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:
>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.
I can't speak for others but I fail to see the relevance of the testimony
of a "sponsored" spokesperson.
Up until a while ago, the FNAC chain of stores (probably more
familiar to continental european camera shoppers) used to put the
"defective returns" percentage on camera price tags. Minoltas consistently
rated lower than most other manufacturers with the exception of the eastern
bloc equipment.
In a former life I spent a number of years behind the counter of a
pro' photo retailer: every time Minolta launched a new camera we would have
a protracted period of Minoltas raining back down on us from disgruntled
customers whose cameras had snafued on them (usually a problem of
electronic origins). The situation became so bad that many of the
salespeople would go out of their way to try and sway a sale over to a
different brand so as to avoid the inevitable hassles when the customer
would return the thing. This, in spite of Minolta's generous perks for the
salespeople (sell umpteen cameras and lenses and get a trinitron TV/ cd
player/ etc... kind of deal.
In and out of warranty repairs are off the scale and Minolta's
repair arrangements were always anything but satisfactory.
> 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.
Agreed. It's for this reason that all my 35mm work is now done with Leicas
and as of last week I run 100% Nikon free.
>
>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.
I, in turn, wonder what information you based this conclusion on. I have
personally never found any of the AF equipment to be a reliable long term
investment. Admittedly, my requirements may be a little unusual as I spend
a great portion of my shooting time in the Arctic creating work for
natural resource companies and the like and a large part of that is spent
in winter where the conditions render the AF gear COMPLETELY useless due to
the electronics and build quality.
Minoltas, in this photog's humble opinion are simply not built to last even
"with the professional's experience built in" to quote one of their
infamous slogans.
It would take me a little more than mere "snob appeal" to shell out
what it takes for a full compliment of Leica gear. The stuff is built like
a tank and acts like it: at -75C in the wind, those M shutters work
perfectly and that's all it takes to keep this boy happy. (larger controls
for heavily gloved hands would be a nice touch, though.)
J. Redfern
>
>==================
>Eric Welch
>Grants Pass Daily Courier
>NPPA Region 11 JIB Chair