KMMaxxum5D?????

[cubby]

would you buy a KMmaxxum DSLR now that KM is going under?
what happens to warranty? parts?
i like the camera, but wonder if i should stick with an established brand...
:confused:

cubby

[coldrain]

Sony is taking over warranty and service (and the DSLR part of KM).
Sony bought that part of KM for one thing, they have an established lens mount system. This will enable Sony to become a player in the DSLR market, they could not have done that on their own.

So.... warranty covered, service covered, and future lens system covered. If you like the camera and other DSLR's (Nikon D50 or D70s, Canon EOS 350D/XT, Pentax DS2 or DL, Olympus E-500) do not have it for you, the KM 5D is not a bad choice.

[Jason25]

Agreed. The 5D is a nice, usable camera regardless of KM's separation from the line :) If I wanted one, I would probably still get one.

[cubby]

but jason!! I went to one of those big electronics stores to play around with the DSLRs and really liked the Nikon D50... It's pretty much alot of fun!

I'm still pretty happy with my Fuji F10...but long for manual focus and better lens choices...

[Jason25]

That's why I said "If I wanted one" :D I like the D50 more as well, which is why I got one ;)

[capedeci]

why u like d50 more? can you describe?

im also confused between d50 and KM. I'll get d50 with VR lens 18-200, or a KM with 18-200 std lens.

km might be a better bargain here, so can u tell me what is the cons of KM that made me should go to the nikon?

I dropped 350D because of lack of 18-200 IS lens, I sell them immediately after I buy, my hand is shaky

[George Riehm]

why u like d50 more? can you describe?

im also confused between d50 and KM. I'll get d50 with VR lens 18-200, or a KM with 18-200 std lens.

km might be a better bargain here, so can u tell me what is the cons of KM that made me should go to the nikon?

I dropped 350D because of lack of 18-200 IS lens, I sell them immediately after I buy, my hand is shaky


The "cons" of the 5D, as a camera, are minor, with the "pro" of built-in AS being a major factor in your case.

If you like the KM 5D then give it a shot (or two).

[coldrain]

why u like d50 more? can you describe?

im also confused between d50 and KM. I'll get d50 with VR lens 18-200, or a KM with 18-200 std lens.

km might be a better bargain here, so can u tell me what is the cons of KM that made me should go to the nikon?

I dropped 350D because of lack of 18-200 IS lens, I sell them immediately after I buy, my hand is shaky
Not everyones hand is shakey. The KM lens I think is very much like the Tamron, and then the Sigma 18-200 lens may be a better idea (better lens).

The EOS 350D has a 70-300 with IS, which may be a lot more useful than IS over 18 to 200. So with a lens covering the wider spectrum, like a 28-105 USM II, a Tamron 19-35, and that 70-300 USM IS, you would have a very nice combination of lenses with IS where it matters most.

Why someone would choose a D50 over a KM 5D? better image quality, better lens selection, maybe it feels better in their hands, better RAW conversion software if you get Nikon Capture with it. Maybe even the AF help light.

[beachluvr]

would you buy a KMmaxxum DSLR now that KM is going under?
what happens to warranty? parts?
i like the camera, but wonder if i should stick with an established brand...
:confused:

cubby

Whoa! Where did you head Konica Minolta is "going under"? They are still a huge prime manufacturer (and a very established brand). They simply sold their digital camera technology and support to Sony (who they have been partnering with anyway) and will continue to manufacture camera components. The transition shouldn't have any major effect on anyone who buys a KM camera.

I just parted with about $1000 of my hard-earned cash for a 5D with the KM 18-200 DT lens.

Why someone would choose a 5D over a Nikon D50? Better image quality, better lens selection, maybe it feels better in their hands, better RAW conversion software if you get Dimage Master with it. Maybe even the AF help light. (of course I am paraphrasing Coldrain here to illustrate the point that the same words can be used for any of the current sub-$1K DSLRs)

Anti Shake is a huge benefit to everyone, not only someone with shakey hands. Do a Google search and read the dozens of reviews, they all say the same thing ... the 5D is an outstanding performer in it's class and easily the best value when combined with a good lens. You can't touch a Canon or Nikon with VR for anything near the price.

Yes, read reviews, read forum posts, but BUY what you want and need and don't let the KM/Sony thing influence you.

[capedeci]

i personally think that many people said AS isnt essential is only a denial, because their camera dont have AS :)

dont get this serious though, you can always carry a tripod which is better than AS (20 stops or more slower shutter :cool: ), but hey, to those traveling light casually without a tripod, AS is certainly essential.

My point for the OP:
please consider, if u have the canon, and ure being asked by the sales "would you like if we add IS to your 350d for free?". You obviously will say yes. If it isnt useful, why did u say yes?

