Why Sony / Minolta at all?

[Travis]

>>This is correct, if you only focus on the lens mount. But reality is, that you will have a hard time to find a MF-Nikon Lens, that works with the current AF bodies without significant limitations. So physically you might be able to put it on, but using it will be a nightmare - if at all possible.

Focussing on the lens was not the issue. Minolta change the physical mount. I had a focus assisted Sigma which I used on my Minolta lenses. That would not work when I upgraded from a Minolta 9000 to a Minolta 9. I still manual focus some of my lenses. It's more difficult on the cheaper lenses, but pro ones tend to have a rugged manual.

Minolta played the same game with the flash mount when it started the Maxuums.

 

[Travis]

I'm not sure what is meant by not producing workhorses but the the Maxxum 9 and 7 <dynax 9 and 7> are very reliable.

I have a 9, and it is the first really solid Minolta in years IMO. Before I had a 7000 which was lacking in features and rather plastic. The 9000 was better, but had some odd quirks, and was no match for the Nikon F4.

I wonder how the 9 came about. Minolta must have decided to go head to head with Nikon and Canon. Hope they do the same with digital now in the way Nikon and Canon have for their users.

 

[dirk]

The lens mount of the Maxxum 9000 and Maxxum 9 are identical. You can put every Minolta AF-lens on both. If your Sigma did not work with certain features on the Maxxum 9 but did that on the 9000, well then this is the pity of a third party product, which used obviously a technology Minolta did not support. At least I have never heard of a Minolta AF lens with focus assist - whatever that means

 

[tim_broadley]

There has been no change in the physical mount from the 7000 to the 9. Sigma has had a history of reverse engineering the interface as opposed to paying Minolta the royality fees or whatever.
In Sigma's defense, they usually will accept back lenses that have demonstrated compatibility issues and correct them via a chip update.

I am also uncertain as to what a "focus assist" is. I presume that you mean that the lens adjusts its focus via motor in the body according to information derived by the body's focusing processes. If this is correct, then they are Auto Focus lenses

 

[Travis]

Focus assist was a light and a bleep which told you the lens was in focus, rather than the lens focussing mechanically for you. You had to turn the ring yourself.

Yes, there was no change in the mount, but the Sigma electronics were not compatible with the new 9. I found this out to my cost on an assigment for a travel article. I couldn't trip the 9 shutter, even though I was focussing the lens manually. Fortunately I had a 28-80 zoom with me, so I was pretty well covered.

Sigma were no longer chipping the lens, but gave me a reduced upgrade to a new 20mm lens. Cost me £90, but the Sigma fixed focal EX wide-angle lenses are fantastic. Sharp as a tack.

Sigma took it's compatability issues really seriously. They didn't have to replace a 15 year old lens. Minolta could learn something from them.

 

[tim_broadley]

>>Sigma took it's compatability issues really seriously. They didn't have to replace a 15 year old lens. Minolta could learn something from them<<

Marc;
There are people on other groups who would disgree with you as they had to fight with Sigma on the compatibility issues. I don't know of one lens that minolta has made that had comptibility issues so clearly I am missing your point here.

The significant thing with Sigma is that they have consistently had this reverse engineering notion and had to rechip the lens. This is a point that Sigma needs to note.

 

[peterblaise]

--

Peter Blaise wrote:

I agree, it takes a ~US$2,000 digital camera system to approach the potential image qualities of a ~US$10 single use film
camera.

--

marc venton (Travis) wrote:

That is not what is being said. Nor is it true. A $400 digital camera will produce the same results, and you won't have to throw it
away. Disposable cameras have terrible lenses, that is why they are so cheap. It's not good just comparing film and digital, if the
lens is no good then the results will be poor.

It's not good enough to say that these results work for some serious photographers.

The lack of customer care from Minolta has been pointed up time and time again here. The change in lens mount system is a
classic ex&le.

Minolta has for too long relied on being flashy without producing solid workhorses. The 9000 may have been full of technology,
but it had lots of basic failings. The LED bled, the film transport sometimes failed without you being able to know, no mirror lock up
etc.

Now we hear that Minolta can't even distribute its cameras.

--

Peter Blaise responds:

Thanks for delivering yet another wallop of energy to this discussion. I like your challenges. Let's dig in!

Actually, for many people who "only" print 4x6" prints today, even a ~US$100 digital camera may suffice, but in 10 years, they
won't have much to revisit - as I am revisiting film images from 30 years ago and I'm happy to be able to get a 63mb 10 bit RGB file
from it using my now "ancient" Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II, and a new Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 can educe a 252mb 16 bit
RGB image file from that 30 year old (or older, or newer, of course) film image.

