Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]True, True, True and Not True, Not True, Not True. What's true - that no one is going to honest-to-God know which lens produced the slight - unless it's taken with a known clunker, such as Nikon's God-awful 43-86 zoom. What's also true? That Minolta has produced some damn good cameras and lenses over the years. The Maxxum 9, for example, could just be THE best SLR body of all times. BUT - the reason photographers haven't flocked to the Mind of Minolta is not because they are weenies, but because Minolta has at various points come late to the table, and come pretty much empty handed. Yes, there are some great Minolta lenses, but if we're talking about pros choosing 'system' cameras, the Minolta lens line-up doesn't begin to compare in depth to either Leica or Canon. And that really makes a difference. Also, I would venture a guess that Minolta never courted pros the way Nikon and Canon did. As to the new Minolta digital - It sounds as if they've come up with a really terrific idea in stabilizing the body, rather than the lens. Obviously this means that the lenses themselves can be cheaper than the IS lenses the competitors produce, and it also means, as has been pointed out, that every compatible lens becomes an IS lens - which is fantastic. But my guess is, being about 5 years late to the digital 'station,' Minolta long-ago missed the pro 'train.' Let's face it - part of selling merchandise successfully is not only having a great product, but having it at the right time. BTW - just a footnote: When I was shopping for my first autofocus SLR, the Maxxum 9 was high on my list. It was pricier than the other bodies I was looking at, but damn! it was impressive - built like a tank, ergonomically perfect for me, fabulous viewfinder, and damn near silent. So why did I end up with the Nikon F100 - clearly an inferior body - instead? The limited autofocus lens selection for the Minolta - pure and simple. B. D. -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Sam Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:16 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples Dan, I cannot agree with you more than if I wrote your words. I've used Minolta cameras off-and-on since the XG-M. I defy anyone to tell which lens took which slide on a light table. I have no plans on going digital in the near future, but as the talk is mostly digital these days it's hard not to become involved. As I hear talk about this or that camera a voice runs almost continually through my mind saying, "Minolta has that" or "Minolta did it first" or "Minolta does it cheaper" or "Minolta does it better." I've never heard one good reason not to use a Minolta based on the product itself. Its glass is as good as any. No, they do not use batteries more than other digitals. There might be individual models that ate batteries more than is normal, but that can be said for every camera maker. Minolta is the most deserved but ignored camera maker on the planet because its name is not Nikon, or, more recently, Canon. From the wonderful XK to the innovative auto focus Maxxum 7000 to the breathtaking Maxxum 9, their cameras have always been top rank. The only reason Milolta has not broken the "professional" camera barrier is becasue photographers are gutless winnies who follow the pack more then lemmings. They have got to be the most fearful people on earth. If they find the wherewithall to break out of their shaking shells they will find the new Konica Minolta line to be among the best in the world. I say this with the greatest respect for the talents of the professional photographers here, if not their courage to be innovative. Sam S Dan C wrote: >Check out the following review of the A2. > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/konica-minolta-a2.sht >ml >(subtitled: "hitting one over the fence"). > >-dan c. > >ps.. I have a whole bunch of decent Minolta glass. . For years my >number one picture taking lens was my Minolta 100/2.8 macro. I >honestly doubt that any real situation photo comparisons would reveal any >differences between it and similar from Nikon or Canon. But that was >then. I've since picked up a used Minolta 85/1.4 and now both my Minolta >100 and my beloved 90/2 APO Summicron ASPH are collecting dust in the >bottom of my equipment bags. So I will have no problem deciding to buy >the Minolta Maxxum 7D, barring terrible reviews, prices, etc. > > > >At 11:09 PM 16-03-04 -0800, Henning Wulff wrote: > > >>At 1:31 AM -0500 3/17/04, Sam wrote: >> >> >>>I've been preaching this camera to deaf ears, but I suggest you save >>>your SLR digital money until it comes out: >>> >>>http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3413.htm >>> >>>If you put aside silly notions about Canon and Nikon being >>>"professional" cameras and all the rest something less, you will be >>>doing yourself a favor. >>> >>> >>But who's got any decent Minolta glass? Not enough to make any >>difference. I'm sorry, but unless the digital Maxxum has the quality >>of the Canon 1Ds at Rebel prices, it's not goint to go anywhere. >> >>The A2 might be something to talk about, though. >> >>-- >> * Henning J. Wulff >> /|\ Wulff Photography & Design >> /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com >> |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com >>-- >>To unsubscribe, see >>http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html >> >> >> >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html