To those who cary a tripod, then its like getting a free cupholder in your car, not essential, but its a nice bonus:p

[beachluvr]

i personally think that many people said AS isnt essential is only a denial, because their camera dont have AS :)


Excellent point Capedeci. There certainly is a lot of denial and brand defense in forums like this. I have a hard time believing anyone who says they wouldn't choose AS/VR if they had the choice. You can ALWAYS switch it off, but the benefits are undeniable. There's a lot of pretention that someone is buying a "professional" camera when they get a sub-$1000 DLSR, so they get all defensive about RAW images and how you should always use a tripod. Reality is that sub-$1000 DSLRs are meant to be multi-purpose cameras for people who want more than a point-and-shoot but are not ready for a professional camera (or want their camera to be multi-purpose).

It really seems that Canon and Nikon owners are truly angry that their brand didn't come up with KMs style of Anti Shake first. Saying that their brand takes "better pictures" is quite a stretch, I have certainly never seen that quantified and besides what good is a picture with slightly "better" color if it's too blurry to be usable?

Another laughable fantasy is that Canon and Nikon users can use "any" lens with their mount, while KM users are limited to a handful of expensive lenses that will go away soon. Reality = my 18 - 200 KM lens WITH VR cost just over $400, Nikon's cost over $700. If a Nikon or Canon user wants another VR lens, it will cost another fortune, while I can buy a huge variety of KM (and likely Zeiss/Sony in the future) lenses and I still have my Anti Shake. And no, you can't just throw any old Nikon lens on a D50 or D70 or I would have bought one and used my old useless lenses. Same holds true with Canon, not every old Canon lens works as designed with the 350D.

Yes it's human nature to defend the brand you own. It's not easy to break away from the herd and try something that may be better. The 5D remains one of the best values in its category.

[cubby]

Well. Since I started this ...I'll tell you what. I just bought a D50 from Beach Camera. I went first to Circuit City to play with the Nikons, CanonXT and KM5.

Without a doubt the Nikon and the KM felt like a better physical fit. The Canon seemed small, heavy and ...I don't know, overdone.

I REALLY liked how clear the focus points in the viewer were in the Nikon and the KM. I stayed there for about a half an hour with those 3 cameras.

In the end I decided to go for the Nikon because I HATE this take over thing, and I have more faith (crossed fingers) in Nikon's longevity in digital SLRS. I also found myself drawn to just hold it more....we bonded.

I do sometimes wonder if the loss of AS will haunt me....

cubby

[ReF]

i personally think that many people said AS isnt essential is only a denial, because their camera dont have AS :)

dont get this serious though, you can always carry a tripod which is better than AS (20 stops or more slower shutter :cool: ), but hey, to those traveling light casually without a tripod, AS is certainly essential.

My point for the OP:
please consider, if u have the canon, and ure being asked by the sales "would you like if we add IS to your 350d for free?". You obviously will say yes. If it isnt useful, why did u say yes?

To those who cary a tripod, then its like getting a free cupholder in your car, not essential, but its a nice bonus:p


AS, IS, VR, or whatever else, is of course nice to have, and WILL help produce better pictures SOMETIMES, but it is NOT essential. your statement sounds like you're saying good pictures can't be taken without stabilization or a tripod.

who wouldn't want stabilization for free? your example isn't real world though.


Excellent point Capedeci. There certainly is a lot of denial and brand defense in forums like this. I have a hard time believing anyone who says they wouldn't choose AS/VR if they had the choice. You can ALWAYS switch it off, but the benefits are undeniable. There's a lot of pretention that someone is buying a "professional" camera when they get a sub-$1000 DLSR, so they get all defensive about RAW images and how you should always use a tripod. Reality is that sub-$1000 DSLRs are meant to be multi-purpose cameras for people who want more than a point-and-shoot but are not ready for a professional camera (or want their camera to be multi-purpose).

It really seems that Canon and Nikon owners are truly angry that their brand didn't come up with KMs style of Anti Shake first. Saying that their brand takes "better pictures" is quite a stretch, I have certainly never seen that quantified and besides what good is a picture with slightly "better" color if it's too blurry to be usable?

Another laughable fantasy is that Canon and Nikon users can use "any" lens with their mount, while KM users are limited to a handful of expensive lenses that will go away soon. Reality = my 18 - 200 KM lens WITH VR cost just over $400, Nikon's cost over $700. If a Nikon or Canon user wants another VR lens, it will cost another fortune, while I can buy a huge variety of KM (and likely Zeiss/Sony in the future) lenses and I still have my Anti Shake. And no, you can't just throw any old Nikon lens on a D50 or D70 or I would have bought one and used my old useless lenses. Same holds true with Canon, not every old Canon lens works as designed with the 350D.

