Konica-Minolta

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by no_name, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. no_name

    no_name Guest

    Heard on the BBC World Service today that Konica-Minolta announced it
    was getting out of the camera business.
     
    no_name, Jan 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Heard on the BBC World Service today that Konica-Minolta announced it
    They've bottled it and jumped ship too early if you ask me, the operating
    losses were not substantially irretrievable with a bit of creative
    leadership and smarter marketing. This is another bad day for photography in
    general, first Nikon now Minolta, I think they'll be one more announcement
    before the month is out, disasters usually come in three's!
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. no_name

    Matt Clara Guest

    This in no way compares to Nikon's move. They are a viable company standing
    on their own.
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 20, 2006
    #3
  4. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    This in no way compares to Nikon's move. They are a viable company
    standing
    I agree this is the case for today, never the less, Nikon's announcement was
    a disaster for film users.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 20, 2006
    #4
  5. no_name

    JimKramer Guest

    Canon is going to go into the film production business?
    :)
     
    JimKramer, Jan 20, 2006
    #5
  6. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Large corporations like to focus on product lines being #1 or #2 in a
    market. When they're #7 (or whatever), not improving, losing money and
    need to invest heavilly just to tread water they make the right move
    (for the shareholders).

    I'm not _happy_ about what they've done, but from a business POV it does
    make sense.

    My Minolta gear will serve me for another 10 years, I guess. I hope
    Sony really look at how Minolta designed the Maxxum 9 and 7 when they do
    their own Maxxum/Dynax mount SLR.

    I will likely begin a transition to Canon. Nikon perplexes me, always
    have, with their mix of excellence and mediocrity.

    OTOH, Nikon ergonomics and metering are closer to how I shoot than
    Canon. I've always despised Canon metering, esp. the "if it ain't pro,
    you don't get 'spot' attitude." Canon control layout sucks.

    OTOOH, Canon are way ahead in sensors which are their own, full frame,
    and IS lenses.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #6
  7. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    OTOOH, Canon are way ahead in sensors which are their own, full frame,
    To each his own I suppose. When film goes, so does my interest in
    photography, then I find a new interest. I personally don't see myself ever
    buying a digital SLR, it's just not the way I want photography to be, too
    disposable, total reliance on computers,software,file formats etc etc.. I
    have enough of electronics and computers to be honest.

     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 21, 2006
    #7
  8. no_name

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    I think I will give up photography.

    The last time I gave up photography, as a teenager, it was because I
    got sick of the constant quest for new equipment: filters, light meters,
    lenses, viewers... Taking pictures is fun; gear acquisition is not.

    With digital cameras, it seems like the pressure for gear acquisition
    is more intense than it ever was.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 21, 2006
    #8
  9. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Doesn't stop the fact that your lenses, and for that matter, bodies
    still work fine. Something people seem prone to forget.

    On the other hand used MF gear is a good bargain now so go back to the
    future as you saw it 30 years ago...
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #9
  10. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    In that case you were never a photographer.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #10
  11. no_name

    Peter Irwin Guest

    I'm not sure about that. F. H. Evans was most certainly
    a photographer, but he gave up photography when platinum
    paper became unobtainable in 1915.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Jan 22, 2006
    #11
  12. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    In that case you were never a photographer.

    That's odd, because I can think of many photographers who have published
    books and have had extensive careers but no longer partake in photography. I
    have been doing photography as a serious interest for longer than you, so I
    don't believe you are qualified to judge me on anything. Why don't tell the
    Henri Cartier-Bresson Foundation and the French Government that Henri wasn't
    a photographer because he didn't start photography until the age of 23 and
    only stayed interested in it for 43 years, after which he gave it up to
    concentrate on other interests such as drawing, should be interesting to see
    what the foundation's response is to your line of thought.

     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 22, 2006
    #12
  13. no_name

    no_name Guest

    Only if you let others determine your needs. If you think for yourself,
    the pressure is off. Then the only pressure is "What equipment do I need
    to make the images I want to make?"
     
    no_name, Jan 22, 2006
    #13
  14. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Only if you let others determine your needs. If you think for yourself,
    An excellent point, you do not 'have' to buy anything it's mainly desire
    that drives gear acquisition. I got along for years with one manual body and
    a 50mm lens, I also think I made better images back then also, precisely
    because of the limitation.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 22, 2006
    #14
  15. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Kewl yer jets Kewfi. I'm in my second round of photography and that
    alone is well over 10 years in the making. You're nothing but a child
    to me in real terms. You really have no understanding of what digital
    can and cannot do. You fear and despise it irrationally. Spend a few
    hours going through the best photos on photo.net and at some point you
    will care less about the equipment being used. It is often film, often
    digital ... and does not matter a whit for the final image in most cases.

