Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?
From: Axel Schwieker <>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:35:22 +0200
References: <006f01c00bec$5ac7ba00$c0dffea9@d2p8j6>

Terry Sham wrote:
> Zeiss chose Yashica as its partner in the past because Pentax refused to
> join with Zeiss first. Why Leica chose Minolta as its partner in the past?

Because the Minolta bodies of that time were the only ones which did
compare at least mechanically to Leitz standards. And that's what Leica
was looking for - a new amd cheaper to produce reflex camera body - with
the production costs for the leicaflex going totally out of bounds.

> Does Minolta match the high optical knowledge and quality of Leica?

No. 'Nuff said.


Replies: Reply from Dan Cardish <> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
Reply from "Dan Post" <> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
Reply from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?)
In reply to: Message from "Terry Sham" <> ([Leica] Why Minolta?)