Yes it's human nature to defend the brand you own. It's not easy to break away from the herd and try something that may be better. The 5D remains one of the best values in its category.

sorry, but your quote is more defensive so far than anything else in this thread.

it's really a stretch to make blanket statements about nikon and canon owners being "truly angry that their brand didn't come up with KMs style of Anti Shake first". you know what, i'll just say it, that not just a stretch, it's a dumb thing to say. if you like your system, fine. but don't start knocking others with crazy accusations.

i've returned an IS lens and sold another, then went on to purchase several non IS lenses - why? cuz i don't think it's all that important. that doesn't mean i should go out and say a bunch of crap about people that like to have stabilization on everything.

"Reality = my 18 - 200 KM lens WITH VR cost just over $400, Nikon's cost over $700. If a Nikon or Canon user wants another VR lens, it will cost another fortune, while I can buy a huge variety of KM (and likely Zeiss/Sony in the future) lenses and I still have my Anti Shake."

if keeping the cost down is such a big issue then why are zeiss lenses even brought up? :rolleyes:

"what good is a picture with slightly "better" color if it's too blurry to be usable?"

the quote is taken out of context but i know that "blurry" refers to blur due to lack of stabilization. now i can take that, turn it around and say "what good is stabilization if you have subject movement blur?", but that would be as overly broad and pointless as your quote.

"Another laughable fantasy is that Canon and Nikon users can use "any" lens with their mount"

i can't make much sense of that statement so far. can you go into more details?



BTW, I need someone to answer these questions for me: i've heard that the image circle of "digital only" lenses are too small to accomodate the moving, stabilized sensor on KM models. is this true? and if it is, does that mean that AS technology will be limited cropped sensors, or that a stabilized full frame sensor will require lenses with a bigger image circle than the standard 35mm lenses?

[beachluvr]

Cubby - you can't go wrong with a Nikon, that is my #1 brand. I don't think you would have gone wrong with the KM either. I am a big believer in the future of anti-shake and I predict we will see it on a lot more cameras.

ReF - sorry to sound "defensive". There is nothing I'm defending, I broke out of my HIGHLY preferred brand to give KM a chance, even though I knew they were selling their technology to Sony and I would be one of the last KM customers on earth. I haven't even tried my new camera yet, so I really don't think I'm defending the unknown. Stay tuned, I may hate it :rolleyes:

The comment about Nikon/Canon owners being ticked off that KM thought of anti-shake first was meant to be be sarcastic. I don't know any of them so I really didn't mean it as a statement of fact.

Keeping cost down wasn't as much of an issue in my lens selection as much as the fact I got a very good lens to cover my everyday needs and I won't be raped if I want a more wide or tele lens AND want it to be VR. Now that I have the camera I can select a fairly wide variety of lenses at a reasonable price. The Zeiss comment had nothing to do with price ... as you know the Zeiss name is now licensed and doesn't necessarily equate to high priced lenses made by gnomes in the Black Forest.

Ummm ... VR and AS really don't have anything to do with subject motion blur so I don't understand your question nor can I comment on it. If you have subject motion blur you need to use a higher shutter speed. VR/AS don't change the laws of photography, it just makes camera shake less of an issue.

The comment about lenses has to do with the digital image sensor compared to 35mm. Not every old lens will work to full expectation with a digital camera. Some newer cameras also read things like distance that they calculate into their flash settings. Some old lenses can't provide that feedback. When I found my older and VERY expensive Nikon lenses were not 100% compatible with the D50 and D70 (but were usable on the D200) I found it fit my needs better to get the 5D with an 18-200 lens. A secret that those people who think I'm defensive toward my KM purchase don't know is that I will be buying a D200 with VR lens as soon as the initial high selling prices relax and I can get the body and lens for something close to what Ken Rockwell paid for them during pre-release.

Real answer to "digital only" lenses being used with AS cameras? My KM 18-200 cost an insignificant amount more than Sigma/Tamron/Vivitar. Although it is a DT lens, I expect it to work 100% with my AS-enabled camera. Sigma has promised me an answer to the question about their brands working with AS.

Thanks for the questions and feedback ... I'll try to restrain any urges I have to get defensive :)

[capedeci]

hello there


just a reminder, if you are a newbie, and not being so serious about photography, you will notice blurred pictures much easier than you could notice lower quality glass or sensor. Its me, I cannot justify "L" lens or kit lens, but I can see blurred images easily.

