Minolta announcements

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Leonard, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. Leonard

    Leonard Guest

    Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
    the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
    be very interesting.

    New reduced coverage lenses. Oooh, including an 18-200. That's
    sure to be good. I like the way they list Anti-Shake as a lens
    feature in the press release. Also:

    "To ensure consistently high quality images, the Dynax5D/Maxxum5D uses
    an optical system ideally suited to a large (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD, in
    addition to spherical lenses to reduce spherical aberrations, AD
    (anomalous dispersion) glass, and a special lens coating that reduces
    flaring that often occurs in digital SLR cameras."

    1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
    2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
    sure I've seen it on film.
    3) I can only imagine that Minolta did not intend to suggest that
    their use of spherical lenses reduced spherical aberrations.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Jul 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Leonard wrote:
    > Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
    > the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
    > be very interesting.
    >
    > New reduced coverage lenses. Oooh, including an 18-200. That's
    > sure to be good. I like the way they list Anti-Shake as a lens
    > feature in the press release. Also:
    >
    > "To ensure consistently high quality images, the Dynax5D/Maxxum5D uses
    > an optical system ideally suited to a large (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD, in
    > addition to spherical lenses to reduce spherical aberrations, AD
    > (anomalous dispersion) glass, and a special lens coating that reduces
    > flaring that often occurs in digital SLR cameras."
    >
    > 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
    > 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
    > sure I've seen it on film.
    > 3) I can only imagine that Minolta did not intend to suggest that
    > their use of spherical lenses reduced spherical aberrations.


    One thing that Minolta don't shout about is that, because they move the
    sensor rather than lens elements to achieve image stabilisation, the lens
    image circle has to be proportionately greater than the actual sensor size
    to cover both the sensor and its movement.

    Whilst this means that Minolta cannot take full advantage of the smaller
    image size on the CCD in the lens design, it could mean that their lenses
    remained suitable for 35mm full frame. However, these new lenses "cannot
    be used on 35mm cameras". It is a great feature, though, which
    automatically turns existing lenses into image stabilised ones - and a
    good selling point for their system.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Leonard

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:

    > 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD


    It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
    area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
    sensors used in P&S cameras. I don't know the exact size of the
    sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLRs having 1.5 and 1.6 crop
    factors, but think that I read somewhere that the 20D had a sensor
    2/3 the size of a full frame. If that's the case, then the 5D's
    sensor would be in turn, about 2/3 the size of the 20D's sensor, so
    that would still be a fairly large sensor. Except for those that
    lust after full sized sensors. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Leonard

    frederick Guest

    ASAAR wrote:

    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD

    >
    >
    > It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
    > area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
    > sensors used in P&S cameras. I don't know the exact size of the
    > sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLRs having 1.5 and 1.6 crop
    > factors, but think that I read somewhere that the 20D had a sensor
    > 2/3 the size of a full frame. If that's the case, then the 5D's
    > sensor would be in turn, about 2/3 the size of the 20D's sensor, so
    > that would still be a fairly large sensor. Except for those that
    > lust after full sized sensors. :)
    >

    The Minolta sensor is larger than a 20d or 350d sensor.
    It's about the same size as a Nikon DX sensor.
     
    frederick, Jul 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Leonard

    frederick Guest

    Leonard wrote:
    > 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
    > sure I've seen it on film.


    The theory behind it is that the sensors / low pass filters are more
    reflective than film, so they multicoat the rear element to reduce the
    effect of reflections off the sensor, onto the rear element, and back to
    the sensor causing flare.
    My experience leads me to conclude that this is a marketing driven
    effort to boost lens sales. No - flaring is not specific to digital
    cameras. No, I've never seen a flaring problem with a DSLR using "old"
    film camera lenses that wouldn't have caused just the same problem with
    film.
     
    frederick, Jul 15, 2005
    #5
  6. Leonard

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:12:48 +1200, frederick wrote:

    > The Minolta sensor is larger than a 20d or 350d sensor.
    > It's about the same size as a Nikon DX sensor.


