Why Sony / Minolta at all?

U

Uksnapper

This is for sure an interesting topic. I was not comparing the A1 with the 14n Steve,as you rightly point out they are in different leagues.I was comparing the newly announced SLR digital from Minolta. Kevin sums it up well in his comparison with the evolution of film over the last 150 years. My own view is that apart from the absolutely awful design of film SLRs which simply don't fit a human face and the format which in most instances is cropped when printing,that in the 14n ,file size is not really a problem now.Its a matter of quality both in lens resolution and chip fidelity. The Dimage 7 has been designed to be used by humans,it handles very well and causes no discomfort when being used,I can only applaud the designers for doing a truly excellent job The Ai may be a great camera but it is still saddled with the same lens as the 7 series and retains the quality issues. Why the new digital SLRs are being made in traditional format I don't know,there is no longer a need for a lens in the centre of the camera as there is no film to transport from one side to the other.The offset lenses of cameras like the Minolta A1, Olympus E20 Nikon coolpix and Fuji offerings are the logical way forward. With Sony's 828 offering 8 megapixels for the same price as a Minolta A1 coupled to a T*coated f2.8 Zeiss lens Minolta will need to do more than just tweak and existing design,no matter how revolutionary it was when introduced. Definitely a case of applying Moors Law. Michael
 
T

Travis

You can bag vintage Zenit SLR for £100. DIY yourself a pin hole camera. You can bin the computer and get a typewriter. You can send back the cell phone and get a carrier pidgeon. You can live and love your musuem world to death.

Meanwhile those of us who have invested thousands in Minolta lenses would like the choice to have a £1,000 digital SLR as do Nikon and Canon users. Techonlogy changes. Just as zoom lenses and AF came along, digital is the new direction. As for it being expensive, we just want the choice to spend that money or not. Those of you who want to the A1s, fine, but some people want the flexibility of a DSLR.

As for digital being expensive. Try getting pro-cibacromes hand prited, or buying top quality B/W paper for printing. 10 rolls of provia properly developed costs $150. Now shoot a hundred rolls in a year and digital don't look so expensive.

Nobody is forcing anybody into the ditigal game. And we are happy for you luddites to carry on with whatever vitage technology you like. Just let's have minolta enter the 21C.
 

spence

Member
The pros and cons of film vs digital could go on and on. But I go back to what I initially stated...it is whatever media provides you with the magic and satisfaction you seek through telling a story through photography. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages and one only has so much money to spread around. Each serves a need and as long as your happy with the results than it doesn't matter what the Jones' are doing.
As for Minolta, I think they were a little slow in the coming of new products due to the recent merger with Konica. But until they announce what new products they have, keep shooting and capturing beauty wherever you may find it
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Konica Minolta hear$ you loud and clear. Start saving for next September for a killer DSLR! And why not send your ideas to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the meantime so they can know exactly waht you want and how much money you will have saved up! ;-) In the meantime, you can avail yourself of the world's highest qulaities in film scanners for your current shooting AND all your previous archives of film (NO digital camera offers THAT!) in Minolta's Dimage Scan models - Elite 5400 and Dual III and the new IV - world class and all three less than ~US$1000. Also, ever try to shoot with a digital camera? Pause, delay, wait, maybe we got it, check the LCD, play with the buttons, have your candid subject pose again, pause, delay, wait, maybe we got it, check the LCD, play with the buttons, have your candid subject pose again, pause ... you get the picture (er, maybe you don't get the picture! And that's my point!)

Click!

Love and Hugs,

Peter Blaise

Minolta Photographer

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and so on ...
 
T

Travis

>>Konica Minolta hear$ you loud and clear. Start >>saving for next September for a killer DSLR!

Unless you have spoken directly to Minolta. At the moment all we have is another rumour. There have been rumours around for the last 3 years. If one was cynical you could say that this suits Minolta, as we keep loyal to the brand.
 