And about statement ppl cant take great pictures without IS, its not what I mean. I mean that IS helps ppl who are not skilled/not good take better pictures at low light (better, not Best)

IS may not essential for you, but it is compulsory for me;) i knew that I have shaky hand.

but even a rock-solid expert's hands who can shot at 1/15sec at 28mm without handshake, will be able to shot at 1/2sec at 28mm without handshake (just example, numbers are not exact nor fact)

while an unskilled like me who can shot at 1/40sec at 28mm will be able to shot at 1/15 sec at 28mm

hope i gave the idea right this time, dont get me wrong;)

[beachluvr]

You are so right. The tiny difference a couple of megapixel might make, if any, or the difference between capturing in RAW vs jpg is meaningless if your picture is blurred. And blurred pictures can't be post-corrected. Whatever name it goes under, anti-shake is the wave of the future and whatever the future of Konica Minolta, they deserve a huge amount of credit for building this valuable feature into their camera body. Hats off to Panasonic too for the same reason!

[coldrain]

You are so right. The tiny difference a couple of megapixel might make, if any, or the difference between capturing in RAW vs jpg is meaningless if your picture is blurred. And blurred pictures can't be post-corrected. Whatever name it goes under, anti-shake is the wave of the future and whatever the future of Konica Minolta, they deserve a huge amount of credit for building this valuable feature into their camera body. Hats off to Panasonic too for the same reason!
Panasonic does not build it into the body, but into the lens. The first manufacturer to introduce IS was Canon, in SLR lenses. The first manufacturer to introduce IS in a digital all in one camera was Canon, in the Powershot Pro 90 IS.

[beachluvr]

Panasonic does not build it into the body, but into the lens. The first manufacturer to introduce IS was Canon, in SLR lenses. The first manufacturer to introduce IS in a digital all in one camera was Canon, in the Powershot Pro 90 IS.

Um, who said anything otherwise about Panasonic? I said they deserve credit. That's a problem?

Yeah, and Canon invented the internet too...so if they were the "first" to invent IS, why didn't they make it affordable like Panasonic and Konica Minolta? And why do you have to buy IS in EVERY lens you need?

Oh and one more direct question. Do you work for Canon? :cool: Y/N

[capedeci]

i actually bought Canon complete set which includes:
-350D
-Kit
-Sigma 18-200
-430ex
-50mm 1.8
-2GB CF

Costs me $1600, as soon as i got them, played for a while, get blurred photos much often than my p&S cams (this is my fault, but I dont want to lean to walls too much or carry a tripod) I prefer IS. And after parting with my 1600 cash, I felt I miss them much, so I decided to return these gear :)

and wanting to go to KM as a cheaper anti shake alternative

[coldrain]

Um, who said anything otherwise about Panasonic? I said they deserve credit. That's a problem?

Yeah, and Canon invented the internet too...so if they were the "first" to invent IS, why didn't they make it affordable like Panasonic and Konica Minolta? And why do you have to buy IS in EVERY lens you need?

Oh and one more direct question. Do you work for Canon? :cool: Y/N
What does panasonic deserve credit for? And how are the Pro 90 IS, S1 IS and S2 IS less affordable than comparable panasonic products? You really are a silly flamer. Canon did invent IS. And KM introduced the moving sensor. Both deserve credit for that, Panasonic does not. And if you do not know your facts, that is your problem.

And why Canon does not put IS in the body has a few reasons. Patent issues from KM, you can not make full frame 35mm SLR's with in body IS, you can not improve the IS over time when it is built into the camera, but when you introduce improved IS in a lens all cameras can benifit from that.
KM's choice is fine, and so is Canon's choice.

PLEASE STOP YOUR FLAMING.

[capedeci]

probably something like lower end lumix models, like FX5,6,7,9, or the ones with 6x optical zoom, forgot the name, which is very cheap.

Canon's point and shoot segment dont have IS, only their prosumers, as far as I remember and know.

I give credit to panasonic too, for giving IS on the entire lineup, even the lowest end model. While the IS at the lower end isnt as great as the prosumer models, where handshake is promoted by body design and lack of OVF or EVF (I read this) I only have panasonic FZ5, decent IS, terrible noise, then image is comparable to higher iso without IS on other model that have lower noise.

But still, credit also goes to the inventor, which is Canon. Panasonic just more aggressive to take advantage of IS, that made me also think that IS is invented by them prior to this discussion.

[beachluvr]

Again, your information is accurate. The other guy is right but I don't see his point about who "invented" IS ... what difference does that make to your question and buying decision? KM put it in an affordable camera and didn't make you buy it with every lens that you wanted/needed it on. Panasonic deserves the most credit of all the companies because, although they didn't invent it, they brought it to market in a whole broad line of cameras and brought public attention to it. Canon didn't do that, they have it in a few specialized products. In my opinion Panasonic could own their market segment if they could get through their noise stigma.

~Trust Accurate Information~