    You're probably right, and thanks for the correction. But since
    my last msg. I found the article that had the info. I recalled. In
    a piece referring to hands-on evaluation of a 20D it said:

    > The 20D might just be the answer. Canon claimed to have put more
    > pixels (eight million of them) onto the same 2/3 film-size chip as the
    > one used on its 10D, without increasing the noise, a nice trick if true.


    Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
    film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
    making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
    frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 15, 2005
    #6
  7. Leonard

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:30 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD

    >
    > One thing that Minolta don't shout about is that, because they move the
    > sensor rather than lens elements to achieve image stabilisation, the lens
    > image circle has to be proportionately greater than the actual sensor size
    > to cover both the sensor and its movement.
    >
    > Whilst this means that Minolta cannot take full advantage of the smaller
    > image size on the CCD in the lens design, it could mean that their lenses
    > remained suitable for 35mm full frame. However, these new lenses "cannot
    > be used on 35mm cameras".


    Really? What is the necessary increased image circle when going
    from 23.5 x 15.7 mm to 24 x 36 mm? If I remember my trig. formulas,
    that corresponds to image circle diameters of 28.26 and 43.27 mm.
    Do you think the maximum sensor excursion would require an image
    circle as large as 43 mm? In the horizontal plane that would allow
    the sensor to move (43.27 - 23.5)/2, or about +/- 9.9mm. I'd be
    amazed if any IS system could cope with camera movements that need
    such large corrections. While I don't know how much the sensor
    travels, it seems to me that it might be in the neighborhood of plus
    and minus a millimeter or two (for a 23.5 x 15.7 mm sensor), which
    could be accommodated by a much more modest increase in the size of
    the image circle. That doesn't mean however that the lenses don't
    actually have image circles large enough for full frame cameras.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 15, 2005
    #7
  8. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:30 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >>> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD

    >>
    >> One thing that Minolta don't shout about is that, because they move
    >> the sensor rather than lens elements to achieve image stabilisation,
    >> the lens image circle has to be proportionately greater than the
    >> actual sensor size to cover both the sensor and its movement.
    >>
    >> Whilst this means that Minolta cannot take full advantage of the
    >> smaller image size on the CCD in the lens design, it could mean that
    >> their lenses remained suitable for 35mm full frame. However, these
    >> new lenses "cannot be used on 35mm cameras".

    >
    > Really? What is the necessary increased image circle when going
    > from 23.5 x 15.7 mm to 24 x 36 mm? If I remember my trig. formulas,
    > that corresponds to image circle diameters of 28.26 and 43.27 mm.
    > Do you think the maximum sensor excursion would require an image
    > circle as large as 43 mm? In the horizontal plane that would allow
    > the sensor to move (43.27 - 23.5)/2, or about +/- 9.9mm. I'd be
    > amazed if any IS system could cope with camera movements that need
    > such large corrections. While I don't know how much the sensor
    > travels, it seems to me that it might be in the neighborhood of plus
    > and minus a millimeter or two (for a 23.5 x 15.7 mm sensor), which
    > could be accommodated by a much more modest increase in the size of
    > the image circle. That doesn't mean however that the lenses don't
    > actually have image circles large enough for full frame cameras.


    I think you're right - I don't know the amount of sensor movement either,
    but to stabilise for some long lenses might mean quite a lot of movement
    was required (this is one aspect where moving the lens element wins). In
    any case, a small falloff at the corners under image stabilisation might
    well be an acceptable compromise.

    What the Minolta announcement means is that the sensor doesn't move enough
    to cover the full 35mm frame, and might tell us something about what the
    system limits are with longer focal length lenses. Some sort of objective
    test of stabilisation systems would be most helpful in establishing both
    performance and limitations!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Leonard

    frederick Guest

    ASAAR wrote:

    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:12:48 +1200, frederick wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The Minolta sensor is larger than a 20d or 350d sensor.
    >>It's about the same size as a Nikon DX sensor.

