Why Sony / Minolta at all?

S

Stv

Ya know, this looked like an interesting site when I first discovered it, but a very dead thread until I made my most recent post here, just lately. For some reason it must hace been the spark that everyone was waiting for to bring it alive again. Unfortunately none of this recent activity is remotely positive !!!!

We have a totally mixed crowd here from arrogant purists, ancient traditionalists, new technologists, to retiree's and poor amateurs such as myself. Some very interest comments have been pontificated but nothing of any substance as of late. The reason I posted here was WHY MINOLTA ... not why NOT minolta ..!!!

This whole thread is turning into a WEB pissing contest and frankly I'm getting very tired of it and FAST ! I came here hoping to learn something, but all I'm finding is a pretentious Cat Fight.

If your going to complain about the poor quality of digital lenses, why in Hell did you buy 3-4 versions of Dimage cameras ????? If you must have a DSLR now, why haven't you purchased a Canon, Nikon or a Kodak ????

If you have to have a Minolta, wait for it, buy something else or shut the #uc#-up !!!

This a Minolta site, not a rag forum, of which this has become. I'm a Minolta neophyte, someone help me with my issues or I will be gone or better yet, so should you. !
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Steve Beland (Stv) WROTE !@#$%^&* [... and so on ...]

Thanks, Steve!

It takes a while to read and re-read each other's comments thoroughly enough to get over first impressions and to see the positive energies behind our sharing here.

Try again, okay?

For instance, you should have heard me when I first dropped an exposed roll of film in the river ... but I learned something positive from it.

If you only listened to my immediate outcry, you'd have missed the moral of the story!

Be patient, grasshopper, the answer's at the end!

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

Minolta Photographer

... and quite proud of it! ;-)
 
S

Stv

Peter, Luv'n-Hug-A-Roll-of-Undeveloped-Film-Yerself !

You are the most pretentious of the lot, in the few here !!!

You may well be the most experience Minolta user on site, I certainly think and hope so, but you'd never know it.

Grasshopper be damned, take no offence, which will be difficult to do, but I mean no harm. Let's drop the pretence and get down to Minolta business.

Are you capable ?
 

hung

Member
> Posted by Steve Beland (Stv) on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 2:33 am: > > Ya know, this looked like an interesting site when I first discovered > it, but a very dead thread until I made my most recent post here, just > lately.

Hi, Steve, actually the Yahoo Minolta and ManualMinoltaFree groups are much more alive. The previous moderator of yahoo Minolta bought his Nikons and left us. Before he left he transferred moderatorship to one of us Minoltans.

There are also many gripes, etc, in the Yahoo group. But they don't last long. Some just buy Canons or Nikons and leave us. Some friends who left even regularly visit us with their comments. Very friendly group.

> We have a totally mixed crowd here from arrogant purists, ancient > traditionalists, new technologists, to retiree's and poor amateurs > such as myself.

I am just a poor unemployed guy with some Minolta gear. I use my cameras to take pictures, post some in some groups here and there, and that's about it.

>Some very interest comments have been pontificated but > nothing of any substance as of late. The reason I posted here was WHY > MINOLTA ... not why NOT minolta ..!!!

Why did I buy my Minolta camera(s)?

Well, back in 1983, the shop I visited introduced me the Minolta X700- European camera of the year 1982. I study the brochure (Very informative one and different from subsequent X700 brochyres. Regret I threw it away!), handle the camera, liked it for its handling, like its pricing, bought it.

Well, I never regretted buying the X700. It accompanied me for every vacations and I am still shooting with it today! What a great camera even though by now I have the classic SRT 101, SRT303b, XE7, XD7, X500 and Himatic 7s.

Why did I nver buy the Nikons and Canons? They were more expensive and they did not have the European camera of the year award.... And when I requested for the Nikon and Canon brochures, I got none. Compare that with stacks of Minolta camera brochures. Maybe I am stupid? And I have come across snobbish Nikon shooters then. They put me off. Maybe that was just my experience back then.

But I am sure glad the salesman pointed me to a Minolta camera.

> If your going to complain about the poor quality of digital lenses, > why in Hell did you buy 3-4 versions of Dimage cameras ????? If you > must have a DSLR now, why haven't you purchased a Canon, Nikon or a > Kodak ????

I am very happy with my Minolta Dimage 7i. I use it to shoot bulletin covers and events for my church for free. They are happy and I am happy. Maybe I don't have great expectations?

> This a Minolta site, not a rag forum, of which this has become. I'm a > Minolta neophyte, someone help me with my issues or I will be gone or > better yet, so should you. !

Agree.

Hung
 

admin

Well-Known Member
Dear Members,

please cool down and stick to the topics. No meaningless fights please.

