Is K-M 7D a dead end?

[Kenneth Sky]

Like many Minolta SLR users with investment in a lot of lenses, I eagerly awaited the release of the Konica-Minolta 7D last year. In fact I purchased the first one at my local retailers. Don't take it wrong, it's a great camera and far exceeds my technical abilities. But aside from releasing a cheaper and lighter version (5D) and announcing a partnership with Sony, there seems to be precious little in new R&D announcements. Obviously the amalgamation of two financially weak companies does not make one that can keep up to Nikon & Canon. Are these two going to destroy the competition ( not just K-M, but Oly and Pentax) by dominating the marketplace with so many product niches that the little guys won't have the economies of scale that allow for new product development? I hope not for personal reasons but also for competitive reasons. Minolta has introduced  a lot of innovations over the years - AF and AS being but two.  It would be encouraging if they announced at 9D at PMA in Feb.

[DarkPenguin]

They just need to merge with some more struggling companies to add synergy.

Soon you'll be able to buy a Konica-Minolta-Pentax-Time Warner-GM 7D Sierra.  Won't that be nice?

Their viability would be a concern to me.  I like the camera but the three people I personally know who own one have all had theirs in the shop.  If the camera was a rock I wouldn't worry so much.  But it doesn't seem to be.  Maybe they were just early adopters.

[Kenneth Sky]

After 11 months of hard use my 7D hasn't failed yet. Even my 9 & 9xi are still working well. It's not that Minolta is incapable of putting out a swtrong product. In fact, they ofter compete well on features, ergonomics and value (although the 7D is a bit overpriced). It's the high cost of going to double digit sensors that seems to have them stymied.

[Slough]

Is there a product that you want but which KM do not provide? If not then all you lack is bragging rights, which seems important to some of the more aggressive Canon supporters. (It tends to be Canon for some reason that attracts the tribal types.) Anyway, if as I suspect you would like a 10+MP DSLR, many people myself included reckon that you only need wait a year or so for one in KM flavour to arrive.

If you are yearning for a so-called full frame sensor, well check out threads in this forum. FF isn't quite as appealing as you might think, and personally I'm not bothered that I cannot buy one in Nikon flavour.

Leif

[BJL]

... Nikon & Canon. Are these two going to destroy the competition
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I expect there will always be more than two DSLR makers, even if Canon and Nikon continue to lead the pack as they did with film SLRs, so I do not fear too much for Olympus, Sony/Konica-Minolta [see below] and Pentax, especially if they seek out and cater to some different niches than the big two. Canon even seems to have abandoned the lowest priced entry-level sector, creating a nice opportunity for Olympus, Pentax and S./K.-M.  Even the far smaller medium format market kept half a dozen brands viable on a small scale for some decades until the recent digitally driven MF shake-down.

Also, the big two in digital cameras overall are Canon and Sony, with Sony the leading sensor supplier for the compact market and about on a par with Canon for DSLR sensors. And Sony has announced a DSLR partnership with Konica-Minolta. If that merges the best of Sony sensors, electronics, style and marketing/distribution with Konica-Minolta know-how in lenses, metering, AF and such, it could do well. Overall revenues and profitability seems to depend heavily on the higher volume, lower priced DSLR's more then either compacts or higher level DSLRs, with Nikon having repeated improvements in sales and profits recently driven largely by the D70 and D70s. That high volume part of the DSLR market seems well suited to Sony's talents.

[Kenneth Sky]

Yes, I have lusted for a double digit megapixel sensor. But it doesn't have to be FF. The APS-c size has upgraded all my lenses by cutting out the edges. Ditto the AS feature. But I see that Tokina and Sigma have not issued all their lenses in Minolta mounts - and there are some I would have considered buying. I suspect the megapixel race is just about done. The next "must have" feature will be high dynamic range. So if K-M(sony) added those 2 features, quicker startup times and larger buffer for RAW shots I'd be satisfied -for now

[Steve West]

KM will soon announce the 7dII which will be APS.  That's the camera for me to finally upgrade my A2 and step into the DSLR world (but first I will hold out to see if they also announce an A3).   I find that wireless flash, AS, and intervalometry are wonderful, and I will be happy to continue to support KM for integrating these technologies into their cameras.

Over on dpreview, there has been an ongoing discussion of the technical difficulties of providing AS for a FF sensor.  If KM does pull it off, it will be an incredible technical achievement.  

