Why Sony / Minolta at all?

spence

Member
At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with the equipment in your hand. If you know how to take a good photograph, you can do it with X brand, along with decisions about lighting, film, speed, lens and creativity. I also believe the more control you take in the processing, i.e. develop your own film, print your own prints, the more satisfied you will be with your result.
It will be interesting to reflect on the conversations about Minolta coming out with a DSLR once it has come out. I bet the conversations will be about the next product. There are many good products out there now, just have to use your skills. Great photographers have produced some awesome work with what is available on the market today, actually most use equipment that is pretty old. I just rather focus on getting a great shot that tells a great story, invokes feeling, inspires the viewer, than to worry about getting something that isn't even out. While you watch and wait, go take some pictures. It will get here and then you can spend your money.
Snow is my current challenge, which I will be working on this weekend in Yosemite. And keeping warm. Happy shooting!
 
U

Uksnapper

Ive just posted some good quality darkroom gear on ebay if anyone in the UK is interested ,Devere enlargers and a Colex 32" paper processor with no reserve ! Sad to say that Digital means film is for me a very minor part of my requirements now.Ive also got couple of Colenta film processors,a 30 and a 90 for which im open to offers. I just want to clear it all out so almost any offers accepted.best thing is to talk direct through the link on ebay rather than on this forum thanks folks. Michael
 
S

samn

Hi Mike. My local lab offers superior quality and service to the supermarket labs. I can have one hour service to CD (if I desire) as well as being able to specify format and being able to tell the tech. anything I want to about the processing that I desire. For 2/3rd's the price of the supermarket. As far as using expensive films that add saturation, I am going to process everything I use through Photoshop anyway, so why spend the extra. Other than the time and expense of going to the camera store I can see little justification for spending + $2000 for a dslr camera, flash and lenses to replace my slr's. My camera store owner agrees, he will continue to shoot slr's for the next couple of years. And he can buy Cannon and Minolta at cost. So I agree with you completely. Sam
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Well, I agree that we disagree. I think the decks are clean and clear, we can stop hosing them down now. ;-)



I mention "Herb Kepler as the world's most influential MINOLTA photographer (know any others?), and maybe even the world's most influential photographer, period, STATISTICALY" ... because he edits/publishes/writes Popular Photography magazine - the world's largest and most read photography peridocal information resource. I said STATISTICALY because he influences more people than any other - millions every month.

Salgado, Ritts, Webber, Bailey, Lantin, Woolf, Waite are cute, but they don't measure up, statistically, regardless of the volumes of web pages mentioning their names. Popular Photography hits millions of readers every month, times 12 months a year, times how many years now? And Herb published via other gargantuan magazines before Pop Photo. Statistically, influence wise, he's huge! If Salgado, Ritts, Webber, Bailey, Lantin, Woolf, Waite influence 1,000 so called "serious" photographers, Herb influences 1,000,000 photographers, serious and casual alike. YOU may pay attention to one arena, I'm looking worldwide, nook and cranny, not just meseums and art schools.

Heck, if you want to do an Internet search and base "statistical influence" on that, type my name in! ;-)

But, I don't talk with Minolta Japan (much, lately), and I don't publish to millions of people every month. Probably less than 1,000 people really read me stuff and review my photography each month, if that.

No one's arguing that a NEW Minolta DSLR is purchasable today, but that's also true of anyone's future DSLR, even Nikon's so-called "announced" but unavailable ones. ... as if Nikon would NEVER pre-announce a product just to ward of Canon sales at christmas - oh no! Oh, my! Why are people bashing Minolta for what looks like the same "leak" to ward off Canon sales before christmas?

Ansel Adams is probably is the most influential photographer ever, numbers wise, referred to by other photograhers and the general public alike.

Daguerre, Talbot, Land, Eastman, and so on - all have a claim to fame, photographically. (Nice history at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). We've been going at this photography thing forever, and with lenses for 436 years, and with any size hole before that.