The topic "why Minolta at all" is supposed to show other users what the background of each user have been til the ended up buying a Minolta. What did they experienced in the past so they decided for a Minolta? What were the main drivers in that buying decision?

Thanks
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: "... Peter ..." [and so on]

Peter Blaise responds: I apologize that I called you impatient, Steve - inappropriate of me. That's for you and you alone to decide for yourself. See below *

Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: "... You are the most pretentious of the lot ..."

Peter Blaise responds: I look forward to your apology! ;-) See above *

...

From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

pretentious - adjective, Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; showy, flamboyant, splashy These adjectives mean marked by a striking, often excessively conspicuous display: a showy rhinestone bracelet; an entertainer's flamboyant personality; an ostentatious sable coat; a pretentious scholarly edition; a splashy advertising c&aign. See ostentation.

ostentation - noun, Pretentious [oops, circular definition!] display meant to impress others; boastful showiness. Archaic The act or an instance of showing; an exhibition. etymology: Middle English ostentacioun, from Old French ostentacion, from Latin ostentti, ostenttin-, from ostentre, frequentative of ostendere, to show.

Hmm ... show and tell.

Sounds right to me!

So, Steve, what is your alternative suggestion as to how we should share here in an email discussion forum about photography, images and process, with no image sharing in our emails, only words ... other than "tell", since we can't "show"?

--

Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: "... Let's ... get down to Minolta business..."

Oh? Is there more about that for you? Can you tell us more? What is "... Minolta business ..." for you?

--

Click!

Love and hugs, <-- isn't it amazing how that pisses some people off?

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!
<-- and I've had people take umbrage at my links here, too, go figure!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
U

Uksnapper

Steve Beland wrote If your going to complain about the poor quality of digital lenses, why in Hell did you buy 3-4 versions of Dimage cameras ????? If you must have a DSLR now, why haven't you purchased a Canon, Nikon or a Kodak ????.

Steve I bought 3 versions of the same camera because each one offered worthwhile improvements which I believe came about as a result of people telling Minolta what they would like. for instance the first Dimage7 could only fire a double flash so to trigger a remote flash could only be done by fitting a Minolta 3200 flash gun and they stopped production of those 12 years ago,I located a used one and it did the job. the 7 and 7i would take 9 seconds or so between raw shots while writing the file to disc. the &Hi allows continuous shooting in raw mode. Each of these improvements was worth paying for and selling on the previous camera whilst still in warranty giving someone a good deal each time. When you get to know a camera well you become aware of its faults as well as its good points and the Dimage 7 was an outstanding camera at the time with images superior in every way to the Nikon D1 for instance,I compared them so that's not just gossip. It was also amazing value for money.For me it has only two faults one being the barrel distortion and the other is desaturation of the image when shooting heavily backlit subjects. As new products are introduced one expects the problem solving to have moved forward and in this case the lens problem ,whilst fixable in software whilst editing,has not been fixed in lens design. Whilst I loved the ergonomics of the Rollie 2002 I bought many years ago I returned it and got a full refund as the exposure metering system was inconsistent,badly so. My Minolta meters,colour meter spot meter and exposure meters (2) are typical Minolta products,they work flawlessly. So I'm not Knocking Minolta as a make simply highlighting a couple of faults and probably spending far more time on it than it deserves so I will shut up now.

Michael
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Thank you for hanging in there, Marc. I think this is quite worthwhile, and is becoming quite an engaging, thoughtful and productive dialogue. I appreciate us both for not giving up, for trying to figure out what the other is saying, and for trying to communicate our own experiences well. I'm not surprised that it's taking a series of back and forth explorations for us to clearly see each other's point of view - since we're strangers, this makes sense. Again, I want to smile in salute to our positive energies. ;-)

--

marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... 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..."

Peter Blaise responds: I hope you someday discover a connection between your own mind and that of the the designers and craftspeople who invent and build the products that provide you with the photographic services you use and depend upon. You don't have to, but I find it enjoyable, empowering, and fostering of equivalent consideration between them and myself.

But that's just me!

--

marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Went to a photography exhibition today. Nobody gave a fig what cameras were used to take the pics..."

Peter Blaise responds: You mean nobody noted what gear was used.

But they do that for other fine art forms ... like a painting exhibit or other "museum" show, people do care intensely about the technical origins of a piece of art, oils or acrylics or lithography or photography or carved sculpture or watercolor and so on. In other words, people care as much as they know about, and as much as they can care about, about the why of the art they enjoy, and how it got to be that way.

Once I learned about painting with a spatula, I appreciated different kinds of painting presentations all the more.

Once I learned about different kinds of toning, I enjoyed photography exhibits all the more.

And so on.

"If the picture matters, the camera matters" ... well, I'm more interested in the technology of the image origins, and perhaps who made the specific tools, not the camera brand per se as a brand name, as much as the details of the artist's camera system elements and how they work together to support the artist's vision.

For instance, I absolutely care that Annie Leibowitz apparently used a too small image source or an inadequate enlargement routine to present her Women exhibition here at the Corcoran Museum/School of Art in Washington, DC, USA. For me, they were only "clear" and "well defined" when standing w-a-y back, and I might as well have been looking at 10 x 15 inch prints at arms length.

I am very very interested in the techniques and technology behind art, as well as I am interested in the art itself even without reference to it's origins.

Both fascinate me.

Neither is dispensable for me. But that's just me!

(And not all photographic art is "fine art" or "academic art" or "museum/gallery art" - what about the "technical arts" and "communication arts" and "humor" and "commerce" and so on?)

--

Peter Blaise wrote: "... Many stories abound of people coming back to film after reawakening and whetting their appetite [for photography] via a digital camera..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... I will not be going back to the darkroom, not if I can achieve the same results with digital..."

Peter Blaise responds: I may not go back to the darkroom either, for a while. But, I still collect my original image sources via film, and convert them to digital afterwards.

There's also a neat photography course next door (college behind me) where they give each of 20 students a large format sheet film rail camera for the semester - EACH! THAT may get me back into the darkroom!

(And one would hope that in the darkroom OR in the computer, we would do more, much more than merely "... achieve the same results ...", eh?)

Peter Blaise wrote: "... 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..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... 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..."

Peter Blaise responds: Yet.

Regardless of image collection source, the printing target may be the same - inkjet on paper, or "chemical" on paper, like Fuji Crystal Archive - both are terrific output resources regardless of a film or digital original image capture. As Pictography gear comes on the market used, I can see getting one or getting an old mini lab used instead of an inkjet printer, and use film and photo paper.

... and NEW vinyl may be scarce now, but I have a lifetime of vinyl and I'm happy! I have beta, too, but NOT 8 track! ;-)

And not just MY negatives, how about William Henry Fox Talbot's negatives - still good and usable today as they were in the 1800's!

Peter Blaise wrote: "... Digital can't do that..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Digital offers 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..."

Peter Blaise responds: Not more, just easier and faster.

But, forgive me for being imprecise - we were talking about a Minolta DSLR - digital capture versus film capture - NOT digital processing, which supports both digital capture AND film capture.

You and I are now talking about different things.

What I meant was "... original film image sources can be revisited, original digital image sources cannot ...", that is:

I can rescan my film at greatly enhanced qualities with each new scanner generation.

I cannot do that with a digital original.

Afterwards, of course both become digital when preparing a print in the computer.

I was talking about image sources. Fro me, Film and digital CAPTURE meet at the computer and are identical from there.

Digital CAPTURE can't do what film can do - be rescanned in 10 years at "better", and get more out of it!

That's what I meant.

--

Peter Blaise wrote: "... Also, I'm not into immediate commerce..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Well, some of us make a living..."

Peter Blaise responds: I make a living, too, just not with Photography, yet.

I think you are grousing that your professional photography customer billing still leaves you with unexpensed gear costs that you would prefer not to have on your financial books, or that your gear is worth more on your financial books than it is worth on the wholesale used market. We all make business decisions based on the best information at hand, and when subsequent situations change, we must revisit our decisions and pay the price. You want Minolta to shield you from that (not their job), and you believe Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Kodak and Contax and even Pentax beat Minolta in doing that, digitally. You're right. This is not news.

Yet, were you an original purcha$er of the Minolta RD175 Digital SLR or the Minolta RD3000 Digital SLR (which, by the way, can use Minolta A mount lenses with a Minolta brand lens adapter, sadly a rather rare adapter, but that means that ALL 4 Minolta DSLRs so far have been able to shoot through Minolta A mount lenses and, with another adapter, SR/MC/MD lenses, also, though at 1.1x-2x teleconverter effect on top of the already smaller digital capture image ... the RD175 goes occasionally for ~US$400 used and has a 2x narrowing/cropping of the field of view)? Then you would REALLY be grousing about the inordinate expense that you could not pay off with near term customer billing. You can't have it both ways. Either buy the Minolta RD175 when it came out (too late), or don't complain when Minolta waits for the market to mature with Canon customers dumping their last year's DSLR for this year's DSLR and so on - ~$1,000 per year final cost (not that ANY digital investment is ever final!).

The computer industry marches on at an 18 month half life. Minolta customers are used to a 20 year half life. Sony, Olympus, Canon and Nikon have marched into that arena and, I believe, successfully introduced that concept to new and old photographic customers alike.

Minolta and Pentax customer's got spared.

Sigma has no customers. What was Foveon thinking? Well, Foveon/Intel never heard of the photo industry, so Sigma's 1,000 lens models probably wow'd them! (Actually, Intel looks down on any industry that is not Intel! Snooty!)

