Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Good question! I have had several Minoltas, and they seem to have their
share of electronics problems, but having had several of their manual
cameras- like the SRT models, I found them to be nice comfortable cameras to
use, reliable, and the lenses are to shabby. I am confident that if Leica
had them build some of their lenses, that Minolta was quite capable of
meeting Leica's standards, and of course, the price was higher than the run
of the mill Minolta lenses since I am sure they don't have the close
tolerances that Leitz demands.
I have this hunch that most any lens maker could and would built lenses to
the same tolerances that Leica does, excepot that they would miss out on the
mass marketing of their product. I think that Leica retains their strict
standards, despite lower overall sales, just to meet the demands of a more
'critical' market! Since they also make a myriad of other products, I think
that they will be viable as long as they don't lose money in the long run. I
think that the cameras are a marque that they can use to bolster confidence
in their other optical products.
Dan ( One humble opinion....) Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Sham" <tsham@netvigator.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 8:52 PM
Subject: [Leica] Why Minolta?


> Zeiss chose Yashica as its partner in the past because Pentax refused to
> join with Zeiss first. Why Leica chose Minolta as its partner in the past?
> Does Minolta match the high optical knowledge and quality of Leica?
>
> Thanks
>
> Terry Sham
>