Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/04

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

Subject: [Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples
From: sam at osheaven.net (Sam)
Date: Sat Sep 4 06:33:20 2004
References: <4057F0C4.2040707@osheaven.net> <OFEA8DEA9A.3EB2048F-ON86256E5A.0005E338-86256E5A.00061C45@crnotes2.rockwe llcollins.com> <A5DEF66C-77D9-11D8-9214-000A95CD9BF8@mac.com> <4057F0C4.2040707@osheaven.net> <3.0.6.32.20040317115152.008819e0@POP6.sympatico.ca> <4058B1FA.2090906@osheaven.net> <p05100330bc7e6c8272cb@[10.0.1.3]> <4058EC9F.6050301@osheaven.net> <p05100304bc7eedb41522@[10.0.1.4]>

Ok  :)

Sam S


Henning Wulff wrote:

>
> 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.
>
--
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


In reply to: Message from sam at osheaven.net (Sam) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)
Message from attinasi at mac.com (Marc Attinasi) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)
Message from leicaman at sympatico.ca (Dan C) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)
Message from sam at osheaven.net (Sam) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)
Message from sam at osheaven.net (Sam) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples)