Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Kenneth Sky on November 28, 2005, 08:27:03 am
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
... 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.
-
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
-
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
-
KM will soon announce the 7dII which will be APS.
Where did you get this information?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=15823932)
Steve W
-
Steve, your link did not work, but I did find a FF AS thread on DP review. Nothing in that, but speculation.
-
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, 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
-
I'm starting to think that BJL is correct.
Why? He does not know any of the technical specifications for the AS system. He is simply speculating with a few narrow assumptions.
-
My pure speculation is that Nikon would go into partnership with a sensor manufacturer such as Foveon. It would provide stiff competition to Canon and Sony K-M and benefit us consumers at large .
-
Another Sigma lens in K/M (and Pentax) mount:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120601sigma_10-20mm.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120601sigma_10-20mm.asp)
Mvh. RKS
-
Why? He does not know any of the technical specifications for the AS system. He is simply speculating with a few narrow assumptions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, "speculating with a few narrow assumptions" is a good description of the frequent but never fulfilled rumors about camera makers other than Canon introducing a DSLR in the old 35mm film format. The "narrow assumption" being that the format that people are most familiar with from film is also the best choice for the very different properties of electronic sensors. How many times do Nikon, Olympus, Fujifilm, Pentax and Konica-Minolta (and soon Panasonic, Sony and Samsung) have to say that they are staying with the current "digital specific" SLR formats before some people will start believing them, instead of believing the contrary speculations and rumors?
-
Why? He does not know any of the technical specifications for the AS system. He is simply speculating with a few narrow assumptions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is some of what BJL has said so far.
Some issues are not speculation, they are basic physics.
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.
And Steve West posted:
Of course, it's speculation, but it is rooted in the proper technical details that KM have to face with FF AS.
Doesn't seem like "narrow assumptions" to me
-
This is some of what BJL has said so far.
And Steve West posted:
Doesn't seem like "narrow assumptions" to me
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL put forward a few facts (scaling up of speeds, size, weight, forces etc) and then made numerous assumptions taken out of the air without (I presume) any knowledge of the engineering. It might be practical, it might not. In any case, these things tend to get easier to do with time as manufacturers become more confident and experienced.
Zeiss moved the whole film carrier in a 35mm film camera in order to achieve auto-focus. The result was large, heavy and expensive. KM don't have to do so much work, as the sensor is much smaller than a film carrier, but we will see.
Leif
-
With the announcement of Sigma that they are producing a 10-20mm lens in K-M (and Pentax) mount, I have hope that this platform will survive. That they made this lens in their DC range suggests they have knowledge that K-M will keep producing cameras with the APS-C sized sensors.
-
The above post is a bit ironic as last week I picked up a Sigma 14mm on eBay at a good price. It preserves my options should K-M go to FF.
-
It doesn't take much for a lens manufacturer to modify an existing lens to fit a different camera mount. Sigma is simply trying to broaden their lens' marketability now that they've got the major mounts (Canon and Nikon) covered .
-
I would question the effectiveness of moving the sensor, rather than a lens element, to provide image stabilisation. For a cropped sensor I do not beleive that there is too much of a problem in moving the sensor to stabilise the image, provided the sensor remains within the image circle of the lens. There is some risk that image quality will be degraded if the lens has signficant distortion across the image field - i.e. I am not sure how effective this type of stabilisation would be with a fisheye lens for instance, or a cheap lens that exhibits strong barrel/pincushion distortion - the image changes geometry as the lens is rotated effectively blurring the image. However, if the sensor is full frame and image stabilisation takes the edges of the sensor outside of the image circle then there is a strong risk that vignetting and edge distortions will become a greater issue. For this reason I do not envisage that KM will introduce a sensor stabilised full frame camera, and also, that this technology will not necessarily be a long term viable technology in the market place.
-
The last post begs the question: What if K-M came out with a FF sensor that cropped to APS-C size if AS was implemented? How would the viewfinder system deal with that?
-
I would question the effectiveness of moving the sensor, rather than a lens element, to provide image stabilisation. ...
Good points though in-lens IS involves moving one lens group, and a consequent degradation of the image quality. Few people seem to complain about that thoug it is sometimes mentioned. I doubt that a few mm displacement of the sensor would be any worse.
It might also be the case that KM are clever and make sure that the sensor is centrally aligned at the exact moment that the exposure is taken. (Using the short interval between the shutter trigger being pressed, and the system firing the shutter.) Obviously for a slow exposure travel would be greater, so they would start off-centre, and try and make sure that the offsets at the start and end of the exposure were equal and opposite. Thinking about this, it seems to me that during the exposure a given part of the object passes in front of the lens, and the distortion and aberrations will change depending on the part of the lens being used. So although large motions might seem feasible with an APS sensor and a FF lens, in practice large motions will lead to image degradation due to using different parts of the lens.
It also seems to me that if you implement AS on an APS DSLR with an APS only lens, you have little room to move the sensor due to the reduced image circle. So, FF will bring no new challenges, apart from the greater mass, and associated costs, as mentioned above by someone else.
Leif
-
Apart from speculation about what K.-M. will do, I have to repeat my reasons for preferring in-lens stabilization on cameras with TTL optical viewfinders as opposed to EVF's:
The in-lens approach stabilizes the viewfinder image, while the K.-M sensor jiggling approach still gives you a shaky image to look at when hand-holding long telephoto lenses.
On the other hand, in the K.-M. EVF camera, you get the stabilized image from the sensor in the viewfinder, so sensor stabilization makes more sense there.
But since K.-M. has no stabilized lenses, they probably want to stay with AS for now.
-
Speaking from a purely business minded Point of View, it would make the most sense for KM to stick with the AS, no matter what the costs.
Thinks about it, aside from AS in the body KM isn't pushing all that much in the way of atractive features. (and before anyone yells at me, I love, and own, minolta film cams, im just stating the facts) If they produce a camera without AS then their principle selling point disapears.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
-
Speaking from a purely business minded Point of View, it would make the most sense for KM to stick with the AS, no matter what the costs.
Thinks about it, aside from AS in the body KM isn't pushing all that much in the way of atractive features. (and before anyone yells at me, I love, and own, minolta film cams, im just stating the facts) If they produce a camera without AS then their principle selling point disapears.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree 100%. A unique sellig point is the reason why KM and Olympus might survive whereas Pentax seem to be doing worse. Otherwise why else would a new customer choose KM over the big two?
Leif
-
I agree 100%. A unique selling point is the reason why KM and Olympus might survive whereas Pentax seem to be doing worse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree 99%. It seems common that a particular market niche will only support a couple of long term profitable companies, and Canon and Nikon are likely to dominate certain niches against "me too" competitors, unless a vigorous, heavily funded challenge comes from electronics giants like Samsung, Matsushita/Panasonic, or Sony.
I am a bit more optimistic about Pentax (or is it just the loyalty of a K-1000 owner?); models like the *-ist DL are still catering to the "smaller, lighter, cheaper, simpler" niche that has worked for them in the past. But Pentax has another possible business weakness; they are a smaller and more purely a camera company than even Olympus, for whom profits on microscopes and medical equipment can help them to ride out bad periods with camera sales.