S

Stv

UKsnapper: I understand that you were not making comparisons between the A1 and the Kodak. The point that I wished to make and failed to do was: if Minolta did come out with a 14 mb CCD similar to the Kodak 14n, the price in all likelyhood would prohibitive to a nonproffessional, amatuer, hobbist of limited means such as myself. Nuff-said. ;)
I agree and really enjoyed your observations on the ergonomics of camera designs. When I think of the face prints all over my Maxxum7 & 9000 and compare that with the Dimage, the difference is quite noticeable. I just placed an order for the BP-400 battery pack grip and extra battery to improve the hand hold.
 

kevinsp131

New Member
It would be nice to see Minolta get into the game and produce a high end digital SLR. Even though I would not be able to afford it, the technology will trickle down to more affordable models. I agree with Michael when he states that the companies need to open up to new ideas for the cameras. I think part of it is that pros tend to be slow to jump at radical ideas. It is hard enough to get them to accept digital let alone try a camera that looks different. I really liked the statement by Janis that basicly we shouldn't get to wound up in technology and forget what photography is all about. Many a great photo has been taken on equipment that has not been top of the line. I do feel that with my Minolta 7i that I have made compromises for the conveinence and price for a fixed focal digital SLR that covers a 28 to 200 range. Maybe that wasn't the best camera, but the price of the true digital SLR's is out of my league right now. Maybe with film at present I would get a better photo also, but not as easy to store and manipulate. At the end of the day I have had many people look at the photos and truly enjoy them, because they are not looking for every little flaw, but hopfully a well thought out photo. There is nothing wrong with a little debate though, and I do feel in the long run, digital will eventually be the way we take our photos.
 
U

Uksnapper

Kevin Janis and all are right about the equipment issues. Although I use a Dimage 7Hi extensively, I use an RTS 3 Contax for my 35mm work.the back up 35mm camera is a Yashica FR bought second hand in 1985. the RTS once failed on whilst photographing some people,the film wind was faulty.I simply switched to the Yashica and finished the job.The resulting snaps were every bit as good with the £25 Yashica body as they were with the £1200 Contax body. The point I'm making is that the equipment we buy may well give us a pride of ownership and a feeling of confidence (?) when using it but for most of us, even the lower end of the market cameras will exceed our expectations and often our capabilities. On the point of Pros being reluctant to get into digital I'm not in agreement. Pros tend to buy equipment that will do a job and earn them money,a small number bought digital cameras that cost £25,000 some years ago.these same cameras can be found on Ebay for £300 or less but who would want them now? I believe that the only way the manufacturers THOUGHT that pros would buy into digital was to present traditional bodies with digital internals but you would be surprised at the large numbers that quietly bought cameras like the Nikon coolpix to use alongside their film cameras telling clients it was just for the art director to see and then present the images as finished work after editing The problem with digital files is storage and access. It does not take long to fill a 100gb hard drive and they really do have to be catalogued properly otherwise you will spend days looking for the image you want,even DVDs fill up quickly and have to be handled very carefully . You can take a snap out of your pocket and show people your new motorcycle etc but try that with a DVD !

Michael
 
K

kisdj

I belong to Minolta family (as amateur) more than 15 years, with a few Minolta bodies and many lenses. I always believed that Minolta offer more than other manufactures for the money. I love sharpness, contrast and color saturation of Minolta lenses in despite of distorsion or flare in most of cases. Bodies were fantastic
But now digital was happened... Where is Minolta? No DSLR, no response of development neither rumors.
In my opinion, it's too late for Minolta to produce a high end DSLR. Who wanted to buy a serious DSLR, he bought Nikon or Canon, and couldn't wait for Minolta. The rest, like us, Minolta-warships, amateurs, hobbyist, with collections of old lenses, equipment and a lot of nostalgic are still waiting. I personally expect a cheaper body like Canon EOS D300, which supports old flashes and objectives. Buying rangefinder digital camera does not satisfy me, because of very small CCD sensor (no optics can be good and sharp enough for so small surface), too big barrel distorsion in "wide (38 mm)" angle, cheap constructed plastic bodies (Z1), no possibilities of using old flashes (3200i, 3500xi)...
I can still wait, but not too long. In opposite I'll (unfortunately) be obliged to switch to other manufacturer.

Joe
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
You wrote:

"... fixed focal digital SLR that covers a 28 to 200 range ..."

I'm sure you meant:

"... fixed LENS digital SLR that covers a 28 to 200 range ..."

Peter Blaise

Minolta Tamron et cetera Photographer

In love with my 28-300mm AND my 19-35mm on 35mm film! (Okay, and a 17mm for 90° shots from the corner of a room)

... also in love with the quick turnaround on local photo labs, and NOT having to process and print my own proof prints - ink is, what, $14,000 a gallon? ;-)
 
T

Travis

Joe, there is a rumour that Minolta will annouce it's DSLR at PMA next month, to launch in September. I have to say this suits Minolta, whose PR is about as credible as comical Ali's.

