Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ok :) Sam S Henning Wulff wrote: > > OK. In 1971 Minolta brought out the XK, and it looked like it might > become a contender. At that time I had a Konica Autoreflex for 35mm > (plus Leicas); not at all in the Minolta's class, but it worked for me > at the time because the camera was relatively inexpensive and I could > draw on all of Nikon's lenses as well. I had a 35 Nikon shift lens, > and a couple of years later got the 28 shift and a 400. Minolta's > system, while impressive at the start, didn't get developed any > further, and it was fairly clear that due to flat sales it wouldn't go > anywhere. I got a 15mm Nikkor, and by then things were going well > enough that I switched to Nikon when I could see that Konica was > leaving the SLR scene. > > I had a 15mm lens, and I had 28 and 35mm shift lenses. The closes > Minolta came was a 17mm lens and a 35 shift. I also had and continue > to have a Canon 35mmTS, a much more useful and versatile lens than the > variable field curvature Minolta. > > For my purpose (architectural photography), Minolta didn't have the > lenses I needed. The fact that the basic XK body was an excellent > camera didn't cut it. > > Having a range of screens and intervalometer was irrelevant to my > needs, but the 28mm shift lens was _the_ money maker for me at that > time. The Konicas worked excellently with the shift lens (actually, it > worked better with the Konicas than with the Nikon bodies) and were > more versatile _for my needs_. > > Like I said before, if the Minolta cameras and the lenses they offered > could do the job for you: fine. But Minolta didn't have the support > nor the commitment to continue development, and in the end lacked the > momentum to make it. This is not due to a failing amongst the > professionals; they want to see that what they invest a lot of money > and time in has a future as well as a promise. Minolta didn't keep > that promise. > > The same could be said of the Pentax LX. Also a great body with huge > potential, but Pentax dithered in their developmental direction, and > it fizzled. Also, their 28 shift was poor :-). > > My comments stand. > -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html