Maybe I blinked and missed a new product announcement, so please inform me how a ~US$400 digital camera can produce a
30mb uninterpolated image, let alone a 252mb 16 bit image file, like a single use 35mm camera can!?!

All things are NOT equal, and though the film CAMERA may be "throw away" in this comparison, it leaves a splendid image master
on the film that can be revisited over time. Toss out the digital camera, and what have you got left? An image file that cannot be
revisited to educe additional original subject information. Ouch!

And that is my point.

NOT that digital OR film is better, but that each offers something different, and revisiting an original over time to educe new
information is NOT digital's forte.

I think Minolta took the right path in hesitating re-entering the DSLR market again, letting Nikon and Canon owners buy the 18
month throw away cameras (the ~US$2,000 digital version of a ~US$10 film throw away camera!).

Now that the market place has matured and end user expectations are in better balance (except for those who do NOT
understand the above paragraphs about where film offers a superior storage medium to digital), the time is ripe for yet another
digital capture device that can use Minolta A Mount lenses (the RD-3000 has an A-mount adapter available, by the way, only it's
sibling, the S1/S1-- used APS film, the RD-3000 di not use APS film, of course!).

Waiting ... waiting ...

--

Your other points:

--

Single use cameras have poor lenses?

Any personal experience in mind? The Ilford black and white single use camera was reviewed as having an embarrassingly sharp
lens that produced splendidly resolved and well defined images. The inexpensiveness may be in the plastic lens that has a limited
wear life, but it's accuracy was apparently proven in real world use for at least the intended single roll (Polaroid pioneered molded
plastic lenses of incredible accuracy!)!

--

"Serious" photographers?

I'll let each photographer decide for themselves what "serious" means to themselves, and not dictate that "serious" can only
mean what it means to me ... or to you! I know some serious photographers with under ~US$100 used gear, and some "dilettante"
photographers with ~US$25,000 gear. There is no point here. Every photographer is their own master of their own criteria. Thank
you!

--

Customer care versus change in lens mount?

You mean 18 years ago in 1985 when Minolta offered the world a manual focus SR system (available today) right alongside the
auto focus A mount system (also available today)? Didn't the market place decide which they wanted? And didn't Nikon and Canon
and Pentax and Leica and Contax and Olympus and everyone else also wander around their lens mounting and camera interface
system with the introduction of new and sophisticated and competitive products (read any independent Leica M catalog for
exceptions as to which supposedly universally compatible M lenses and M cameras damage each other - and Minolta is the bad
guy?!?). Minolta products serve me well, and Minolta service people serve me well. Even Rolls Royce has a service department -
just because someone complains that their Minolta failed and their attempts to get satisfactory Minolta service failed

Pentax is the only one trying to make all their lenses compatible with their current SLRs, including using their medium format 645
lenses - WOW! Maybe, if lens interchangeability is your primary concern, you are a Pentax Photographer, and the Pentax * ist D is
your next system?!? ;-) (I may add it to my Pentax arsenal ... though I have a Yashica M42 camera and M42 adapters for my
Minolta MF and AF cameras ...)

marc wrote:

... I had a focus assisted Sigma which I used on my Minolta lenses. That would not work when I upgraded from a Minolta 9000
to a Minolta 9 ...

Peter Blaise responds:

The Sigma thingy - a thing of beauty! I've seen it and love it, and I recommend that you keep it it with your Minolta AF x000
generation camera. And it wasn't "focus assist", which works with any lens in manual focus setting - it was FULL AUTO FOCUS -
set the lens on infinity and shoot away! Stop down metering, though. The incompatibility with later Minolta AF cameras is SIGMA's
fault, not Minolta's. What did Sigma say when you asked them about it? They told me they do not support any of their products
outside the direct application for which they designed and released it, which is true today with their lenses that do not work across
modern cameras of ANY brand, not just Minolta. Re-aim your attack at Sigma, not Minolta. Tokina, too. Tamron has no problems
working with Minolta design copyrights. I like Tamron! Tamron also makes lenses that work on Minolta manual focus AND Minolta
auto focus cameras, and ANYBODY'S SLRs - got Tamron? ;-)

marc wrote:

... Minolta played the same game with the flash mount when it started the Maxuums [sic: MAXXUM'S] ...