But our point?

Our point is to go out and shoot something, and quit grousing about "poor me, Minolta left me in the dirt, they abandoned me and my manual focus lenses, or my non-digital camera," or whatever.

Grab what Minolta you've got and take some pictures!

And SHARE some pictures. And share some Minolta Photography experiences, PLEASE, soon!

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

Minolta Photographer

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Gotta love my ~US$12 NEW Minolta AF 24mm lens AND camera - and free film! ;-)
 

spence

Member
I agree Peter...now could we really talk why Minolta...technically speaking?
I have read as much information as I could find why Minolta lenses verses the leading others, i.e. Tamron, Sigma etc. But for us that don't do comparisons to that extent, and just compare results, do you think it is worth the $$$$ dollars. I use a Minolta 85mm 2.8, which I really like and a Tamron 28-300 which I also really like.
I have more purchases I would really like to make, i.e. 50mm 1.4 and 100mm macro 2.8 and of course the lovely 300 APO 2.8. Saving my allowance.
Thoughts...
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Hi Janis,

I shop

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and a few other places on the Internet (I also buy books and manuals),

plus 4 or more BIG used camera stores here in the Washington, DC USA area

DAILY!

Yes, daily!

Your levers to move your photographic world await you!

.

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

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 - I get so much film FREE when I take seminars and chat with manufacturer's reps that I haven't bought the high priced spread in ages! And when I do buy, I buy in bricks from least expensive sources and refrigerate in lead bags, and that keeps the price down to as much as 50% savings when I do have to pay (darn!).

We CAN figure out ways to make things happen.

And Minolta being under priced on the used market is all in my favor - I'm glad there's no new Minolta DSLR available today - people dumping Minolta for Canon or Nikon are selling their Minolta stuff CHEAP for you and I to enjoy!

Hey, Tamron 28-200mm are ~US$79 used in Minolta mount! Minolta 507si 600si 650si are ~US$150. Beat that!

The savings go one and on and on ...

And don't forget those NEW in the box Minolta AF 24mm WITH CAMERA for ~US$12 - one left, then one for ~US$24 ... keep looking folks, bargains are awaiting your enjoyment!

And money, to me, is only worth it's weight in joy!

Go out and shoot something - and bring it back alive! (A challenge for "sport" hunters to put down their weapons and pick up a camera!)
 

pvelz

Member
Hi Janis and others,

I have an extensive set of Minolta lenses.
You are interested in the 100/2.8 Macro. Get it! It is an amazing piece of optics and very very good in sharpness and contrast. So is the 400APO/4.5, which I have as well. The best of the telelenses that I know (I haven't tried the new 300 mm).
I have the 600APO/4. Good, but not as good as the 400APO.
I have had the older 300mm, this is really less in optical quality than the 400mm and the 600 mm. Again I don't know about the new 300mm myself, but I saw an elaborate test in ColorFoto (German Magazine) in the last weeks. The final conclusion was that at full opening (f/2.8-4) it was quite a lot better than the old 300mm, but from f/4 onwards very comparable.
If you have trouble to get a copy of this magazine I can try to make a pdf and send it to you. If you want a test picture from either of the lenses send your e mail address and I will send it to you as a large jpg (uploading small jpg's doesn't make sense I believe).
If I would have to make the choice: 100/2.8 macro (the older models are as good as the new ones and a lot cheaper in second, I actually sold one a few weeks ago for just 200 Euro) and the 400APO (which second hand goes for about 1000 Euro).
Hope this helps.
 
T

Travis

Let's make one thing clear. Hardly anybody in the UK and Europe knows who Herb Kepler is. I had look him up. Ansel Adams of course is very influential, but I thought you were referring to people who have worked recently. I think most Europeans would say Cartier-Bresson was more important.

I don't really know what a Minolta photographer is, as I don't care what cameras people use to take their shots, except in terms of image quality.

