Minolta Maxxum 5D - New dSLR

Bartshumandad wrote:
Martin Trautmann wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5
inch LCD display. What else's different?


no prism,

Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means.
Isn't the prism this bit the image bounces around to the eyepiece?
What exactly does this mean in performance and function? Would I/you
miss it?

cheers
Steve

It's cheaper and lighter to make the pentaprism that redirects the
incoming light from the reflex mirror up to the viewfinder out of
mirrors and empty space, than to use an actual all-glass prism.
Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker
viewfinder image.


less LCD resolution,
USB 1.1,
no exchangable matte,
motive programs,
smaller (130,5 x 92,5 x 66,5 mm vs. 150 x 106 x 77,5 mm)
lighter (590 g vs. 760 g)

and hopefully much cheaper than the overpriced 7D

There are some more minor differences, such as ± 2 EV in 1/3 steps
only and extra white balance.

- Martin

Skip M wrote:

Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments?

Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old,
though.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments?

Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old,
though.

--
Jeremy |

In other words, no. That's what I thought.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip M wrote:

Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide comments?

Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old,
though.

In other words, no. That's what I thought.

Did you ask Google, or was that just a snide comment?

--
Jeremy |

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:53:48 -0700, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

Bartshumandad wrote:
Martin Trautmann wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5
inch LCD display. What else's different?


no prism,

Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means.
Isn't the prism this bit the image bounces around to the eyepiece?
What exactly does this mean in performance and function? Would I/you
miss it?

cheers
Steve

It's cheaper and lighter to make the pentaprism that redirects the
incoming light from the reflex mirror up to the viewfinder out of
mirrors and empty space, than to use an actual all-glass prism.
Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker
viewfinder image.

There is no reason why this should be the case. There are dielectric
coatings now that reflect over 99% of the incident light therefore
loss at each mirror surface is negligable. In fact the prism,
with it's internal light path (traversing glass) results in a certain
amount of light absorbtion which means the prism system shouldn't be
able to produce as bright an image as the mirrors. In other areas
apart from cameras, no one uses prisms when mirrors can be employed.
Binoculars use prisms because they are robust and can be kept in
position more easily than a group of mirrors.
-Rich

On 18 Jul 2005 10:19:51 GMT, Martin Trautmann wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:53:48 -0700, Bob Harrington wrote:
no prism,

Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means.
Isn't the prism this bit the image bounces around to the eyepiece?
What exactly does this mean in performance and function? Would I/you
miss it?

It's cheaper and lighter to make the pentaprism that redirects the
incoming light from the reflex mirror up to the viewfinder out of
mirrors and empty space, than to use an actual all-glass prism.
Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker
viewfinder image.

I was told about some kind of 'tunnel' impression when it's done by
mirrors. Maybe it has some extra effect for higher eyepiece-to-eye
distance (e.g. wearing lenses). Maybe it's less precise along the full
range of operating temperatures.

Since little or no magnification is involved, this would not be an
issue. The "tunnel" effect could be the result of using mirrors that
are too small to maintain full image illumination. Prisms can suffer
the same effect if they aren't made of the correct glass. Previously,
prisms made of BK4 did have the effect. It can bee seen in cheap
binoculars if you hold them up and look at the "exit pupils" those
tiny discs of light that seem to be in front of the eyepiece lenses.
If the exit pupil isn't uniformly illuminated (the edges of disk have
a squarish dark area superimposed) the prisms are either too small for
the light cone or they are made of inferior glass.
or maybe it's just some kind of tradition: every better camera has a
prism. Attempts to make something cheaper use mirrors.

Prisms have one main attribute; They are strong and there is only one
optical element (the prism) that needs to maintain optical alignment.
Multiple mirrors don't have those attributes. Also, if the light path
is open to the outside air you will eventually get dust on the mirror
surfaces.
-Rich

Bob Harrington wrote:
Bartshumandad wrote:

Martin Trautmann wrote:

On 15 Jul 2005 03:59:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:


So its fibre glass as against the 7D metallic body and sports a 2.5
inch LCD display. What else's different?


no prism,

Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means.
Isn't the prism this bit the image bounces around to the eyepiece?
What exactly does this mean in performance and function? Would I/you
miss it?

cheers
Steve


It's cheaper and lighter to make the pentaprism that redirects the
incoming light from the reflex mirror up to the viewfinder out of
mirrors and empty space, than to use an actual all-glass prism.
Downside is the former method usually results in a somewhat darker
viewfinder image.



Thanks, that clears that term/issue up nicely for me. I will pay
attention when I can get a 5D/7D side by side. I will go back and have
another look at the D70/50 specs, and Canon's too now.

cheers
Steve


less LCD resolution,
USB 1.1,
no exchangable matte,
motive programs,
smaller (130,5 x 92,5 x 66,5 mm vs. 150 x 106 x 77,5 mm)
lighter (590 g vs. 760 g)

and hopefully much cheaper than the overpriced 7D

There are some more minor differences, such as ± 2 EV in 1/3 steps
only and extra white balance.

- Martin

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

Jeremy, do you actually contribute anything here, besides snide
comments?

Hell, I don't know, ask Google. The camera-brand-advocacy does get old,
though.

In other words, no. That's what I thought.

Did you ask Google, or was that just a snide comment?

--
Jeremy |

Well, I googled, didn't find much at all, didn't have time or inclination to
delve further. So, yes, it could be taken as a snide comment. But I just
found one that was useful, so I may be forced to reconsider my assessment.
It's not the brand advocacy, it's the brand slamming that gets to me. I
don't, nor ever have, derided another's choice in equipment, except in
instances like G. Preddy and the Sigma. And that was only in the context of
the blaring advocacy of one brand and the slamming of another.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:53:19 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

It's not the brand advocacy, it's the brand slamming that gets to me. I
don't, nor ever have, derided another's choice in equipment, except in
instances like G. Preddy and the Sigma. And that was only in the context of
the blaring advocacy of one brand and the slamming of another.

What gets me isn't even the brand slamming, but the whining about the
supposed inane brand advocacy of others.

To me, an occasional poster who owns an old Pentax film SLR, an Nikon
Coolpix 995 and a Panasonic FZ-20, it is quite clear that this
newsgroup as a whole spends about an order of magnitude more time
whining about Canon brand advocacy than it spends on actual Canon
brand advocacy.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:56:49 GMT, SMS wrote:
Pete D wrote:

Sounds like a good idea, pay for IS only once.

The theory is good, but in reality the lens IS is better.

Unless you like to use wide, fast lenses. Then you can pretty well
forget about IS in a lens, if you shoot Canon.

Why yes, this *is* a pet peeve of mine. :-)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall