Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 7:26 PM -0500 3/17/04, Sam wrote:
>I wonder if you can recall what was lacking in the XK system? It
>certainly was not an array of finders, screens, diopters, bulk film
>back, intravalometer, battery packs, motor drive, macro tubes,
>bellows, copy stand, or lenses from fish-eye to 500mm. Here is an
>early system map to help you remember:
>
><http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/htmls/xksystem.pdf>
>
>I would rewrite your laste sentence to read "Bad mouthing [those who
>know what they are talking about] is not cool. "
>
>Sam S
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.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
--
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html