---

Peter Blaise wrote: "... How many years have some of us gone without thinking of BATTERIES? ..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... How many people use a camera that will trip the shutter manually? Anybody? ..."

Peter Blaise responds: My Minolta A-series camera and my Minolta SR-T-series camera are completely capable of manual operation.

And my Minolta HiMatic-series cameras, and my Minolta X-series cameras, and even my Minolta AF-series cameras with their auto film winding seem to last for more than a year or two on only one set of batteries!

I have had customer's digital cameras crap out after only one session of taking and downloading a group of images. Ouch! Hot in my hand, too!

--

Peter Blaise wrote: "... 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! ;-) ..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Perhaps you should improve your photoshop skills :) ..."

Peter Blaise responds: Nyuck, nyuck - so you DO get the Three Stooges over there, eh?

Let's try the comparison ...

FILM:

Ilford or Fuji or Kodak or Konica single use camera- ~US$10

Shutter release - instant

Lighting - available light, low to high, (though some have supplemental flash)

Processing, twin 4x6" prints + 1536x1024 (4.5mb) CD 85% JPG - 1 hour, ~US$25

FILM Total for twin 4x6" prints and CD,

... 1 hour ~US$35

DIGITAL:

4.5mb digital camera - ~US$235 at LEAST (+ rechargeable or disposable batteries) and a memory card to hold 36 full size 85% JPG images,

Shutter release - delay

Lighting - bright light only, or with flash

Processing, twin 4x6" prints + CD, ~1 hour, ~US$25

UNLESS you want to try to do it yourself, then the time goes WAY up and the cost probably does, too, for processing the images, buying and feeding the paper, buying and burning the CD, buying and setting up the computer ~US$296 at least, and a printer ~US$63 at least, and what competitive qualities will a ~US$63 printer deliver(?!?), hope the default ink holds out for 72 4x6" prints, or add ~US$35 more in ink at least, plus Photoshop - ~US$20 to ~US800 depending on the version, bootleg, plus 72 sheets of 4x6" photo paper ~US$16, and so on (HIDDEN EXPENSES, EH?),

DIGITAL Total for twin 4x6" prints and CD,

... 1 hour ~US$260

... to ...

... as long as your slow printer takes and ~US$610

... or more, especially if you want a nicer printer.

Winner?

FILM!

Peter Blaise wrote: "... get my point? ..."

Get my point NOW?

You can reconfigure this comparison for other criteria, and I know there are many situations where digital capture wins over film capture. This ex&le is just for the cost in time and money to get twin 4 x 6 inch prints and a CD.

Oh, and the film can be rescanned in 10 years at higher qualities, and the digital camera's images cannot.

Funny how a simple film point and shoot camera, even a single use film camera can collect more information faster than the least expensive digital camera by an order of magnitude, eh? Film can do with ~US$35 what digital requires ~US$260 to do, or if you're willing to invest more time and more money, ~$610 or more might be able to provide the same or better (or worse) output, digitally!

But, I'll bet you wouldn't get caught dead with an under ~US$100 Minolta point and shoot or vintage used Minolta camera system in your hands, eh? (That new-in-the-box Minolta AF 24mm lens with camera is up to ~US$21 to ~US$25 now, only a few left! Any takers?)

Some people can't take a satisfactory image with what they think is a substandard camera.

But, as YOU say:

It's not the camera, it's the photographer!

;-)

--

marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... 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 selenium toner, which is very toxic..."

Peter Blaise responds: "... Let me modify your statement - not the "liberation" but the "control" that comes with digital, since you are tied to a computer and printer. You are depending upon far away programmers and designers, instead of depending on your interaction with the people at a local photo lab. Same same, liberation wise. But digital offers more in-house control, and as a result, perhaps a faster total turnaround time, in spite of the potentially inordinate additional hours of hands-on work, whereas you have no control over the backlog at a photo lab..."

marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Will you be going back to the typewriter? Pidgeon [do they really spell it that way in England, or is that just someone's name, and you mean pigeon?] post? People always run these debates when a new technology comes. They then adapt..."

Peter Blaise responds: I AM digital ... just not in original image capture. See
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for at least web images.

... and the computer is nothing BUT a typewriter. W-a-y back I used an IBM Composer magnetic card selectric typewriter that would store my typing, spell check, then justify lines on print out. The computer just has a screen. What's really new?

Peter Blaise wrote: "... Herbert Keppler (sorry about the misspelling) (Minolta Photographer and curmudgeon) ..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Um..well couldn't find any pics, but [book] The Nikon Way: Including the Nikkormat. by: Herbert Keppler..."