Peter Blaise responds:

Again, a decision that has won accolades from the industry reviewers - since you can't use a non dedicated flash on anybody's
modern cameras anyway, Nikon or Canon, either, so their ancient, misappropriated accessory mount -- turned flash mount is still in
use. The advantage? Didn't think there was one. Minolta's flash locks and stays with one click. Done. Winner - Minolta and
Minolta Photographers (which, apparently, you decline to be - so again, why are you here?!? See below * )

--

Minolta producing flashy products without a workhorse?

You must have been sleeping over the last few years (maybe just paying attention to your own experiences as if they are
everyone else's?).

The Minolta 9 has consistently won "best camera of any type - ever" accolades.

ALL Minolta cameras have consistently won accolades, within their price and performance classes, as having competitively
superlative feature and benefit sets, producing the most accurately exposed images, and having uncompromised feel, fit and finish.

The Minolta 9000 is one of the few cameras, after inventing the category, to survive long enough to be noticed as having aging
problems. Let's see, Nikon's and Canon's first attempt at a professional fully automatic system is the ...?!? ... introduced in ...
what year did they catch up, if ever?!?

--

Minolta can't distribute it's cameras?!?

What are you taking about? One of us is clueless here - HELP!

--

Peter Blaise summarizes thus far:

* So, marc, Travis, or whatever you real name is, I appreciate that you want something you don't have, or you have something
you don't want, but I fail to see accuracy in your presentations here. If you have personal experiences, own them and report on
them, and we will read them and weigh them against our own personal experiences - I think that's what these lists are for - to
bring us together. I've shared my experiences of my Minoltas, and I have NO IDEA if my experiences correspond to other people's.
Same for you. This isn't a "majority rules" kind of persuasion thing on these discussion groups, it's a share and share alike, all
voices are equal. Perhaps you might also share your ideas with the 4,000 members of the MUG Minolta User's Group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minolta/ and see what the archives over there have to offer in balance with your summations
above (and in balance with my summations above, too!).

Regarding why you are here: from your previous writings, I surmise that you like top of the line Minolta glass - lenses - and you
have the current top of the line Minolta 35mm AF SLR, and had the first top of the line Minolta 35mm AF SLR, and somehow also
have/had manual focus Minolta lenses that you love(d). Am I following you so far? Also, your current professional path has lead
you into a universe where your clients and competitors are satisfied with the images from the current crop of interchangeable lens
digital SLRs, and (a) you want to compete, and (b) you hate to give up Minolta glass. What do you do? We all have suggested
that you either choose another path, or choose another camera brand, at least in the meantime until the next crop of Minolta
digitals SLRs appear. Then you can sell your non-Minolta stuff, or not, depending on how you asses your year or so with
non-Minolta stuff.

You say you don't know what a Minolta Photographer is. Me thinks you protest too much - and that convinces me that you are
the penultimate Minolta Photographer ... you love you gear, yet you whine all the time. THAT'S A MINOLTA PHOTOGRAPHER!!! ;-)
Welcome to the clan. We have met the enemy, ant it's us! ;-)

--

This is one unstoppable thread, eh? WOW!

--

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon
Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer
peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltafilmbasedcameras/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minolta-lenses/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltascandual/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltadimagescanelite/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltadimagescanmulti/

--

 

[robin]

What I meant by APS mount is the mount which accepts Minolta’s Vectis APS lenses and AF mount is AF lens mount. Peter, everyone knows that it is not possible to use APS films in a digital camera. Try to point out or correct a mistake but please don’t confuse others.
I really wonder, almost every Minolta photographer anticipates a DSLR from Minolta at this point except Mr. Peter. Peter, you are a photographer or Minolta’s marketing person?

Regards,
Robin

 

[Travis]

>>Actually, for many people who "only" print >>4x6" prints today, even a ~US$100 digital >>camera may suffice, but in 10 years, they
>>won't have much to revisit - as I am >>revisiting film images from 30 years ago and >>I'm happy to be able to get a 63mb 10 bit RGB >>file

The size of the file is not very relevant if the image is not sharp. For the work that you are doing, it is clear that negative film and non-critical sharpness is not an issue. That's fine. But for the majority of photographers these are critical issues. That is why they use slide film and shell out on expensive lenses.


>>from it using my now "ancient" Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II, and a new Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 can educe a 252mb 16 bit
RGB image file from that 30 year old (or older, or newer, of course) film image.


We've covered this. There is a point of no return on dpi. Colour depth is an issue, but there are other issues on scanners, like the scanning plane. But if your basic image is not sharp and holding detail (is shot though a good lens, properly exposed at a workable f stop) you can't fix it. You can check the exposure of your digital image AS YOU TAKE IT, then do it again if the image is not right.


