Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:07:08 PM

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

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?

[yes, i'm bored, impatiently awaiting the rest of the PMA announcements] :) 
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:41:23 PM

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.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 5:15:56 PM

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.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 5:15:57 PM

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.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 5:15:57 PM

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.
!