Peter Blaise responds: And "The Pentax Way" too, and many others. But TODAY, try Popular Photography magazine, monthly, with millions of subscribers! Geesh!

"The Minolta Way", by the way, was written by Clyde Reynolds.

Peter Blaise wrote: "... William Eugene Smith (Minolta Photographer)..."

marc venton (Travis) responded: "... - yes. Good man..."

Peter Blaise responds: Minolta Photographer! He commented that the Minolta 16mm lens was the hardest lens for him to learn how to use well, but sticking with it and consulting with the Minds of Minolta while he was in Japan, he "cranked out" some splendid stuff with it. See his penultimate solo shot, his swan song (he no longer took pictures after this Minolta Photography project) sometimes called:

"Tomoko in her bath"

... see image ex&le at Minolta Photography web site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Gear"?:

Minolta 16mm f/2.8 Lens, Minolta SR T 101 Camera

Image described at Minolta Photography web site at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"... William Eugene Smith took this photo, and together with the help of Aileen Mioko Sprauge Smith (his wife) and Ishikawa Takeshi, a local photographer, many other photos were taken of the effects of long term environmental industrial mercury poisoning on the local population. Here we see an image of an outwardly healthy mother bathing her fetal-poisoned 16 year old daughter, Tomoko Uemura, physically crippled since birth due to environmental industrial mercury poisoning in the local Minamata, Japan, water supply. This may well be the first environmental pollution photojournalism. Note also the invariable comparison to Michelangelo Buonarroti 's Pieta (see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for ex&le). ..."

--

Marc, I appreciate your sharing in this discourse (perhaps we can also get Steve involved in an extended participation someday?).

In dialoguing with you, I explored questions I might not have stumbled upon or addressed with the same vigor as I have with your prodding.

I don't want or expect better answers in my photographic journey - I'm looking for better questions.

Thank 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!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

janetkinney

New Member
I have the 7i. Can anyone help me please as to what I can use for additional macro (to do flower photograhy) and also what to use for telephoto. My 7i is a great camera. Do you have a camera to recommend if my 7i can't do the trick w/o spending a lot of money? thanks
 
S

Stv

Please accept my humblest apologies to this board and the specific membership (member) that I have offended with my spontaneous and crass outburst.
As a Minolta devotee of limited photography skill sets, I will certainly need to reevaluate my ability to contribute to this board at the level of professional talent/content that is found within this site.
Thank you for your indulgence.
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: Please accept my humblest apologies to this board and the specific membership (member) that I have offended with my spontaneous and crass outburst.&nbsp; As a Minolta devotee of limited photography skill sets, I will certainly need to reevaluate my ability to contribute to this board at the level of professional talent/content that is found within this site. Thank you for your indulgence. -- Peter Blaise responds:&nbsp; Don't worry about it, Steve!&nbsp; We're all underdogs here, being in the Minolta c&!&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp; And who's skill set isn't limited by something - experience, ego, money, time, local services, the laws of physics, attitude ... ?!? From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"... Expert - noun: a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully.&nbsp; adjective: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude..." Steve, I think YOU are an expert with special knowledge ... of YOU, and that is what I am curious about.&nbsp; I am curious about each and every one of us and our own Minolta Photorgaphy experiences. I enjoyed Hung's exploration of what Minolta gear means to him (inexpensive, well featured, reliable), and you all have seen my experience (Minolta cameras seem to jump to my hand and just work with me intuitively). I think we all contribute to eachother in our own way, and none of us has anything "better" to offer than anyone else, just as no one's contribution is "worse".&nbsp; We need every one of us to feel welcome here, even those of us who are disgruntled or frustrated or out of resources and we think we don't know what to do. Those experiences of feeling diminished may be just as fleeting as the feeling of being uncompromisingly capable. For instance, I have asigned myself the task of photographing a certail group of brdges nearby and giving the viewer the experience of what the bridge is all about, not just a documentary photograph of the bridge.&nbsp; I'm stimied, with many rolls on the shelf, wondering how I'm going to do it.&nbsp; I'm wondering if I'm even capable of doing it at all!&nbsp; Maybe someday I will look back on it and wonder what was the hesitation.&nbsp; Maybe it will plague me, unconquered, the rest of my life. Plus, as Marc challenges, how does "Minolta" fit into the equation in a way that "non-Minolta" would not also fit equally as well? I'll let you all know! -- So, Steve, what is your experience of your Minolta Photography, eh? Steve Beland (Stv) wrote:&nbsp; Why ? Twenty-seven years ago a sweet young lady gifted me with my first 35mm camera. A Minolta range-finder, the model number has since escaped me. The camera broke long ago and was unable to repair the shutter. I tossed the Minolta, but kept (married) the girl. My next Minolta experience was the new AF Maxxum-7000. I was amazed by the people who would stop me on the street (Toronto) just to chat and admire it ! This sweet light-box quickly found it's limitations whereupon I soon traded-up to the now classic Maxxum-9000 c/w all the goodies; motor, flashes,flash grip and several lenses. A lot of cash for my salad days of the mid-80's! That was my baby for 18 plus years and still have it. Alas, tired but true, it was time to move up and on. Presenting the just arrived Maxxum 7, also with many of the top add-ons. 5600-HS-D flash, several D-zoom lenses and battery grip etc. What a great camera this is, although still a little daunting for me at times. Now the digital age has arrived and Minolta has not let me down. Recently I took ownership of a fantastic digital, the Dimage A1 of which I'm currently getting comfortable with. The AS works like a charm. Lots of potential fun for me here. So, looks like I'm a Minolta lifer ! Why again ? Many, many reasons. Mostly the reliability. Never had to repair a Minolta camera or accessories, with the exception of my first of course. Second, is the innovations Minolta brings to the table and life outside of the "box" i.e. Canon and Nikon arrogance. Easy to use, cost effective, a joy to own and sensuous hold. ... and ... Steve Beland (Stv) wrote:&nbsp; ... I'm a Minolta neophyte, someone help me with my issues ... Peter Blaise responds: Minolta neophyte? From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- neophyte, noun: a plant that is found in an area where it had not been recorded previously.&nbsp; noun: a new convert being taught the principles of Christianity by a catechist.&nbsp; noun: any new participant in some activity. You?&nbsp; Neophyte?&nbsp; Hardly!&nbsp; I'd LOVE to have the Minotla cameras you've got - the Minolta AF 9000, the "mighty" Minolta 7 and the Minolta Dimage A1 - GEESH!&nbsp; I'd be in heaven if I had your arsenal! So, what issues are you working on?&nbsp; WHy not start a new thread or direct us to whatever thread you are currently finding unaddressed and we'll explore righ talong with ya, okay? -- 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
Geesh I hate the lack of control over formatting of this board software! ARGH! Let me try again, and see if this is readable:

