Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D

Reply
Thread Tools

Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D

 
 
pooua@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
I am looking for a digital SLR for an upcoming vacation, and I am
leaning towards the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D. I like the principle
behind KM's anti-shake technology; I like the USB 2.0 port; I like the
fact that it uses a CCD vs a CMOS sensor; I like the ISO 100 to ISO
3200 range.

I am not so keen on the physical size; I have always disliked the feel
of these miniture cameras. However, I probably could use a lightweight
camera, as it would reduce neckstrain.

I am pricing lenses for the KM M5D. They are more expensive than I had
expected, especially considering that KM's lenses don't need to include
image stabilization (it's already built into the cameras). I would like
to take at least one zoom lens and one wide-angle lens (I hope to do a
lot of nature photography of a very 3-dimensional place).

Of course, I have also looked at Nikon, Canon and Pentax. The KM is the
only camera that (at least on the feature label) matches all of my
desired attributes in a camera.

I plan to take my other cameras with me on this trip, including my
Canon EOS Rebel G film camera. Am I correct in assuming that the film
and digital EOS cameras accept the same lenses? It would be nice to be
able to interchange lenses, though that is not my highest priority
right now.

I am also looking for a reputable dealer. I am leaning toward B&H, but
they haven't yet gotten the KM in stock. What others would you
recommend?

Thank you.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
wavelength
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
If you already have lenses in the EOS series, I'd stick with Canon. All
the full frame lenses still work with the D series. And if Canon ever
goes back to full frame, you'll still be good on lenses.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
wavelength
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
For any jokers, yes I know the 1ds MarkII and supposedly the 5d are
full frame.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I like the
> fact that it uses a CCD vs a CMOS


Not to interrupt, but why would this be an issue?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
 
Reply With Quote
 
pooua@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > I like the fact that it uses a CCD vs a CMOS

>
> Not to interrupt, but why would this be an issue?


CMOS is more susceptible to electronic noise or leakage, which shows as
colored speckles in dark scenes. It does have the advantage of lower
power consumption and cheaper manufacture.

I believe that CCD produces superior images, being more light
sensitive.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005
wavelength wrote:
> [] And if Canon ever goes back to full frame, you'll still be good on
> lenses.


Don't you mean "when"?


 
Reply With Quote
 
wavelength
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> CMOS is more susceptible to electronic noise or leakage, which shows as
> colored speckles in dark scenes. It does have the advantage of lower
> power consumption and cheaper manufacture.
>
> I believe that CCD produces superior images, being more light
> sensitive.


That's funny, I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe it's
just the small for factor CCD's that cause all that noise at high
ISO's. I'll have to look that up.

 
Reply With Quote
 
pooua@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2005
wavelength wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> > CMOS is more susceptible to electronic noise or leakage, which shows as
> > colored speckles in dark scenes. It does have the advantage of lower
> > power consumption and cheaper manufacture.
> >
> > I believe that CCD produces superior images, being more light
> > sensitive.

>
> That's funny, I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe it's
> just the small for factor CCD's that cause all that noise at high
> ISO's. I'll have to look that up.


"Both CCDs and CMOS imagers can offer excellent imaging performance
when designed properly. CCDs have traditionally provided the
performance benchmarks in the photographic, scientific, and industrial
applications that demand the highest image quality (as measured in
quantum efficiency and noise) at the expense of system size. CMOS
imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip), lower
power dissipation (at the chip level), and the possibility of smaller
system size, but they have often required tradeoffs between image
quality and device cost. Today there is no clear line dividing the
types of applications each can serve. CMOS designers have devoted
intense effort to achieving high image quality, while CCD designers
have lowered their power requirements and pixel sizes. As a result, you
can find CCDs in low-cost low-power cellphone cameras and CMOS sensors
in high-performance professional and industrial cameras, directly
contradicting the early stereotypes."

Dalsa: "CCD vs. CMOS"
http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

"The charge-couple device (CCD) has been the preferred visible
image-capture sensor technology in a variety of applications from
consumer digital cameras to expensive scientific instruments primarily
due to its relative low-noise operation. However, the CMOS-based
paradigm today offers fundamental performance advantages including
optimum bandwidth and higher sensitivity. CMOS image sensors available
today offer the lowest noise, lowest power consumption, 12-bit ADC
performance of any HD sensor on the market. These sensors contain
photodetectors optimized for low dark current, high quantum efficiency
and high uniformity that operate at high HDTV data rates with lower
noise than any CCD alternative."

"CMOS vs. CCD: Changing Technology to Suit HDTV Broadcast"
http://hdtv.videotechnology.com/HDTV-CMOSvsCCD.htm

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> I am pricing lenses for the KM M5D. They are more expensive than I had
> expected, especially considering that KM's lenses don't need to include
> image stabilization (it's already built into the cameras). I would like
> to take at least one zoom lens and one wide-angle lens (I hope to do a
> lot of nature photography of a very 3-dimensional place).


You could get a Minolta 24-50/4 from KEH.com for $133 to $175 used,
depending on condition. It is an excellent zoom lens, although it has
rotating front element (on focus). It would be effectively a 36-75mm
lens on the 5D. They also sell used 20/2.8 for $245 to $349.

However I'm with everybody else who says stick with Canon.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
something on Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D guidezone@gmail.com Digital Photography 1 11-19-2007 02:56 AM
Minolta Maxxum 5D and Minolta "film lenses" compatibility Celcius Digital Photography 2 02-26-2006 01:54 PM
Voltage of Konica-Minolta AC-11 adaptor (Dimage A200 and Maxxum 7D) Alan Browne Digital Photography 1 12-24-2004 02:33 PM
Minolta Maxxum Zeus DSLR Announced CARBUFF Digital Photography 4 10-31-2003 08:11 PM
FS: Minolta Maxxum remote shutter release cord and remote flash cord Webkatz Digital Photography 1 07-17-2003 07:20 PM



Advertisments