Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Minolta Maxxum 5D - New dSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 7:59:46 AM

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

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

"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

More about : minolta maxxum dslr

July 15, 2005 1:28:38 PM

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

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?
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 5:58:18 PM

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

On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> 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
Related resources
July 15, 2005 5:58:19 PM

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

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>> 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


Well, it *is* an entry level camera.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 8:26:17 PM

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

On 15 Jul 2005 13:58:18 GMT, Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

>On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>> 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

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
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 9:12:18 PM

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

Brian wrote:
> 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?
>

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
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 9:21:54 PM

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

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>> 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.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 9:21:55 PM

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

SMS wrote:
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

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.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 11:26:42 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:21:54 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 12:43:58 AM

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

RichA wrote:

> 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.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 12:47:24 AM

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

Ben Rosengart <br@panix.com> wrote:

> 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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 1:37:58 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:43:58 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> 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.

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
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:42:33 AM

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

"Martin Trautmann" <t-use@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnddfg7q.t4f.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de...
> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>> 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

???

Our shop is selling them at £699- that's £300 less than the 20D body price.

Martin
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 10:50:32 AM

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

> 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.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:56:49 PM

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

Pete D wrote:
>>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.
July 17, 2005 6:56:50 PM

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

SMS wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
>
>>> 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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:43:36 AM

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

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> 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?!

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
July 18, 2005 1:43:37 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>SMS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?!
>

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. :) 

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:43:37 AM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11dlk881bd6qr6d@corp.supernews.com...
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> 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?!
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:22:22 AM

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

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> 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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:22:23 AM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11dmm5emf1oho15@corp.supernews.com...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

In other words, no. That's what I thought.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:58:12 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:40:13 -0500, Jer wrote:
> >> 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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 2:15:32 PM

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:42:33 +0100, Martin Francis wrote:
>
> "Martin Trautmann" <t-use@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnddfg7q.t4f.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de...
> > On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >> 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
>
> ???
>
> 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....
(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?
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:01:34 PM

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

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>> 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,
> 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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:01:35 PM

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

Bartshumandad wrote:
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>
>>> 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

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,
>> 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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:01:36 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:53:48 -0700, Bob Harrington wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> 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.

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.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 8:32:19 PM

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

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>>> 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?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 8:53:19 PM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11dnmcj38ieb27c@corp.supernews.com...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>> 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?
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:09:51 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:53:48 -0700, "Bob Harrington"
<rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:

>Bartshumandad wrote:
>> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>>> On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>
>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.

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:16:29 PM

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

On 18 Jul 2005 10:19:51 GMT, Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:53:48 -0700, Bob Harrington wrote:
>> >> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>
>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.
>
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
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 2:13:49 PM

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

Bob Harrington wrote:
> Bartshumandad wrote:
>
>>Martin Trautmann wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>
>
> 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.
>
>

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,
>>>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
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 2:50:37 PM

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:53:19 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>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.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:35:58 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:56:49 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
>
>> 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. :-)

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:32:23 PM

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

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> 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
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:32:24 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:32:23 +0200, tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas)
wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> 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

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
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:04:12 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:56:49 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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. :-)


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.
--
-- 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.
!