But for me, APS seems just fine with 8MP being my minimum and 10 being nice to have.  The financial state of KM doesn't concern me, because KM first announced major restructuring prior to the 5D coming to market.  If anyone buys KM, they will also deal with the warranty issues.  

Steve W

[Anon E. Mouse]

KM will soon announce the 7dII which will be APS.

Where did you get this information?

[Steve West]

Where did you get this information?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52450\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There apparently is a KM insider that occassionally lets some tidbits out on the dpreview km slr talk forum.  So far, he's been amazingly accurate.  For a while, it looked as if the A3 was a sure thing, but the recent restructuring now leaves a question mark about whether they will bring it out of the lab and into the market.  There is speculation that the recent A2 firmware upgrade halving the RAW write times for Lexar and Sandisk cards may have come from the A3 effort.

The 7dII and the FF 9D both look like sure things for 2006.  I'm happy to spread the rumors

Steve W

[BJL]

The 7dII and the FF 9D both look like sure things for 2006.  I'm happy to spread the rumors
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If K.-M. releases a 9D in 2006 with a sensor in the old 35mm film frame format of 24x46mm, I will buy you one. The craziness of expecting K.-M. (or Pentax or Olympus) to jump back to that format when even the team of Nikon and Sony continues to ignore it is purely for the world of misguided wishful thinking, barely deserving the name "rumor", let alone "sure thing".
More so when you yourself have mentioned the massive engineering problems of scaling up sensor anti-shake to work with the far larger, heavier 35mm format sensor.

[Steve West]

If K.-M. releases a 9D in 2006 with a sensor in the old 35mm film frame format of 24x46mm, I will buy you one. The craziness of expecting K.-M. (or Pentax or Olympus) to jump back to that format when even the team of Nikon and Sony continues to ignore it is purely for the world of misguided wishful thinking, barely deserving the name "rumor", let alone "sure thing".
More so when you yourself have mentioned the massive engineering problems of scaling up sensor anti-shake to work with the far larger, heavier 35mm format sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Firstly, I mentioned that I don't want FF.  Secondly, who knows whether or not KM's FF camera would have AS? Sure, AS is their signature, but maybe it's not appropriate for their first FF.  Thirdly, this source has been very good in "predicting" the future, so my money's on 06 for both of these cameras.  Personally, I'd trade em both for a good A3

My interest point is the 7dII vs. a possible A3.  I really dislike DSLRs with noisy flipping mirrors, heavy body, no video and all the stuff you got to carry along.  Even if KM simply made the A3 exactly like the A2 except with a less noisy detector (if that is even possible)--I'd go for the A3.  But if I am going to take the DSLR plunge, the 7dII concept looks very nice to me.

Steve W

[Anon E. Mouse]

More so when you yourself have mentioned the massive engineering problems of scaling up sensor anti-shake to work with the far larger, heavier 35mm format sensor.

The only people who know about the engineer problems of using Anti-Shake with 35mm-size sensors is KM. The rest is speculation.

[Kenneth Sky]

If Sony can provide the 12 plus megapixel available in the Nikon in APS-C size with low video noise and relatively high dynamic range who cares if it isn't FF! It will still be able to maintain all the gains of AS. No question that the added cost of such a sensor will have to be matched with the body quality of a 9 series. It would signal that KM are still in the game with a flagship model. The off-brand lens manufacturers would continue to provide all their models with a KM mount. If they want to save money stop developing crappy post processing software and adopt DNG for RAW.

[jd1566]

In reply to the intial question of whether or not the KM 7D is a dead end.. I think (my opinion) that this new partnership with Sony may prove everyone wrong..  KM have already had their teething problems in working together, and managed to pull off the 7D and now 5D with a unique marketing proposition, anti-shake on the sensor (which also works well for cleaning!).  In film days I respected Minolta very much, and was about to go for the 9 superdooper professional level camera.  I didn't for various reasons, chose the Eos 3 (which was cheaper) and now I'm in heaven with a full frame 5D.  

HOWEVER..

Sony and KM can be a formidable team.. KM has the SLR side of things fairly well under control with many innovations to their name.. Their 7 film camera was a bit of a triumph.  Sensor technology is getting cheaper by the day with volume of sales driving down the unit cost.  Sony brings to the table the all-important D to the DSLR equation, and I think after sufficient incubation we may yet see some competitive reduced frame DSLR's and maybe even a Full Frame.  Whether or not YOU believe FF is the holy grail or not is up to you.. I believe that camera manufacturers see sufficient market to offer a FF option.  If KM does it before Nikon.. then that may just secure their spot in second place and relegate Nikon t othe dustbin of history (ok, pardon my poetic licence..).  There will be enough shooters out there enamoured with Full Frame, ie people who shot 35mm film, who want a FF camera but don't necessarily like the compromises they have to make with Canon.  KM is here to stay and is adopting a steady as she goes approach.. I think they will have some surprises waiting for us in 2006... Only a few more months to go..