ISalgado, Ritts, Webber, Bailey, Lantin, Woolf, Waite are cute,

Um, cute? They are far more important as image makers, and their images are well known. We all know who Herb Ritts is. None of us here know about Kepler.



Why are people bashing Minolta for what looks like the same "leak" to ward off Canon sales before christmas?

Because Nikon says it will produce a camera. Minolta says, and so far does, nothing.

>>Ansel Adams is probably is the most >>influential photographer ever, numbers wise, >>referred to by other photograhers and the >>general public alike.

Yes. See above.


>>Our point is to go out and shoot something, >>and quit grousing about "poor me, Minolta left >>me in the dirt, they abandoned me and my >>manual focus lenses, or my non-digital >>camera," or whatever.

In reply to this rather patronising "point". I do take pictures. They are published. Did anybody here say they were not taking pictures? It was just an assumption made by you - and it seems - Janis. We are saying that digital photography is now part of the professional phographic process. For news photographers it is de rigour as they file pictures digitally. For travel photography the new airport scanners will shortly make all of us make the change as we can't risk film being ruined.

I don't use the dark room any more. I can achieve the B/W levels I could in the dark room on a computer and a bubble jet printer. I can replicate many of the legacy priting processes. I don't want to use the dark room, because many of the chemicals are toxic.

For colour I can adjust the pictures myself, rather than spending a fortune on cibachrome.

LIke others I have invested $4,000 in Minolta lenses and accesories. Many of these with a "professional" tag. That is our "gripe", that we have bought into a pro system, only to find that we can't make the most important upgrade in photographic history since the advent of colour and the SLR. Go into a camera store and see how they no downgrade Minolta cameras because of this.


And I wonder why you feel the need to defend a camera brand.
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
> marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... I don't really know what a Minolta photographer is, as I don't care what cameras people use to take their shots ..."

You are really taking the title of the thread "Why Minolta at all" to heart?

Why are you HERE?
 

spence

Member
I would prefer for this forum to remain a Minolta technical discussion. I would prefer for it not to become a forum for personal attacks.
There are so many great photographers out there and we all have our preferences, as we all have preferences to equipment. I would hope to gain some shared knowledge on Minolta equipment here. I think that there are many other forums to talk about digital topics. I think it is clear some are anxiously awaiting a Minolta DSLR. I just can't imagine getting so tight about there not being one. I guess if I really wanted one that bad right now I would consider other options.
Anyway...off on a tangent and would really like to say on task.
Peter - I shop all those same places and watch regularly. I have bought some items off eBay but only after careful consideration and contact with the seller as you can get some junk there. I made a good contact with Columbus Camera Group in Ohio. Good guys but not a big Minolta selection. KEH is good and has a good selection. I would very much like to get my hands on a 100 macro, so if anyone has or knows of a good deal for a lens in good shape, I would be most interested. As well as a 300/400 APO.
I am working on my website and will have some postings soon and look forward to some feedback, constructive please.
And I would love to get some Free film - go through that like water.
Happy shooting,
Janis
 
T

Travis

>>You are really taking the title of the >>thread "Why Minolta at all" to heart?

I am here, because this is where the question of Minolta's commitment to professional photography was raised a while ago (not by me) and it has been driving this thread for the last 4 months. Because I was relieved to find a bunch of people as annoyed as myself about investing in a brand for years, and then finding that the brand was not treating its customers with respect. The thread drifted ages ago - that is what happens.

I am not stopping anyone from talking about technical aspects of lenses.

If you want to find out about how good Minolta (or any other lenses) are, I suggest this site.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The general consensus seems to be that the G lenses are some of the best optics in the world. The rest is very variable. I had a 35-70 and a 100-200 minolta lenses. Both poor and soft. I now only buy pro lenses either Minolta, Sigma or Tokina.

