Re: [Leica] Minolta made R9

[Andre Jean Quintal <megamax@abacom.com>]

Good Afternoon Dan,

	It's not that I want a Minolta (though it's an interesting brnad)
	but, rather, that I got really curious when someone
	suggested Leica get in bed with Minolta
	( I remember their first generation SLR were
	Minolta or partly Minolta, hoping this was true.)
	to get about the business of proposing an auto
	everything R9.

	Actually, this "exercise" made me more "open" to
	Minolta's excellence, would one consider a Japan made
	auto everyhting SLR, where I have mostly been a
	Nikon freak all my life, Canon scoring points with me
	but not enough to get their product. Also, I made more
	photos with my little Rollei 35 gizmo than anything else,
	except the Zeiss Contarex I used to photograph
	all the houses of the city when a student. I NEVER
	overcame the grief of letting the thing go, as I had
	to pay for my studies and life events ran contrary.
	I really don't have any pretense to glory, photo wise.
	Photography, to me, also can be a spectator sport,
	and the source of endless pleasure(s) and satisfaction.

	When I try the auto everything SLRs, I waste
	more time getting to put the thing in active "standby"
	mode than focus my old FTn or FM2: I suppose we share
	a "retrograde" attitude where cameras are concerned
	( to me, a very solid feel is mandatory and that seems
	to be a fading hope). I was impressed to read that the
	Minolta Maxxum ' 9 ' was all metal, enough to plan
	to find a dealer somewhere who's let me handle the thing
	a few minutes, but not really with any intention to get
	one. If I could get an invisible camera, I'd flip with joy.

	I also was quite impressed with the design of some of
	Minolta's APS point & shoot + one Minolta 35mm
	called "Freedom Zoom 140 EX", with the attitude:
	what will this model be considered as, 100 years from now?

	I'm an old enough monkey to know better than compare
	such with Leica M or R products. I posted mostly
	for discussion's sake, looking for people's opinions
	and experiences with such cameras, relative to Leica
	brand products.

	A sociologist can have a rather weird take on Reality
	where marketing and business are concerned,
	let alone photography as such and LUG members' behaviour
	patterns and group processes.      :-))

	As to a Leica R9: the more it has to appeal to more people,
	the better, but I, for one, would like to have the possibility
	to "go manual", then, if required, go point & shoot,
	with excellent macro capability built-in and sure wish
	it would be rather small and weatherproofed
	and as stealthy as feasible. Actually, if there was a Leica
	Minilux half the depth with a finder 4 or 16 times as big,
	that very likely would be my choice.

	My ultimate opinion and hunch is: Leica would (could) make
	a rangefinder than "sports" one integrated AF zoom capable
	of at least 28-90 but of such quality a 16" x 20" doesn't
	show it's 35mm photography with ISO 100 film under
	most conditions.

	Andre Jean Quintal


At 11:48 -0400 15/08/99, Dan Post wrote:
> ANdre-
>I've had a few- from the SRT-101 to the 7000i and they are all nice cameras.
>The 7000i was one of the most complex pieces of camera whiz-bang technology
>I had ever seen- when I had it repaired, I was told that there were no less
>the 37 different switches, in, on, and about the body alone! All prone to
>get dirty, and to cease working!
>I guess tha's why I like the M and the LTM so much! Less to go awry! But if
>you need AF and AE and want a relatively nice camera, they are not bad...
>just not as good as a Leica!
>Dan