[BJL]

The only people who know about the engineer problems of using Anti-Shake with 35mm-size sensors is KM. The rest is speculation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some issues are not speculation, they are basic physics. The sensor a bit over 1.5x wider and 1.5x higher would weigh about 2.3 times as much. Focal lengths 1.5x greater would require moving it 1.5x further in the same time and thus speeds 1.5x greater, thus increasing forces needed by a total factor of about 1.5^3 or 3.6, and increasing kinetic energy needs by about 1.5^4, or 5-fold.

Nothing impossible, but a substantial extra burden on the size, weight, power needs and such, making it more likely that K.-M. will follow the dominant, century long photographic trend of continuing to improve performance in their current format and/or moving to a smaller format, rather than seeing "super-sizing" as the way forward.

[Anon E. Mouse]

Focal lengths 1.5x greater would require moving it 1.5x further in the same time and thus speeds 1.5x greater, thus increasing forces needed by a total factor of about 1.5^3 or 3.6, and increasing kinetic energy needs by about 1.5^4, or 5-fold.

As I said speculation. The 7D and 5D already use 35mm lenses and so there is no change in focal length. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. And what exactly do you know about the AS specifications? Do you know how much the sensor is moved? The requirements for the movement? Do you know the load limits? Do you know exaclty what technology they use to acheive this? Do you know about the improvements to this technology? The jump from the A series camera to the DSLRs was not much of a problem, why is the jump to APS-size sensors to 35mm sensor suddenly "significant." How close is KM to the limits of this technology?

[Steve West]

Here's a url that starts a longish discussion of the technical aspects of FF AS.  It's a quite difficult problem.


FF AS discussion on dpreview

Steve W

[Anon E. Mouse]

Steve, your link did not work, but I did find a FF AS thread on DP review. Nothing in that, but speculation.

[BJL]

As I said speculation. The 7D and 5D already use 35mm lenses and so there is no change in focal length. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens ... Do you know how much the sensor is moved? ... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The larger size of a 35mm format sensor compared the current roughly 16x24mm K.-M. ones is fact, not speculation, and the weight increase is a fairly inevitable consequence.

I do not have to know how much the sensor is moved to know that with sensor size and focal length 1.5x greater, it has to be moved 1.5x further. (K.-M. did demonstrate quite substantial movements for the 7D sensor, maybe half a cm. Optics and a few observations about camera shake can give a fairly god idea of how much sensor movement is needed with a given focal length; unfortunately for 35mm format the movements are far more than the movement of lens elements needed with "in-lens" stabilization.)

I already said that it is not impossible, but unlikely on the bases of the clear facts are that it would be significantly more difficult.


Focal length choice is dictated mostly by desired angular field of view, so that larger formats are mostly used with proportionately longer focal lengths. That is where the need to move the larger sensor by greater distances come from.

If instead you try to use the same focal length with a 24x36mm (35mm) sensor as would work with 16x24mm sensor, the image of your desired subject is the same size, and so fits into a 16x24mm crop from that bigger sensor. So cropping to that desired image discards any possible advantage of using the larger sensor. That is not the way larger formats are used!


P. S. I would love to have a dime for every digital format comparison which implicitly assumes or even explicitly claims that different formats will typically be used with the same choices of focal length, aperture ratio, exposure index, despite massive evidence to the contrary from throughout the history of photography.

[Steve West]

Steve, your link did not work, but I did find a FF AS thread on DP review. Nothing in that, but speculation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Odd about the link.  You're right that it does not work, but I do not understand why.  If I click the link, the browser remains blank--very odd.

But if I copy the url in the broswer (after clicking the link), then close IE, and then open another IE window and copy that url into it, it works just fine!!

I don't get it...  It must be related to my improper use of the http:// button above.

At any rate, it is a very interesting discussion.  Of course, it's speculation, but it is rooted in the proper technical details that KM have to face with FF AS.  I'm starting to think that BJL is correct.  Even if KM does it, using existing FF lenses seem to mandate that the detector would still be a cropped FF version.  

I can't wait to see the 7dII and I hope that we see an A3...


Steve