--

Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: Please accept my humblest apologies to this board and the specific membership (member) that I have offended with my spontaneous and crass outburst. As a Minolta devotee of limited photography skill sets, I will certainly need to reevaluate my ability to contribute to this board at the level of professional talent/content that is found within this site.

Thank you for your indulgence.

--

Peter Blaise responds: Don't worry about it, Steve! We're all underdogs here, being in the Minolta c&! ;-) And who's skill set isn't limited by something - experience, ego, money, time, local services, the laws of physics, attitude ... ?!?

From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"... Expert - noun: a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully. adjective: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude..."

Steve, I think YOU are an expert with special knowledge ... of YOU, and that is what I am curious about. I am curious about each and every one of us and our own Minolta Photography experiences.

I enjoyed Hung's exploration of what Minolta gear means to him (inexpensive, well featured, reliable), and you all have seen my experience (Minolta cameras seem to jump to my hand and just work with me intuitively).

I think we all contribute to each other in our own way, and none of us has anything "better" to offer than anyone else, just as no one's contribution is "worse". We need every one of us to feel welcome here, even those of us who are disgruntled or frustrated or out of resources and we think we don't know what to do.

Those experiences of feeling diminished may be just as fleeting as the feeling of being uncompromisingly capable.

For instance, I have assigned myself the task of photographing a certain group of bridges nearby and giving the viewer the experience of what the bridge is all about, not just a documentary photograph of the bridge. I'm stymied, with many rolls on the shelf, wondering how I'm going to do it. I'm wondering if I'm even capable of doing it at all! Maybe someday I will look back on it and wonder what was the hesitation. Maybe it will plague me, unconquered, the rest of my life.

Plus, as Marc challenges, how does "Minolta" fit into the equation in a way that "non-Minolta" would not also fit equally as well?

I'll let you all know!

--

So, Steve, what is your experience of your Minolta Photography, eh?

Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: Why ?

Twenty-seven years ago a sweet young lady gifted me with my first 35mm camera. A Minolta range-finder, the model number has since escaped me. The camera broke long ago and was unable to repair the shutter. I tossed the Minolta, but kept (married) the girl.

My next Minolta experience was the new AF Maxxum-7000. I was amazed by the people who would stop me on the street (Toronto) just to chat and admire it ! This sweet light-box quickly found it's limitations whereupon I soon traded-up to the now classic Maxxum-9000 c/w all the goodies; motor, flashes, flash grip and several lenses. A lot of cash for my salad days of the mid-80's! That was my baby for 18 plus years and still have it.

Alas, tired but true, it was time to move up and on. Presenting the just arrived Maxxum 7, also with many of the top add-ons. 5600-HS-D flash, several D-zoom lenses and battery grip etc. What a great camera this is, although still a little daunting for me at times.

