Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with everything you say. I only wonder whether Minolta's stab with the XK left a bad taste in its mouth because it was not picked up by professionals in any numbers. Sam S B. D. Colen wrote: >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 > > > > -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html