Minolta exits camera business

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Mike, Jan 19, 2006.

  1. Mike

    Sander Vesik Guest

    However, TIFF is approximately at the stage where it is starting to
    have limitations and there won't most likely be any more updates to
    the standrd (presently at 6.0). Most programs out there don't support
    anywhere near full tiff 6.0 (or even 7.0) though.
     
    Sander Vesik, Jan 21, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:

    When Konica bought Minolta it was right in the middle of the 7D
    development and slowed the deployment to a dead pace. So the 7D came
    out late and the defections to Canon and Nikon were rampant among the
    great many who only had two or three consumer grade Minolta lenses.

    We few with higher end glass and several bodies and flashes are the ones
    who are most hurt by this. In well over 10 years of Minolta shooting
    I've never had a camera or lens failure. One flash died and was
    repaired by Minolta, out-of-warranty, for no charge.

    While I hoped K-M would stay the course, I'm neither surprised nor
    devastated that they're exiting.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    Extremely poor marketing.

    Mainly being hamstrung during the Konica acquisition of Minolta which
    brought the 7D developement to a dead stop. This resulted in a very
    late entrance to the DSLR market ... too many had jumped ship to Canon
    and Nikon at that point... once you lose momentum you are DEAD.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #43
  4. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    Chips are a high margin product at these realtively low volumes. Sony
    will continue to satisfy Nikon. And as that reduces their costs
    (volume) it helps with their own margins on the proposed Sony DSLR's.

    If Nikon sees this as a threat they can find other sources ... say
    Foveon. <straight faced>
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #44
  5. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    I think Sony will rely upon Tamron or Carl Ziess for glass *if* they
    provide continuing lens designs. But I doubt that they will make any
    new lenses at all.

    I believe Sony's strategy will be to sell bodies to Minolta lens owners,
    period (16 million Maxxum/Dynax lenses out there). Lenses last a long
    time and there will be a lot of body iterations in the DSLR world.

    It's also not clear regarding flashes. Who will make them? Will they
    be "Sony" system; hot-shoe comaptible or Maxxum-shoe compatible...
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #45
  6. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    It doesn't matter as the support for these formats today will still run
    decades from now. If really paranoid, convert camera-specific-RAW to
    DNG and then its guaranteed for much longer.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #46
  7. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    Which doesn't matter a whit as files can be read (if maintained) long
    after their format is defined. The definition of a new format does not
    make an older format magically unreadable.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #47
  8. Mike

    Alan Browne Guest

    Which doesn't matter at all if you're trying to read a 10 or 20 year old
    file.

    And that is the point.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 21, 2006
    #48
  9. Mike

    no_name Guest

    No need to compile your own. For a viewer try IrfanView. It's freeware &
    the current iteration has plugins for (AFAIK) all of the current RAW
    formats, as well as Adobe's DNG format.
     
    no_name, Jan 21, 2006
    #49
  10. Mike

    Scott W Guest

    I used the TIff6 documentation to make my own tiff reader, seemed like
    a very simple thing to do to me.

    For jpeg I use the open source stuff IJG.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 21, 2006
    #50
  11. Mike

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    My condolences. One of the reasons I originally went with Minolta,
    contrary to the advice on photo.net to stick with the two biggies,
    was the RD-175. They were there in the beginning. Imagine my surprise
    when they replaced it with an APS model, the RD-3000! That undermined
    my faith in them. Otherwise I would have bought a 100-300 APO and a
    100/2.8 macro for sure.
    Same here, although my Sigma lens (for Minolta mount) failed, and
    nobody wanted to repair it.
    That was before the Konica merger, wasn't it? I think Lisa Horton
    said it best: "corporate mergers are never good for customers."
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 21, 2006
    #51
  12. Mike

    TheDave© Guest

    That, I agree with wholeheartedly.
     