Now the digital age has arrived and Minolta has not let me down. Recently I took ownership of a fantastic digital, the Dimage A1 of which I'm currently getting comfortable with. The AS works like a charm. Lots of potential fun for me here.

So, looks like I'm a Minolta lifer ! Why again ?

Many, many reasons. Mostly the reliability. Never had to repair a Minolta camera or accessories, with the exception of my first of course. Second, is the innovations Minolta brings to the table and life outside of the "box" i.e. Canon and Nikon arrogance. Easy to use, cost effective, a joy to own and sensuous hold.

... and ...

Steve Beland (Stv) wrote: ... I'm a Minolta neophyte, someone help me with my issues ...

Peter Blaise responds: Minolta neophyte?

From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- neophyte, noun: a plant that is found in an area where it had not been recorded previously. noun: a new convert being taught the principles of Christianity by a catechist. noun: any new participant in some activity.

You? Neophyte? Hardly! I'd LOVE to have the Minolta cameras you've got - the Minolta AF 9000, the "mighty" Minolta 7 and the Minolta Dimage A1 - GEESH! I'd be in heaven if I had your arsenal!

So, what issues are you working on? WHy not start a new thread or direct us to whatever thread you are currently finding unaddressed and we'll explore right along with ya, okay?

--

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
Nice thread so far - "Why Minolta?"

~ 11 months

~ 34,000 words (minus my two big wrapped ones that got duplicated - Dirk, you can kill #102 and #94 where the lines all wrapped together, thanks!)

~ 100 messages

_ (that's about 340 words per post, by the way)

... although you can ONLY read the thread as a thread, end to end, on the web.

Great idea, Dirk.

I wonder what it will look like a year form now?!?

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon

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

peterblaise@yahoo.com

PS - I see "closed" new posts nat accepted at this thread ... hmm waht's the point of a dead end? Who will visit it, what's it for, where does it get archived, can we start a new one, is this a subject that can only be useful for 11 months and no one outside of this time ever gets to share? Geesh!
 
T

Travis

Peter,

Your enthusiasm is undoubted. But your post is so long I will just make a few points.

Firstly, you will be able to resvisit digital images as software improves. The fractals progaramme for instance, means images can exceed thier potential. Obviously you won't be able to have a new digital file from a camera. But you can go back to the base image.

You can do things in a ditigal darkroom that you can't in film. Correct converging verticals, for instance. (Though you might be able to do that by playing with the enlarger angle). And you certainly would not attempt a big cloning clean up in a darkroom process that you would in photoshop.

I capture on film for the moment. Once I can make a selenium or bleach back type print as nicely in digital I shan't be playing with the toxic chemicals.

And I do like the Minolta 9. It is a far better camera than the 9000, and the first minolta that actually feels like a pro-camera. Let's hope this mooted digital is the same.

From the equipment you've got it sounds like your run camera musuem.


M
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
marc venton (Travis) wrote: ... you will be able to resvisit digital images as software improves. The fractals progaramme for instance, means images can exceed their potential. Obviously you won't be able to have a new digital file from a camera. But you can go back to the base image ...

Peter Blaise responds: Yes, and RAW software helps revisit the best the camera had to offer (c'mon, Minolta, catch up to Nikon). Fractal software (been there, done that, got the T-shirt) cannot rediscover deeper and new details in an existing image, though. It's only good for blowing up, er, enlarging with a smooth interpolation that allows the eye to believe the expanded dots are filled in with acceptable inventions of what would otherwise be missing in the larger image. There's a difference between greater enlargement and refining definition, and digital can't do what film can do with each new generation of technology. Close, but I think you understand the limits. I do too, and have both - film AND Fractal software!

marc venton (Travis) wrote: ... You can do things in a digital darkroom that you can't in film. Correct converging verticals, for instance. (Though you might be able to do that by playing with the enlarger angle). And you certainly would not attempt a big cloning clean up in a darkroom process that you would in photoshop.

Peter Blaise responds: You're preachin' to the choir here. As I said, I rush my film images into the computer and do my work there nowadays!

marc venton (Travis) wrote: ... I capture on film for the moment. Once I can make a selenium or bleach back type print as nicely in digital I shan't be playing with the toxic chemicals.

Peter Blaise responds: Longevity? Toning not only enhanced the image qualities immediately, but those chemicals, some anyway, enhance longevity. What's your resource in computer output for longevity, or does that not matter to you since you can reprint on demand?

marc venton (Travis) wrote: ... And I do like the Minolta 9. It is a far better camera than the 9000, and the first minolta that actually feels like a pro-camera. Let's hope this mooted digital is the same.