    >
    >
    > You're probably right, and thanks for the correction. But since
    > my last msg. I found the article that had the info. I recalled. In
    > a piece referring to hands-on evaluation of a 20D it said:
    >
    >
    >> The 20D might just be the answer. Canon claimed to have put more
    >>pixels (eight million of them) onto the same 2/3 film-size chip as the
    >>one used on its 10D, without increasing the noise, a nice trick if true.

    >
    >
    > Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
    > film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
    > making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
    > frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
    >


    I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
    exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
    confusion.
    2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
    Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
    purpose. Information is here:
    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes
     
    frederick, Jul 15, 2005
    #9
  10. Leonard

    Darrell Guest

    "Leonard" <> wrote in message
    news:O%LBe.2863$...
    > Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
    > the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
    > be very interesting.
    >

    Hmmm, Minolta missed the boat. They are too late the 5D should have been
    brought out first instead of the 7D. In fact a year later they finally have
    some digital lenses.
     
    Darrell, Jul 15, 2005
    #10
  11. Leonard

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:22:10 +1200, frederick wrote:

    >> Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
    >> film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
    >> making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
    >> frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
    >>

    >
    > I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
    > exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
    > confusion.
    > 2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
    > Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
    > purpose. Information is here:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes


    Well now I'm confused. :) I thought that the 20D had a
    reasonably large, though not full frame sensor. But 8.8 x 6.6 mm
    (58sq.mm) is tiny, only 1/15th the area of 24 x 36mm (864sq.mm).
    That seems more like the smaller size I thought was used by some of
    the P&S dcams. Guess I'll have to follow your dpreview link to see
    what I'm missing.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 15, 2005
    #11
  12. Leonard

    Darrell Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:
    >
    >> 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD

    >
    > It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
    > area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
    > sensors used in P&S cameras. I don't know the exact size of the
    > sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLRs having 1.5 and 1.6 crop
    > factors, but think that I read somewhere that the 20D had a sensor
    > 2/3 the size of a full frame. If that's the case, then the 5D's
    > sensor would be in turn, about 2/3 the size of the 20D's sensor, so
    > that would still be a fairly large sensor. Except for those that
    > lust after full sized sensors. :)
    >

    The KM, Nikon and Pentax all have the same sensor size, because they all use
    the same sensor. This is a APS-C (23.5 x 15.7 mm) size CCD. The Canon 20D
    has a 22.5 x 15.0 mm, or a sensor or 8.5% smaller than Nikon, Pentax and
    Konica-Minolta. All of these are "full-sizes" sensors. If you are talking
    about a 35mm frame (24x36mm) sized sensor, I doubt it will happen. All the
    makers are building more and more DX/EF-S (DA/DT et al) format lenses.
     
    Darrell, Jul 15, 2005
    #12
  13. Leonard

    frederick Guest

    ASAAR wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:22:10 +1200, frederick wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> Was "2/3" a typo, or does it not refer to 2/3 the area of a 35mm
    >>>film frame? I suppose it probably meant 2/3 the height and width,
    >>>making it a smaller sensor, (2/3)*(2/3), or 0.44 times the full
    >>>frame area vs. the 0.67 (2/3) that I thought that they meant.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
    >>exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
    >>confusion.
    >>2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
    >>Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
    >>purpose. Information is here:
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes

    >
    >
    > Well now I'm confused. :) I thought that the 20D had a
    > reasonably large, though not full frame sensor. But 8.8 x 6.6 mm
    > (58sq.mm) is tiny, only 1/15th the area of 24 x 36mm (864sq.mm).
    > That seems more like the smaller size I thought was used by some of
    > the P&S dcams. Guess I'll have to follow your dpreview link to see
    > what I'm missing.
    >

    Yes - 2/3" sensor is small.
    The smallest dslr sensors AFAIK are the "4/3" size - just to add more
    confusion they are 18 x 13.5mm.