>>Maybe I blinked and missed a new product >>announcement, so please inform me how a >>~US$400 digital camera can produce a
>>30mb uninterpolated image, let alone a 252mb >>16 bit image file, like a single use 35mm >>camera can.

As I keep saying, it's not all about the size of the file. And if the $10 camera is so good, why arn't we all using them?



>>NOT that digital OR film is better, but that >>each offers something different.

Actually your point seems to be about how much things cost.

>>I think Minolta took the right path in >>hesitating re-entering the DSLR market again, >>

Because they screwed up in the fist place by not thinking about all the people who had bought their SLRs.

And Minolta has produced plenty of expensive digital cameras, just not one for all the people who bought their SLRs.


>>The Sigma thingy - a thing of beauty! I've seen it and love it, and I recommend that you keep it it with your Minolta AF x000

Sold the 9000.


>>FULL AUTO FOCUS.

It was not, in that it did not focus itself. It had to be focussed manually. The viefinder light told you it was in focus. I just focussed it manually, which is no big deal for a wide angle.

>> What did Sigma say when you asked them about it? They told me they do not support any of their products

They did support the lens. They chipped it for 15 years after it was first sold. They stopped chipping it and sold me a brand new EX lens for half price. Which suited me, as I swapped out a 24mm for a 20mm.

Re the 9000. Industry reviews are misleading. A lot of photo magazines love the buttons and lights on cameras. The 9000 had a lot of faults. It was not intuative. The F4 is much more durable, and that is why they hold their second hand value and can be seen in use all over the place now.

As I have said twice here now the 9 is as good as any Nikon and Canon if not better. It was a change in approach from Minolta in that they built a really rugged camera, with a very intuative operating system.

Why am I here. Because I am a photographer who uses a Minolta. Not a Minolta photographer. Is that OK with you?

 

[peterblaise]

Hello Robin,

What on earth are you saying "everyone expects a DSLR from Minolta except Peter"? Do you mean me? Peter Blaise? I am the one who first quoted Herb Keppler's inside chat with Minolta that a new Minolta DSLR in on the horizon (much to "marc's" dismay - "Who's Herb Keppler?"). I'm also the one who identified the FOUR existing Minolta DSLRs available today (if you scrounge the used bins). I have no doubt Konica Minolta will produce a DSLR soon, and it will be, like ALL minolta cameras before it, a shining ex&le
of the camera arts.

I, however, may not buy one since I prefer the offering of film capture. "marc" may want one since digital capture is apparently of primary importance to him (or secondary after top quality lenses?).

All I'm saying is that if "marc" needs to make money today with a DSLR, buy what's out there today, and then by the time the new Minolta DSLR becomes available, his "investment" today (more like "expense") in another brand will have eclipsed and he can sell it and check out the new Minolta DSLR then. He is the one who claims he cannot be competitive without an interchangeable lens DSLR in his hand, so I suggested that he either change his universe, or buy one from Nikon or Canon (or Kodak or Fuji) or soon enough, even Pentax, and revisit Minolta if and when ...

APS-DSLR? The "APS-mount" and "APS-DSLR" was your writing, not mine. I know it's a Minolta V-mount lens that fits Minolta APS film SLRs (S1/S100) AND a Minolta DSLR (RD3000). Of course a DSLR doesn't use film (too bad, but a great idea), but you suggested there was an APS-DSLR, not me!

The lens mount nomenclature is as follows for Minolta SLRS:

SR mount
(including SR/MC/MD/X-600)

A mount
(35mm and digital, with Minolta brand adapters to fit SR lenses)

V mount
(APS and digital - with Minolta brand adapter to fit A lenses, and I guess with the SR-A adapter, SR lenses, too!)

So ALL Minolta lenses - SR/MC/MD/X-600/A AND V mount fit and work on FOUR DSLRs to date, although the SR and A lenses so suffer quite a bit of cropping - 2x or greater.

I do not experience anything in "marc's" dilemma, nor in the APS-DSLR discussion, to be worth busting a blood vessel over. I do expect that we will each refine each other's contribution here. We appear to NOT be Algonquian in that we do not sit quietly and listen to each other, nod our heads, and move on without comment. Instead, we rather energetically dive into the fray! I fully
expect that I will NEVER get the last word - and that's as it should be!

Edit on!

;-)


Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon
Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer
peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/minoltamf/