Peter Blaise responds: Do you have a Minolta AF 9000 side by side with the Minolta 9? I'm jealous! I'd love BOTH. The 9000 invented the pro auto SLR marketplace and it's full of startling inventiveness that we all take for granted now. The 9 just keeps on getting "best camera ever" accolades and Minolta keeps sneaking upgrades into it (hand made in Japan, ya know - their new pride and joy after the Minolta CLE, even though the SR-T101, X-700 and 7000 were their bread and butter.)

marc venton (Travis) wrote: ... From the equipment you've got it sounds like your run camera museum.

Peter BLaise responds: Me? Let me look up that word (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
):

[museum, noun: a depository for collecting and displaying objects having scientific or historical or artistic value.]

... no, not "displaying", I use my gear all the time ...

[muse, noun: the source of an artist's inspiration (Ex&le: "Euterpe was his muse"). verb: reflect deeply on a subject.]

... more like it!

My cameras all have film in 'em and get carried around at least 3 on me at all times! ;-) These are for USE!

[Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French muser to gape, idle, muse, from muse mouth of an animal, from Medieval Latin musus]

... now THAT'S wrong! Not my mouth wide open, but my eyes! (Okay, occasionally a scene startles me in awe and I probably do stand there agape - as in a-gaping!)

Someday I may part with one camera or another ($$$), but I'm like a child with each new discovery, they fascinate me and I quickly learn what the designers thought was so special to share with me. I also appreciate other cameras, and other Minolta cameras than the one's I own/ Yet if I don't respond to the feature and benefit set, I leave it for someone else to enjoy! That's me! I've even built and moderate discussion groups for Minolta cameras that I do not own or use, but I see the need to foster a successful community to support them. That's me, too!

--

Marc, I did an internet search for you and got nothing. Am I a bad searcher or are you not in view on the web?

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon peterblaise@yahoo.com
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!
 
T

Travis

There's a difference between greater enlargement and refining definition, and digital can't do what film can do with each new generation of technology. Close, but I think you understand the limits. I do too, and have both - film AND Fractal software!

Top of the range scanners have probably reached as much useful resolution as can be got out of a negative. At 5,400 dpi on 35mm you are really reveling just grain after that. There is an argument for colour and dynamic depth.





>>Peter Blaise responds: Longevity? Toning not >>only enhanced the image qualities immediately, >>but those chemicals, some anyway, enhance >>longevity.

Print longevity is pretty stable wiht the new generation of Epsons. And yes, in the end, I can print a picture again in 20 years if it fades.

>>Peter Blaise responds: Do you have a Minolta >>AF 9000 side by side with the Minolta 9? I'm >>jealous!


No flogged the 9000.

>>I'd love BOTH. You can pick up a 9000 for very little money now. But most have suffered bleeding on the LCD.

>>Minolta keeps sneaking upgrades into it (hand made in Japan. Do they. What kind?

>>7000 were their bread and butter

Had a 7000. Electronics kept packing up. Not very reliable camera IMO. I sense that the 9 will keep going for ever. It will be my last film camera, except for the nostalgia purchce of an SRT-101 which was my first SLR and second ever camera.



>>museum, noun: a depository for collecting and >>displaying objects having scientific or >>historical or artistic value.

There are living musuems where objects are used.

>>That's me! I've even built and moderate >>discussion groups for Minolta cameras that I >>do not own or use, but I see the need to >>foster a successful community to support them. >>That's me, too!

Well, give them a call, and ask if they are launching a new camera at PMA next month.



>>Marc, I did an internet search for you and got >>nothing. Am I a bad searcher or are you not in >>view on the web?

No, your a good searcher. This is not my real name, I don't use that in public on the internet. Actually you would only find my writing on the net, not photos (I think).


I tried to copy a couple of JPEGs in here. Couldn't
 

peterblaise

Well-Known Member
I don't remember how I got my images in this thread on the web. Go to the web and look at the thread - there are images!

I'll try again, but if there's no image ... maybe they are only visible on the web, not in the distributed emails? I read and post by email, and visit the web only occasionally.

[Image]

Peter Blaise - Minolta Photographer

Shot by Liz Kulick with our Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 and F/N-80 on Ilford 400 B&W, scanned by Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II

... I hope you can see it!

... mark venton (Travis) is not your real name, eh?

I've been on the internet since it's inception with my real name and all I get is 300 spams a day! ;-)
 
T

Travis

Still don't know how to get an image in here.

Recent quote in UK photography mag shoes Minolta are still staying tight lipped about PMA, but inferring that something will happen.

They have just launched two new SLRs.

I really hope they don't do an Olympus and create a non legacy ditigal camera. I assume they would not, given the lack of sales they had with their first digi SLR. It seems pretty obvious marketing, given that there are thousands/millions of Minolta SLR owners out here who will buy a digital camera to run alongside our film ones if they are compatible.
 
Top