    TheDave©, Jan 21, 2006
    #52
  13. Mike

    HvdV Guest

    Hi Scott,
    Sure, as long as the tiffs are straightforward. However, not every
    Tiff-writer is as well written as one would hope. As a result I find that in
    addition to libtiff I have here 3000 lines of c to read the more crappy ones too.
    For long term readability, the fact that not all tiff writers adhere to the
    standard is a problem.
    http://www.ijg.org/ -- thanks!

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Jan 21, 2006
    #53
  14. Mike

    Matt Clara Guest

    The thing I like about TIFF is its ubiquitousness. It'll handle everything
    Photoshop's got, and still be viewable in irfanview.
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 22, 2006
    #54
  15. Mike

    Scott W Guest

    It is also structured for pretty good forward and backward
    compatibility. There is no chance that the TIFF files of today will
    not be readable 30 years from now.

    It is interesting to note you can still by a Fortran 66 compiler, which
    should be able to compile most of the code going back to 1954.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2006
    #55
  16. Mike

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Uhh, no, and thats the problem - viewers don't support all that Tiff has and
    hence we get proprietary formats like psd that are tied to one program, are
    not document but don't really provide anything extra. And as there aren't now,
    it is pretty hard to see viewers being available in 10 years that can read
    the advance tiff files one might create now.
     
    Sander Vesik, Jan 23, 2006
    #56
  17. Mike

    TheDave© Guest

    It seems to me that the inability to read today's formats in the future
    will have less to do with actually being able to read them, but more
    with what you mention above... companies pushing their proprietary
    formats so that you are tied to their product and you continue to
    purchase their upgrades. It'll be marketing that keeps many from
    reading today's formats, not as much technology.
     
    TheDave©, Jan 23, 2006
    #57
  18. Mike

    Scott W Guest

    In the case of the TIFF format it would seem that most files that are
    being stored are pretty straightforward.
    I know I have no problem reading the TIFF fills form Photoshop, these
    files will not magically be non-readable in the future.

    I also would be very surprised if a jpeg of today will not be readable
    100 years from now.

    The raw camera formats is another matter all together and I would not
    trust being able to read then even 10 years from now.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 23, 2006
    #58
  19. Mike

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Partly this is true, and very much depends on what people do and how. Another
    thing that needs to be figured into this is that people are really really
    conservative when it comes to file formats. Becuase there is this or that
    file utility with its peculiar looks they like[1] and they will accept no
    file it can't deal with.

    DNG is effectively TIFF - ok, not effectively, it is TIFF, with some compat
    gotchas if the producer cuts corners - yet its acceptance has been slow.

    JPEG2000 is FAR supperior to JPEG, even more so if used as teh shooting
    format. Its acceptance ratio so far is extremely miniscule compared to
    JPEG and its unliekly it will havea large presece for at least 5 more years -
    most people simeply don't have programs that deal with jpeg2000.

    The file formats - or rather the common parts of the file formats we use
    now are pretty much written down in stone. You may still get no end of
    grief with any particular file - or not get all the data - but in general
    it will be usable. Provided the media din't decay too badly.

    [1] windows support of the look and feel of old versions is a prime example
    of this. You can still use program manager under windows xp for example.
     
    Sander Vesik, Jan 24, 2006
    #59
  20. Sander Vesik wrote:
    [snip]
    [snip]

    DNG is really a development of TIFF/EP, the ISO standard raw format.
    TIFF/EP was in turn a development of TIFF 6.0, (the familiar TIFF),
    adding raw sensor data. So while DNG uses TIFF's tag-structure, its
    content is quite different from the typical RGB form, being a genuine
    raw file format.

    Its acceptance has been pretty fast in comparison with the take-up of
    typical new file formats. It is less than 16 months old, yet is
    supported in some way by perhaps 100 products of various kinds from
    perhaps 50 companies. A few cameras & digital backs, a couple of
    software products from camera manufacturers, plenty of raw converters,
    viewers, and asset managers. Various tools and utilities, etc. The
    Library of Congress planning unit. Etc.

    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/
     
    Barry Pearson, Jan 24, 2006
    #60
    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.