Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Camera Manufacturers > Minolta > Minolta announcements

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Minolta announcements

 
 
Leonard
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 10:14 AM
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 10:32 AM
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 11:00 AM
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 11:47 AM
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 11:50 AM
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 12:06 PM
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Darrell
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 12:43 PM

"Leonard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:O%LBe.2863$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.



 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 12:46 PM
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Darrell
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 12:54 PM

"ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.





 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-15-2005, 02:03 PM

"frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Olympus: Son of E-1? Teaser announcements Alan Browne Olympus 2 02-27-2007 06:16 AM
Major New Product Announcements From Matrox Gary Bettan Professional Video Production 4 04-21-2006 02:39 AM
Major New Product Announcements From Matrox Gary Bettan Amateur Video Production 4 04-21-2006 02:39 AM
Sony Announcements for 2004 NAB? eb7g Professional Video Production 5 03-05-2004 05:39 PM
Sony Announcements for 2004 NAB? eb7g Amateur Video Production 5 03-05-2004 05:39 PM