    I could care less about the H C-B F's opinion about H C-B, the only
    opinions that count are his, the public's reaction to his work and my
    reaction to his work. 43 years can easilly be called a lifetime of
    work. Further, he was still photographing, if not publishing up until
    his last months. He would embrace digital.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #15
  16. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest


    Citing a few individuals changes of course over these changes is really
    reaching. I really have no idea who F.H. Evans was, but it's pretty
    certain that nobody will be citing in 90 years from now that Kewfi gave
    up photography over lack of film.


    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #16
  17. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Kewl yer jets Kewfi. I'm in my second round of photography and that
    What does this mean ? I have been 'doing' photography since 1990 when I was
    given my first SLR at the age of 12, so proportionally I have been into it
    more years (16) than not in my lifetime.
    Is this Tony Polson ? I can't tell... if this is Alan Browne, there no need
    to be nasty Al, your previous statement has no merit, and I doubt anyone
    serious in this group would agree with you. Lets recap, I say when film goes
    I will get a new interest and quit photography, you retort "In that case
    you were never a photographer." Please Alan, who is it you think you are?
    I simply don't care for it. I'm interested in photography not electronics.
    Ridiculous drivel.
    point you will care less about the equipment being used.

    I don't spend my time that way, I don't watch what other people are doing in
    photography or buying because I don't particularly care, I only care about
    what I'm doing.
    final image in most cases.

    That's because the individual makes the image, the equipment is meaningless
    to a skilled individual, an unskilled individual will still produce rubbish
    with top of the line equipment.

     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 22, 2006
    #17
  18. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Nikon's camera division has been in rocky financials for that last 15
    years or more with more loss than gain years. Their recent
    profitability is in no way based on the D/SLR market, but on the high
    end P&S / zlr market. I wouldn't be surprised that 90% or more of their
    DSLR sales are to Nikon lens owners who would otherwise leap to Canon.

    Kudos to Nikon for the D200, and I hope Sony do the same or better with
    the Maxxum mount. But both will still be behind Canon looking at the
    lead dog from behind.

    Nikon's setting itself up to be a firm, long term #2. That is usually
    sufficient undo the day, but their others nipping at their heels and
    Canon will continue to erode their base.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #18
  19. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Nikon's setting itself up to be a firm, long term #2. That is usually
    Nikon has no long term future, the electronics industry is fierce and they
    don't have anywhere near the experience of Sony or Panasonic, Samsung etc...
    Canon will be the only company for serious photographers when digital
    becomes the 'only' photography, because Canon is not a photographic company,
    it's a company with a photographic division, it's is self sustaining and
    relies on no other companies for it's product parts. Nikon will be bought
    out by one of the major consumer electronics manufacturers.

     
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 22, 2006
    #19
  20. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    I see, it's okay for you to be nasty: "Depends on how wide Canon
    shooters assholes will go, I suppose." -J.K. on rpe35mm.

    There are many more nasty quotes from you, but I really have no time to
    dig away for them.

    Who? Someone who recognizes a blatently naïve statement when I see it.
    (esp. in light of your other statment below: "... equipment is
    meaningless to a skilled individual.")

    "Photography" is one thing: the capture of light. Period. What you
    capture it with is _not_ the point.
    While I have a great interest in electronics (or I used to) I use my
    digital camera almost exactly like a film camera. I say almost because
    now I get the added advantage of the histogram to fine tune the
    placement of the highlights.

    I also recently bought a use Hassy 500 C/M and two lenses for it. I get
    more pleasure using it than the digital ... but it takes a lot more
    time. Time I don't have in great abundance.

    And then of course, at least in the studio, I can use the digital camera
    to verify lighting before committing it to film on my Maxxum 9 or 500
    C/M. This is much more convenient than Polaroid checking).

    So, digital is not only a viable photography medium, it's also a great
    tool to support film work.
    Every one of your posts on the matter reveal an irrational (eg:without
    _reason_) reaction to digital. That you don't study it and try it is
    something, perhaps fear, perhaps something else, but definitely irrational.

    Keep in mind that I am _not_ a digital fan. I don't like automatic
    transmissions either, but drive one when I need to.
    So, you never look at anyone else's photography? Sheesh.
    That's exactly right. So, with that in mind, why are you so much
    against digital if equipment is "meaningless" to a "skilled individual"?
    So you should have no objection to film or digital or whatever's next.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.