Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:13 AM 8/15/96 EDT, you wrote: >No thanks, Minolta have done nothing to make me consider their equipment a >worthwhile expense over the long run. Just because they have the lenses >(and some of the Minolta line are VERY good) does not make them a reliable >tool. Minolta have a high defect rate in new cameras and the construction >quality is simply not good enough. The cameras do not last with heavy use >under serious conditions. Where do you get your information on this? I had a long talk once with Harry Benson, who is, or at least was, Minolta's most prominent spokesman. And he was very enthusiastic about the quality of the Minolta equipment he used. Of course, he uses their top-line pro camera. Which is all metal, very reliable and extremely fast. Their lenses stand up to the abuse that Nikon and Canon's does. You played with the lates AF versions in either of those lines? Hardly rugged by any standard. Now if we're talking Leica, now that's different. Their pro cameras - R6.2, R7, and M6 are all great, but the R line is no more reliable than the Minolta pro models. And none of them are as relaible as an EOS1n or F4/5. So should we all switch to Nikon or Canon? No. ================== Eric Welch Grants Pass Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB Chair