Like anything, you pays for quality. If you can get second hand G lenses, I would snap em up if you can afford them. (once the digital camera is announced).
 

pvelz

Member
Hi colleague Minolta users. An ofter uttered complaint is that Minolta are far behind on the introduction of a digital SLR (and many of us feel thta the nice collection of good quality lenses will be wasted some time in the future). I seems that there is good news, although it can only be true if the camera in your fingers I guess. I just read a last minute announcement in ColorFoto of Jan 14 (issue2/2004); the editor overview discussed the SLR offensive of all major manufacturers. For Minolta the following is mentioned:

At the PMA show Minolta will show a digital SLR with anti-shake system. The bajonet will remain unchanged. Deliveries will be no earlier than in the second half of the year.

My interpretation is: it will have an anti vibration system of the A1 and all current AF lenses will fit.

Now we have to await the PMA. Is anyone on this forum going to visit it?

Peter
 

sungnee

Member
>I don't want to use >the dark room, because many of the chemicals are toxic.

Er..I'm drifting the thread here, but can't help it. The electromagnetic emissions from the computer chips and boards, and all those cables around are also bad for your health. Yes, I use them too, but I try to minimise the "exposure" time.

Best regards Sung Nee
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
> > marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Let's make one thing clear. Hardly > anybody in the UK and Europe knows who Herb Kepler is. ..." > > Gosh, Marc, aside from speaking for apparently everybody in the UK and > Europe ... anyway, I WON'T pursue THAT any further! ;-) > > Since Herb convinced Minolta to go ahead with the autofocus Minolta AF > 7000 instead of the manual focus Minolta X-600, many people in the UK > and Europe and Asia and Africa and America who are using any brand of > auto focus SLR benefit from Herb's prescience nonetheless, even > without knowing of him. Since you represent the people of the UK and > Europe, you can now spread the word! And when you and all the people > of the UK and Europe next have a little huddle together, you may ask > them to tell you about the ~6,700 web pages with Herbert Keppler's > name (play with the spelling, I'm sure some references are not THE > Herbert Keppler we are discussing), and see if maybe after all, the > people of the UK and Europe actually do know a bit more than you think > they do! > > So, in two ways Herbert Keppler may be the most influential Minolta > Photographer (let alone most influential photographer of any product > brand name): > > 1 - having helped steer the modern automatic SLR universe spearheaded > by Minolta with auto focus, and > > 2 - publishing monthly in the world's most popular photo resource, > Popular Photography magazine, pictured holding his Minolta. > > Good for him! > > Good for us! > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Why Minolta at all? > > ... for me, because I hunger for my Minolta cameras when I am holding > my other brand cameras. I appreciate the choices made by Yashica, > Contax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Pentax and so on, and I CAN take a > satisfactory image through them all ... but when I am holding them in > my hands, I just appreciate Minolta camera designs and execution all > the more. > > So, no matter what brand of camera I am holding, I am a Minolta > Photographer. > > And, in some ways, IF I am most comfortable with my Minolta cameras, > THEN I will probably take more pictures, and better images (that is, > more satisfactory images for me), than I would with my other cameras > around which I feel less comfortable and intuitive. > > I get the same common feeling of intuitive control and function across > the whole range when holding my Minolta SR-T-series cameras or my > Minolta HiMatic-series cameras or my Minolta X-series cameras or my > Minolta AF-series SLR cameras or my Minolta point-and-shoot-series > cameras. > > I do not have Minolta Polaroid or TLR or 110 or 16mm or APS or digital > or 8mm or other format Minolta cameras. Who can weigh in on their > experience of these other Minolta cameras? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Marc, what is your experience of your Minolta Photography? Just Leica > equivalent lenses at a lesser price? Leica is a long way away from a > DLSR, too. > > "Professional" is such an over-used word as to have no specific > meaning anymore. A National Geographic photographer who shoots 500 > rolls of film on a week long assignment is just as "professional" as > the local street fair vendor who sells an occasional inkjet print is > "professional" in that they get paid for their photography. > > "Commercial" may be the most appropriate description of the prime > target for Nikon and Canon high end DSLRs ... journalists and product > photographers and stock and speculative photographers - the so called > image "industry". > > "Amateur" - and of course, people with money and a love of photography > buy anything, so Canon, shocked, yet bolstered by being outdone by > Nikon, and Minolta and Sony and Olympus (non SLR digital sales!), > Canon thrust itself ahead and invested enough to reinvent digital > photography via their own chips. (Pay attention to this, Konica > Minolta!) > > I concur with your assessment of digital bringing the photographer > some greater control (including avoiding damage from airport x-ray > inspection machines). A wide angle zoom and telephoto zoom on > anybody's DSLR seems an appropriate kit, and can be had for ~US$2,000 > WHILE KEEPING YOUR MINOLTA SYSTEM (or sell it at a loss so we can buy > it cheap on the used market!!!). > > Why not use a Minolta digital non-SLR for such purposes? Oh, because > someone else is signing the purchase order, so why not tank them for > all sorts of high end, expensive gear, as if one can't take a news > snap with a pocketable bauble. Okay, the mini cameras peak out around > ~300mm in 35mm equivalent, or ~8° angle of view in universal terms, so > big, expensive lenses are absolutely necessary in some situations. > > And film currently has a greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio > than digital ... sounds like a film scanner is in order, eh? > > If you're playing in the digital darkroom, you're not phoning in > images from the field for daily publication, so you can take the time > to scan film if you want to, and film is only a compromise if you > can't work out a hand inspection routine with the airlines (that is, > for airline travel). You can use film for any non-airline travel > photography, or use film and ship it seperately. I don't fly anymore, > but the last time I did, they hand inspected my film canisters - all > hundred or so of 'em! > > As far as what other people think, especially snooty sales people, if > you care what other people think, you'd have a Nikon or Canon by now! > ;-) Who are you trying to please? > > As far as image makers being important, that is 1,000% subjective and > wanders in and out of fashion seasonally, and academia and commerce > spin in their own opposing circles. I was talking statistically. > Britney Spears may sell more than the Beatles - who is more important, > and who is more influential, and who carries the greater statistics? > Who cares?!? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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!
> >
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
How about a READABLE copy ... let me try this:

marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Let's make one thing clear. Hardly anybody in the UK and Europe knows who Herb Kepler is. ..."

Gosh, Marc, aside from speaking for apparently everybody in the UK and Europe ... anyway, I WON'T pursue THAT any further! ;-)

Since Herb convinced Minolta to go ahead with the autofocus Minolta AF 7000 instead of the manual focus Minolta X-600, many people in the UK and Europe and Asia and Africa and America who are using any brand of auto focus SLR benefit from Herb's prescience nonetheless, even without knowing of him. Since you represent the people of the UK and Europe, you can now spread
the word! And when you and all the people of the UK and Europe next have a little huddle together, you may ask them to tell you about the ~6,700 web pages with Herbert Keppler's name (play with the spelling, I'm sure some references are not THE Herbert Keppler we are discussing), and see if maybe after all, the people of the UK and Europe actually do know a bit more than you think
they do!

So, in two ways Herbert Keppler may be the most influential Minolta Photographer (let alone most influential photographer of any product brand name):

1 - having helped steer the modern automatic SLR universe spearheaded by Minolta with auto focus, and

2 - publishing monthly in the world's most popular photo resource, Popular Photography magazine, pictured holding his Minolta.

Good for him!

Good for us!



Why Minolta at all?

... for me, because I hunger for my Minolta cameras when I am holding my other brand cameras. I appreciate the choices made by
Yashica, Contax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Pentax and so on, and I CAN take a satisfactory image through them all ... but when I am
holding them in my hands, I just appreciate Minolta camera designs and execution all the more.

So, no matter what brand of camera I am holding, I am a Minolta Photographer.

And, in some ways, IF I am most comfortable with my Minolta cameras, THEN I will probably take more pictures, and better images
(that is, more satisfactory images for me), than I would with my other cameras around which I feel less comfortable and intuitive.

