D be without Anti-Shake, in order to lower the price?


I've speculated the same several times since before the 7D was even announced,
and so have others. As a member of Minolta Europe's newsletters and such, I get
survey requests from them regularly. The most recent smelled to me like they
were not happy with 7D sales rate (several questions on "have you bought" and
"price/value"). It did not have much suggesting that a new body was in the works.

In a 5D: I guess we would expect the same sensor, no anti-shake, a smaller
display as being the major change from the 7D. One control for aperture/speed
instead of 2, no PC sync, mostly polycarb body. Other minor nits.

In a 9D: First let's address full frame and IMO it is "no". There are not
enough pros using Maxxum 9 full time with the revenues to back a 5K to 7K body.
I certainly would love it, but I'm not forking the bucks for it.

What could they do for a 9D.
-The Maxxum 9 all metal body
-Full 100% (or even 120%) viewfinder.
-1/300 sync speed. (Or, like the D70, 1/500 or so).
-10, 12, 14 Mpix sensor. Possibly CMOS.
-Larger battery pack (or 2nd battery in grip with optional Li-ion or
other battery choice)
-ISO 50, remove special setup to get ISO 3200.
-High bandwidth/realtime wireless data dump (to cam-bag datapod)
-AF assist light (not flash based as on the 7D and Maxxum 5)
-Improve on the data transfer rate (to flash)
-Improve frame rates overall
-Fix the USB 2 to have real USB 2 performance (unless a
wireless is incorporated.
-Improve startup ready time.

MO.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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

The problem with a 100% size viewfinder (I guess this is what you mean, as
opposed to 100% coverage), is that with the sensor smaller than film, the
physics require that if you increase the size of the viewfinder, then the
image will be darker. I know some people prefer darker viewfinders that are
larger, and others are the reverse.

Which compromise would you prefer?

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cv5quk$gn8$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> -Full 100% (or even 120%) viewfinder.

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

In article <4216af6d$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
PlaneGuy <PlaneGuy13@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The problem with a 100% size viewfinder (I guess this is what you mean, as
>opposed to 100% coverage), is that with the sensor smaller than film, the
>physics require that if you increase the size of the viewfinder, then the
>image will be darker. I know some people prefer darker viewfinders that are
>larger, and others are the reverse.
>
>Which compromise would you prefer?

Why do you think there's a need for a compromise?

I grew up with close-to-100% size viewfinders with my 35mm film cameras.

The physics require that a 100% size viewfinder image of a cropped sensor
is a cropped view of that 100% size image; it isn't magnified (and thus
darkened) to fill the larger angle of view of a full-frame 35mm frame.

I don't find my (95% size) DSLR viewfinder to be too dark; in fact with
the same lens mounted it's almost identical to that on my old film SLR
(and noticeably larger than the viewfinder in my newer auto-focus SLRs).

I suppose if you reduce costs by using a pentamirror viewfinder, and then
use a zoom with a maximum aperture of f5.6, it might get a little darker.
But of course while decreasing the viewfinder magnification will increase
the brightness, it will also make it significantly harder to focus manually.

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

PlaneGuy wrote:

> The problem with a 100% size viewfinder (I guess this is what you mean, as
> opposed to 100% coverage), is that with the sensor smaller than film, the
> physics require that if you increase the size of the viewfinder, then the
> image will be darker. I know some people prefer darker viewfinders that are
> larger, and others are the reverse.
>
> Which compromise would you prefer?

100% referes to the proportion of the taken scene seen in the VF. It doesn't
mean that the magnification is specifically higher.

IAC, given that I have a Maxxum 9 and the 100% viewfinder is among the brightest
of any SLR, period (thanks in part to the Accumat screen and the huge prism), I
really don't see a problem with a smaller version of same for a cropped sensor
that would show at leat 100% and possibly more.

Please don't top post.


>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:cv5quk$gn8$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>-Full 100% (or even 120%) viewfinder.
>
>
>


--
-- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.