    There are countless arguments in these forums about sensor size, noise,
    and diffraction limited resolution. Much of the arguments are IMO
    fairly pointless, as is the argument that 35mm film "full size" sensors
    are desirable - except to make the most out of existing 35mm lenses.
    Mamiya have just released a 22mp DSLR with a huge sensor, a huge price,
    and some huge disadvantages over smaller format dslrs. I have yet to be
    convinced that this is the way of the future. We'll have to wait and see.
     
    frederick, Jul 15, 2005
    #13
  14. "frederick" <> wrote:
    >
    > There are countless arguments in these forums about sensor size, noise,
    > and diffraction limited resolution. Much of the arguments are IMO fairly
    > pointless, as is the argument that 35mm film "full size" sensors are
    > desirable - except to make the most out of existing 35mm lenses.


    It's about the image quality. If you don't understand or care about image
    quality, you won't care about larger sensors.

    > Mamiya have just released a 22mp DSLR with a huge sensor, a huge price,
    > and some huge disadvantages over smaller format dslrs. I have yet to be
    > convinced that this is the way of the future. We'll have to wait and see.


    It's only the way of the future if you care about image quality, and are
    willing to sacrifice convenience for said image quality.

    As long as photography involves collecting photons focused onto a planar
    sensor with a lens, a larger planar sensor will provide better image
    quality, and a smaller planar sensor will provide greater convenience. It's
    an engineering tradeoff, and it's never going away.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 15, 2005
    #14
  15. "frederick" <> wrote:

    > My experience leads me to conclude that this is a marketing driven effort
    > to boost lens sales. No - flaring is not specific to digital cameras. No,
    > I've never seen a flaring problem with a DSLR using "old" film camera
    > lenses that wouldn't have caused just the same problem with film.


    Since I'm grumping at you in another corner of this thread, I'll take this
    change to point out that you are spot on here<g>. The vast majority of the
    problems digerati whimper about are problems they just never noticed on
    their film cameras since they never looked closely. With digital we look at
    every image at 100% pixels and see all the infelicities we never noticed
    with film.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 15, 2005
    #15
  16. Leonard

    Leonard Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:06 GMT, Leonard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD

    >
    >
    > It's not full frame, but that's only slightly less than 1/2 the
    > area of full frame sensor. That would make it much larger than the
    > sensors used in P&S cameras.


    It's certainly a lot larger than those sensors. But all of the
    other Minolta SLR lenses you can get are designed for a somewhat
    larger sensor.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Jul 15, 2005
    #16
  17. Leonard

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:22:10 +1200, frederick wrote:

    > I guess a typo - or a lack of realisation that so called 2/3" sensors
    > exist - and hence using that to describe a 20d sensor was bound to cause
    > confusion.
    > 2/3" sensors are 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
    > Confused? I think camera manufacturers want to confuse the market on
    > purpose. Information is here:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Sensor_Sizes


    I guess I was doubly confused. I read the above too quickly and
    thought that you were saying that the 20D's sensor was 8.8 x 6.6 mm.
    On re-reading it I got it the way you intended, which strangely
    enough was exactly how you wrote it. :)

    Back now to the strange "2/3 film-size chip" mentioned in the
    article I previously quoted. Armed with the 20D's sensor size (22.5
    x 15.0 mm per dpreview) I got approx. 27mm for its diagonal (the
    diameter of the smallest image circle that would completely contain
    it). For a 36 x 24 mm sensor, the diagonal would be about 43mm.
    The 27mm diagonal turns out to be very close to 2/3 the size of the
    24 x 36mm full size frame's diagonal. So that may be what was
    behind the above "2/3" figure mentioned in the article.