I get the same common feeling of intuitive control and function across the whole range when holding my Minolta SR-T-series
cameras or my Minolta HiMatic-series cameras or my Minolta X-series cameras or my Minolta AF-series SLR cameras or my Minolta
point-and-shoot-series cameras.

I do not have Minolta Polaroid or TLR or 110 or 16mm or APS or digital or 8mm or other format Minolta cameras. Who can weigh in
on their experience of these other Minolta cameras?



Marc, what is your experience of your Minolta Photography? Just Leica equivalent lenses at a lesser price? Leica is a long way away from a DLSR, too.

"Professional" is such an over-used word as to have no specific meaning anymore. A National Geographic photographer who shoots 500 rolls of film on a week long assignment is just as "professional" as the local street fair vendor who sells an occasional inkjet print s "professional" in that they get paid for their photography.

"Commercial" may be the most appropriate description of the prime target for Nikon and Canon high end DSLRs ... journalists and
product photographers and stock and speculative photographers - the so called image "industry".

"Amateur" - and of course, people with money and a love of photography buy anything, so Canon, shocked, yet bolstered by being outdone by Nikon, and Minolta and Sony and Olympus (non SLR digital sales!), Canon thrust itself ahead and invested enough to reinvent digital photography via their own chips. (Pay attention to this, Konica Minolta!)

I concur with your assessment of digital bringing the photographer some greater control (including avoiding damage from airport x-ray inspection machines). A wide angle zoom and telephoto zoom on anybody's DSLR seems an appropriate kit, and can be had for ~US$2,000 WHILE KEEPING YOUR MINOLTA SYSTEM (or sell it at a loss so we can buy it cheap on the used market!!!).

Why not use a Minolta digital non-SLR for such purposes? Oh, because someone else is signing the purchase order, so why not tank them for all sorts of high end, expensive gear, as if one can't take a news snap with a pocketable bauble. Okay, the mini cameras peak out around ~300mm in 35mm equivalent, or ~8° angle of view in universal terms, so big, expensive lenses are
absolutely necessary in some situations.

And film currently has a greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio than digital ... sounds like a film scanner is in order, eh?

If you're playing in the digital darkroom, you're not phoning in images from the field for daily publication, so you can take the time to
scan film if you want to, and film is only a compromise if you can't work out a hand inspection routine with the airlines (that is, for airline travel). You can use film for any non-airline travel photography, or use film and ship it seperately. I don't fly anymore, but
the last time I did, they hand inspected my film canisters - all hundred or so of 'em!

As far as what other people think, especially snooty sales people, if you care what other people think, you'd have a Nikon or Canon
by now! ;-) Who are you trying to please?

As far as image makers being important, that is 1,000% subjective and wanders in and out of fashion seasonally, and academia and
commerce spin in their own opposing circles. I was talking statistically. Britney Spears may sell more than the Beatles - who is
more important, and who is more influential, and who carries the greater statistics? Who cares?!?




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!
 

tugwilson

New Member
> I don't want to use >the dark room, because many of the chemicals are > toxic.

Not sure normal (developer, fixer etc) are that toxic. It's a different matter if you're using a more exotic proces re platinum etc. I have digital and film and still get a lot of pleasure on the darkroom enlarging negs and, after 50 years in there, don't feel my health has been endangered.
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
The computer "darkroom" is not that safe, either, plus there's computer viruses and the risk of loosing all your work in a crash, the time to make and trust and restore backups, so on.



The chemicals for both film and digital get applied at the manufacturer's sites, on the workers, and their neighborhoods and all people who transport this stuff and start wars to get it for free from small countries.



"Danger" comes in many forms, local and remote.



Kinoca Minolta has poineered recyclable echo-friendly factories and products, so let's think of the entire supply chain when we consifer



"Why ... anybody ... at all?"!!!
 
T

Travis

>>what is your experience of your Minolta Photography?