I think that this is the last chance for Minolta. If they don't launch the DSLR this year, their credibility as an SLR manufacturer is gone. By next year the the £800 DSLR will be a £500 and the SLR market will be digital.

As for pros not using DSLR, you only have to look at the next press photo pack to see that they virtually all use DSLRs. The landscape photographers will be the last to change to DSLR, but I reckon in 5 years film will be an expensive hobby a a serious level.

As for being "very carefull" with DVD's. Um have you ever touched a negative? A slide?
 
T

Travis

... also in love with the quick turnaround on local photo labs, and NOT having to process and print my own proof prints - ink is, what, $14,000 a gallon? ;-)

What is the logic is spending £1000 on cameras and lenses, and then using cheap film and local labs?
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
You wrote:

"... Unless you have spoken directly to Minolta ... At the moment all we have is another rumor. There have been rumors around for the last 3 years. If one was cynical you could say that this suits Minolta, as we keep loyal to the brand ..."

No.

Herbert Kepler is the world's most influential Minolta Photographer, heck, probably the world's most influential photographer, statistically, period.

Herb is the one whom Minolta turns to for marketing confirmation, and when Herb says, in print, that Minolta shared their plans with him, we have good reason to trust.

When Herb published this in Popular Photography magazine, it ain't no rumor anymore.

True, it ain't shippable product, either, but even the pre-announced "future" Nikon D-70 could disappear before shipment, so nothing is real until you can buy it.

W-a-y back ... Herb, by the way, advised Minolta to go with the auto focus Minolta AF 7000 and dump the manual focus Minolta X-600 back in the early 1980's.

My how the world of photography has changes as a result. ;-)

THIS is what the "Konica Minolta hear$ you loud and clear. $tart $aving for next $eptember for a killer D$LR!" comment is all about (note the added $$$!).

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon

Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


("if" one was cynical indeed! "if"?!?)

=8^o
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
What is the logic for thinking that expensive = high qualities or super-standard qualities, and so-called "cheap" (which I did NOT mention) = low qualities or sub-standard qualities?

Every Leica shooter could (and might) look down upon us "lowly Minolta" shooters and say what you said - "What is the logic in spending all that money on a ... Minolta?!?"

So-called "cheap" film my be far superior and overkill for some of my own personal photographic needs, and yet, the most expensive film may be inferior for other of my own photographic needs.

What works for you?

Cheap and expensive have nothing to do with it.

Appropriateness is all.

I find the qualities of some film and some of the local photo labs to be appropriate in their results and cost for some of my photographic goals, and the qualities of some digital home brew prints to be inappropriate in results and cost for some of my photographic goals.

What works for you?

I have more than 200 photo labs within 10 miles of my home, and probably 1,000 within 20 miles, so "cheapness" is a byproduct of competition, and the appropriate "qualities" I receive are a byproduct of my careful comparison shopping and developing a relationship with the photo lab people, and inspecting what I expect to get the results I prefer.

Look, we're all Minolta Photographers here, why bash each other?

Why not just ask questions, like:

"Oh, you prefer local photo labs? Is there more about that for you?"

Then you might learn what is MY experience.

Conversely, I might ask you:

"Oh, you prefer ...? Is there more about that for you?"

And I might learn what is YOUR experience.

Neither of us is right or wrong, especially for the other!

On topic, though, as I write on my
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
group:

"Since the 1920's, Minolta Japan, and it's factories around the world have been making fine cameras of many types with many names and model numbers marketed around the world and into outer space. Photographers have found Minolta cameras uniquely: - easy to use; - reliable; - affordable to purchase, maintain, expand and upgrade; - uncompromising in their picture producing quality; - well balanced all around."

... and that is MY experience.

"Why Minolta at all?" for you?

"Why Minolta at all?" for everyone else?

Looking forward to all our responses, and thoroughly enjoying the responses so far,

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon

Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


PS - Go out and shoot something - and bring it back alive! ;-)
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Response [2]

> marc venton (Travis) wrote:

> What is the logic is spending £1000 on cameras and lenses, and then using cheap film and local labs?

Hi marc venton (Travis),

Who said they spent "... £1000 on cameras and lenses ..." and then used "... cheap film and local labs ..."?

I don't recall that comment on any earlier post. Is there more about that for you?