    To tie up a loose end, the article was "Shootout In The Old West"
    (Four Pros In A Digital SLR Showdown) by Steve Anchell which
    appeared in the current (July 2005) issue of Shutterbug. It's
    nothing like the reviews seen on the web (dpreview, Steve's Digicam,
    etc.). Here, each of the four were given a camera (that I think
    they had little or no previous experience with) to simply take
    pictures (in the Rockies) and report their impressions, along with
    pros and cons. The four cameras evaluated were Canon's 20D, Konica
    Minolta's Maxxum 7D, Nikon's D70 and Olympus's E1.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 15, 2005
    #17
  18. frederick wrote:
    > Leonard wrote:
    >> 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
    >> sure I've seen it on film.

    >
    > The theory behind it is that the sensors / low pass filters are more
    > reflective than film, so they multicoat the rear element to reduce the
    > effect of reflections off the sensor, onto the rear element, and back
    > to the sensor causing flare.
    > My experience leads me to conclude that this is a marketing driven
    > effort to boost lens sales. No - flaring is not specific to digital
    > cameras. No, I've never seen a flaring problem with a DSLR using "old"
    > film camera lenses that wouldn't have caused just the same problem
    > with film.


    I tend to agree - I've seen recent ads for the reissued Sigma 50-500
    zoom touting its 'digital friendly' tweaks. I have the previous Bigma,
    and it not only has very nice anti-reflection coatings on the rear
    element, but takes darned nice photos on my Maxxum 7D.

    Bob ^,,^
     
    Bob Harrington, Jul 15, 2005
    #18
  19. Leonard

    Pea C Guest

    Darrell wrote:
    > "Leonard" <> wrote in message
    > news:O%LBe.2863$...
    >
    >>Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
    >>the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
    >>be very interesting.
    >>

    >
    > Hmmm, Minolta missed the boat. They are too late the 5D should have been
    > brought out first instead of the 7D. In fact a year later they finally have
    > some digital lenses.
    >
    >
    >


    It seems to be the same sales politics as in classics - Dynax 7 and then
    Dynax 5, then Dynax 4, Dynax 60...

    --
    Pea C
    (ask me for the right e-mail address)
    ***
    If I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants.
     
    Pea C, Jul 16, 2005
    #19
  20. Leonard

    Pea C Guest

    Leonard wrote:
    > Maxxum 5D. In-body stabalization arrives at the entry level. If
    > the ergonomics are as good as everyone says the 7D's are it could
    > be very interesting.
    >
    > New reduced coverage lenses. Oooh, including an 18-200. That's
    > sure to be good. I like the way they list Anti-Shake as a lens
    > feature in the press release. Also:
    >
    > "To ensure consistently high quality images, the Dynax5D/Maxxum5D uses
    > an optical system ideally suited to a large (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD, in
    > addition to spherical lenses to reduce spherical aberrations, AD
    > (anomalous dispersion) glass, and a special lens coating that reduces
    > flaring that often occurs in digital SLR cameras."
    >
    > 1) They mean a small (23.5 x 15.7 mm) CCD
    > 2) Is the flaring that often occurs specific to digital cameras? I'm
    > sure I've seen it on film.
    > 3) I can only imagine that Minolta did not intend to suggest that
    > their use of spherical lenses reduced spherical aberrations.
    >
    > - Len


    Any comparison between 7D and 5D can be found on the net somewhere? I've
    read there are some limitations in adjusting of the 5D. And what about
    the material of the body - glass fiber plastics? Any price level already
    known?

    --
    Pea C
    (ask me for the right e-mail address)
    ***
    If I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants.
     
    Pea C, Jul 16, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Doe
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    570
    John Doe
    Jan 8, 2004
  2. Quixote
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    555
    Quixote
    Dec 23, 2003
  3. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    560
    Doug MacLean
    Jan 3, 2004
  4. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    480
    Doug MacLean
    Feb 17, 2004
  5. Edgar Allenpoe

    New Announcements From Universal

    Edgar Allenpoe, May 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    464
    jayembee
    May 12, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page