I don't have an experience of Minolta photography. I just have an experience of photogrphy. Minolta makes (some) good cameras, and some excellent lenses. My Dynax 9 is very nice, if rather heavy, camera. I don't fetishise it as a brand. I would probably be just as happy with a Nikon 5. Nobody, except in photography magazines, ever asks what camera a picture was taken on. To sell images it is vital that the optics are good/excellent, and Minolta makes good optics at the top end. Their middle/low range optics are not very good though. I have never used Leicas, so I can't comment on them. Except to point out that they are about to provide a digital back.


>> "professional" in that they get paid for their photography.

Yes. And when you have clients, they expect certain things. If your camera won't provide them, then you will change camera. News is now all digital. So a Minolta owning news photographer will have dumped his kit for another manufacturer. He/or she will now hate Minolta. Now that many libraries take digital, and some only want digital submissions film is an extra stage in the process.



>>Why not use a Minolta digital non-SLR for such >>purposes?

Sure. If Minolta will refund me for the £3,000 odd worth of accesories I have bought. I can't afford to chuck away 3k of equipment. I have upgraded for the last 15 years.

In most cases, once people have moved to digital on 35mm they don't bother with film any more. And 2k of digital camera ain't gonna do what my current set up does.

>>And film currently has a greater sensitivity >>and signal to noise ratio than digital ... >>sounds like a film scanner is in order, eh?

I have one.

BJP have tested top of the range digital against film, and the conclusion is digital is equal if not better. This means that given the improvements in the next generation of cameras, they will all be better than film.

>>a hand inspection routine with the airlines >>>>(that is, for airline travel). You can use >>film for any non-airline travel photography, >>or use film and ship it seperately. I don't >>fly anymore,

In the US you have a right to this. In Europe they won't give it you, unless they are feeling sympathetic. Forget it on a high alert day. You have to run the film though the x-rays. This is generally not a problem, but there is a new generation of scanners which are much more powerful coming, and they will damage film.

Did a quick straw poll about your man. Sorry, most people here don't know him. They do know Ritts, Bresson, and Adams etc. Happy that he ch&ions Minolta. Let's hope he's told them to wake up and smell the pixels. But he ain't a well known shooter.
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Not familiar with Minolta Photography, eh? Then the camera doesn't matter after all (sorry, Nikon!).

For me, the familiarity in my hand and the reliability that it will do what I want makes my Minolta cameras come to hand first, and my other camera gather more dust. For me, that's Minolta Photography, that's my Minolta Experience.

If you have no equivalent experience, then that's that!

Like driving a rent-a-car, I appreciate the design of other cars, but my own car just "feels" more intuitive after a while, know what I mean?

I NEVER developed that comfort level with non-Minolta cameras. Go figure. I grew up on Pentax and Hasselbald and Yashica and Contax and Olympus and Canon and Rollie and ... LOOK, there, in my hand, again, one of my Minolta cameras just crawled up into my fingers like a favorite cat, purring, waiting to go out hunting, to go out and shoot something! ;-)

--

Some "pros" are in the "immediate" commercial trade and have gone digital for work.

Some "pros" are into fine art and have gone digital or not.

Many stories abound of people coming back to film after reawakening and whetting their appetite via a digital camera.

You testify that film photographers who have gone digital have not gone back, yet.

Me?

I love the thought that I can revisit my negatives over and over with each new generation of scanner AND chemical darkroom and discover a whole new world.

Digital can't do that.

Also, I'm not into immediate commerce!

--

My airline inspection anecdote WAS Europe - Spain and Italy, but September 11 and GWBush changed everything, sorry!

And still some people have film shipped to their destination and use it there then ship it back, or buy and process locally.

How many years have some of us gone without thinking of BATTERIES? Got digital? Got batteries and a recharger and a local power source?

Digital can't beat the low entry price and sensitivity and instantness (is that a word? it is now!) of film and shutter. Buy an Ilford black and white single use camera, get twin prints and a CD, then try to duplicate that experience and results digitally and compare prices and turnaround time, oh, and image qualities! ;-)

--

Again, you see what you want to see.