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon

Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Hey, stay tuned for Response [3] .. there is apparently MORE about this for me!!! =8^o

... such as, are non-local labs the preferred mode? Aren't even THEY local to SOMEBODY?

And [4] ... I got a NEW IN THE BOX Minolta 24mm AF lens AND camera for~US$12 - who's spending £1000?!?

And [5] ... I get my film FREE, who's paying for film?

And [6] ... and [7] ... and so on!!!

;-)
 
U

Uksnapper

Cheap is the word used universally to indicate cost. Quality in conjunction with the word low or good or high etc indicates how good something is. My local minilab develops and prints 35mm film cheaper than the one in the supermarket.the quality is as good if not better than the supermarket. I accept that cheap film will "probably" be inferior in some ways to the latest offering from Kodak,Fuji,Konica etc but if utilised within its correct working parameters it will probably produce good results. I believe that rather than asking why spend £1000 on equipment and then use cheap film and processing you should consider why spend £1000 on equipment and only use a few rolls of film per year.some people have Christmas shots at the beginning and end and summer shots in the middle of their film. Better,in my opinion,to spend less on equipment and more on results. Must get back to work michael
 
T

Travis

>>What is the logic for thinking that expensive >>high qualities or super-standard qualities, >>and so-called "cheap"


Because mainting high standards in processing and printing costs more money than mass producing negs and prints. Because Fuji and Kodak and Ilford spend time and money researching how to make better film. Because Provia and Kodacrome are industry standards. I could go on, but's it's pretty obvious stuff really.

>>Every Leica shooter could (and might) look >>down upon us "lowly Minolta" shooters and say >>what you said.

I don't even know what a Leica shooter is. The issue is about photography, not brand. The only real comparison you can make here is between lens quality on Leica and Minolta. Minolta's G lenses are top quality, so there is no particular advantage in a buying a Leica.

>>So-called "cheap" film my be far superior and >>overkill for some of my own personal >>photographic needs, and yet, the most >>expensive film may be inferior for other of my >>own photographic needs.

The second part of the statment is unlikely, unless you specialise in grain of effects photography. It may be inferior in that it costs you more money.


>>Cheap and expensive have nothing to do with it.

I'm afraid they do when you sell you photographs or make large and exhibition prints.


>>I find the qualities of some film and some of >>the local photo labs to be appropriate in >>their results and cost for some of my >>photographic goals, and the qualities of some ?>>digital home brew prints to be inappropriate >>in results and cost for some of my >>photographic goals.

Without knowing what you are doing, this is a moot point.




>>Look, we're all Minolta Photographers here, >>why bash each other?

It's nothing to do with bashing anybody. I am more than happy for people to work with film and 50 year old cameras. But there is little point in trying to criticise the digital process in order to justify the film one. Or in trying to defend Minolta for letting down their customers.

I am not a "minolta" photographer. I don't care about the brand name, it ain't going to take better pictures, I want quality and a range of equipment which is up to date and competes with Canon and Nikon. Otherwise why bother with buying Minolta equipment.


It's not about me, it's about quality of the labs. If you have found a pro-quality lab in London which charges half of what the others do, please let me know. I will be there like a shot.
 
T

Travis

>>Herbert Kepler is the world's most influential >>Minolta Photographer, heck, probably the >>world's most influential photographer, >>statistically, period.

The world's most infulentual photographer. I don't think so. Salgado, Ritts, Webber, Bailey, Lantin, Woolf, Waite etc. PUt their names into the internet, you get thousands of hits. Rather than two pages.


>>When Herb published this in Popular Photography magazine, it ain't no rumor anymore.

I'm afraid it's rumour until Minolta confirm it. Today Pracitical Photography called up the Minotla UK office (after I discussed an article with them) and the Minolta office still refused to say anything either way. It's conjecture, and unless they are prepared to go in print it would be best not to give people the illusion that it's definate.

>>True, it ain't shippable product, either, but >>even the pre-announced "future" Nikon D-70 >>could disappear before shipment, so nothing is >>real until you can buy it.

It's totally different. Nikon has announced the product. Minolta refuses to say anything.


THIS is what the "Konica Minolta hear$ you loud and clear. $tart $aving for next $eptember for a killer D$LR!" comment is all about (note the added $$$!).

I'm sorry. If you have any further information, about the nature of the product and the price you shoudl be candid with it rather than illuding.
 
Top