If you look for inspiration from fine art photographers, then that is what you will see.

If you look for inspiration from journalism photographers, then that is what you will find.

If you look for inspiration from avant garde photographers, then that is what you will find.

If you look for inspiration from academic photographers or nature photographers or sports photographers or portrait photographers or wedding photographers or landscape photographers or digital photographers or stock photographers or scientific photographers or advertising photographers or magazine photographers or book photographers or ... get my point?

I think you are comparing apples and oranges, one photographer to another.

In a world of individuals, comparison is such a futile activity!

Herb and Ansel and John Paul and Sebastiao and Roy and Minor and William Henry Fox and Harry and my dad and Peter Blaise and Marc and all the other photographers out there over time can be overwhelmingly influential in their own ways in their own arena and never overlap for some members of their audience.

That's okay.

And any one of them or any member of their audience may have never heard of the other, and that's okay, too.

However, I am happy to learn about and pursue any name you say influences you. See
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for some striking images and history - thank you! That's my reaction.

I'm not sure why you choose your reaction to my offerings ... maybe I can try other names along with:

Herbert Keppler (sorry about the misspelling) (Minolta Photographer and curmudgeon)

David Vestal (curmudgeon)

William Eugene Smith (Minolta Photographer)

Harold M. Merklinger (Minolta Photographer)

Roger Hicks (Vivitar Photographer)

Frances Shultz (Vivitar Photographer)

Have at it!

--

Peter Blaise

Minolta Photographer

... aware that others who hold Minolta cameras in their hands may not identify with their Minolta cameras.
 
T

Travis

No, I'm not familiar with Minolta photography. A good picture could be take with a Nikon, Minolta or any number of good cameras. Even with less good ones, in some cases.

Went to a photography exhibition today. Nobody gave a fig what cameras were used to take the pics.






>>Many stories abound of people coming back to >>film after reawakening and whetting their >>appetite via a digital camera.

I will not be going back to the darkroom, not if I can achieve the same results with digital.


>>I love the thought that I can revisit my >>negatives over and over with each new >>generation of scanner AND chemical darkroom >>and discover a whole new world.

Indeed. Shame is that printing paper will go the way of vinyl. But most people I know who have gone to digital love it, and don't want to go back.

>>Digital can't do that.

Digital offer much more in terms of working a photo than the wet process. It may not be able to duplicate all of the old processes just yet.

>>Also, I'm not into immediate commerce.

Well, some of us make a living.

>>My airline inspection anecdote WAS Europe - >>Spain and Italy, but September 11 and GWBush >>changed everything, sorry.

Yep. Try getting a hand inspection now. Except in US.

>>And still some people have film shipped to >>their destination and use it there then ship >>it back, or buy and process locally.

Not many people like to part from their shot film. I would not. You never know what will happen in shipping.

>>How many years have some of us gone without >>thinking of BATTERIES?

How many people use a camera that will trip the shutter manually? Anybody?


>>Digital can't beat the low entry price and >>sensitivity and instantness (is that a word? >>it is now!) of film and shutter. Buy an Ilford >>black and white single use camera, get twin >>prints and a CD, then try to duplicate that >>experience and results digitally and compare >>prices and turnaround time, oh, and image >>qualities! ;-)

Perhaps you should improve your photoshop skills


>... get my point?

I look at all kinds of photography. I have done all kinds, and I see the liberation that comes with digital. Also don't have to spend time with selinium toner, which is very toxic.

Will you be going back to the typewriter? Pidgeon post?

People always run these debates when a new technology comes. They then adapt.



>>Herbert Keppler (sorry about the misspelling) >>(Minolta Photographer and curmudgeon)

Um..well couldn't find any pics, but

The Nikon Way: Including the Nikkormat. by: Herbert Keppler.




William Eugene Smith - yes. Good man.
 
Top