Minolta killed by apathy, or electronic giants?

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Rich, Jan 21, 2006.

  1. " It's unlikely we'd have $299 5-megapixel cameras.
    -Rich "

    No, but we do have the Lumix FZ30 which is 8mp with a 420mm for $550.

    And 35mm SLR below $299.
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Jan 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Jasen Guest

    Yes, but people are stewpid. I see your point, but given different marketing
    and timing, things would have been different. In fact, I don't know that
    the 7D sold that badly anyway. Have you seen any stats on it? You must
    admit, surely, the product was good and innovative regardless of sales
    Jasen, Jan 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Tony Polson Guest

    "Regardless of sales figures"?

    What business can survive "regardless of sales figures"?

    The Konica Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7D might have been "good", but it was
    "innovative" in only one respect - the built-in anti-shake. And it
    doesn't matter how innovative that feature was, if the additional cost
    of incorporating it meant that every single 7D was sold at a loss.

    There are huge numbers of unsold 7Ds around the world. Given that
    deep price discounting has already been tried, and now that Konica
    Minolta has very publicly announced their abandonment of camera
    manufacture, what on earth will be needed in the way of incentives for
    Konica Minolta resellers to sell the remainder?
    Tony Polson, Jan 22, 2006
  4. Rich

    Jer Guest

    So, you're saying that a marketer never fails, it's always the product's
    Jer, Jan 23, 2006
  5. Rich

    Jer Guest

    Needed? People like me I guess. I intend to buy a second 7D some day
    this week - very likely at $200 less than the first one. That's not
    what I would call a deep discount.
    Jer, Jan 23, 2006
  6. Rich

    Tony Polson Guest

    Last week, the UK street price of the 7D with an 18-70mm Konica
    Minolta lens, a battery grip and a 1GB memory card was 60% less than
    the launch price of the body alone. That's what I call deep

    The street price of the 7D, lens, battery grip and 1GB card is less
    than those of the Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT) and the Nikon D70 (body

    Perhaps I should call it the "shelf price", because these cameras just
    don't seem to be able to make it out of the store and on to the

    Tony Polson, Jan 23, 2006
  7. Yes....

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"

    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    John A. Stovall, Jan 23, 2006
  8. Rich

    L.C. Guest

    Well, that shows how little you know about the history of product failures.
    Just one example you may be old enough to remember: Beta vs VHS.

    L.C., Jan 23, 2006
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    That's pretty awesome considering the 7D makes the Rebel and D70 look
    like plastic toys.
    Rich, Jan 23, 2006
  10. Rich

    Alan Browne Guest

    the price changes in the 7D following introduction are no different than
    the proce changes in the 10D, 20D, 300D, D70, ... etc. etc.
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2006
  11. Rich

    Alan Browne Guest

    At B&H the price is currently $970. When the 7D came out, it was $1600.

    So 40% less than original price. Something like the price curve over
    similar amounts of time for other DSLR's.

    As usual Polson, you're full of hot air.
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2006
  12. Rich

    Jer Guest

    In that case, my sympathies to your family.
    Jer, Jan 24, 2006
  13. Rich

    Jer Guest

    Given your UK prices, I'd say that's a pretty good deal. But neither I
    nor the 7D are in the UK. This 7D is at a local shop, same place I got
    the other one, and it's cash & carry price is just under $1K. He had
    six of these gems on Sat, now only three survive, so this one shop has
    sold 50% of their entire stock in two days. Good'o Smithy promised he'd
    keep one for me. Thank God for face to face shops. :)
    Jer, Jan 24, 2006
  14. Rich

    Jan Böhme Guest

    At least in Sweden, actually they have been. The 7D started out at 5%
    lower price than the 20D. Now, the price is around 5% higher than the
    350D, or 35% lower than the 20D.

    Jan Böhme
    Jan Böhme, Jan 24, 2006
  15. Rich

    Tony Polson Guest

    It's the same story here in the UK. I know four official Konica
    Minolta dealers, and all four have despaired of Konica Minolta's
    policy of trying to charge premium prices for the 7D, which has so
    little to offer compared to the competition. They have all sold
    several 5D bodies, but only two have sold any 7D bodies, and only by
    including so many free accessories that they lost heavily on the

    At a time when huge numbers of DSLRs are being sold, it is almost
    unbelievable that Konica Minolta could get it so badly wrong.

    But none of the four dealers are in the least surprised that Konica
    Minolta pulled out of photography. The only surprise is that Konica
    Minolta stayed in it so long, and were so determined to try to sell a
    product no-one wanted at prices no-one could afford.

    I recall when Minolta introduced the 5000AF and 7000AF cameras, which
    led the world in autofocus SLRs for several years. I used a Minolta
    5000 for a few months - I got it free with a Minolta photocopier - and
    liked it very much. I gave it to one of my staff and bought a Nikon
    F801 (N8008) instead, and wondered where my autofocus had gone - the
    Minolta was streets ahead of the Nikon.

    I still used a Minolta CLE until a couple of months ago, when I
    replaced it with a Leica M body for the sole reason that it won't
    accept two of my Leica lenses. For a 1980 rangefinder camera, the CLE
    was breathtaking. The Minolta SLRs of the same period were equally
    good - the CLE and XG-7 had many common components.

    Minolta lenses were excellent too. Several Leica R lenses were either
    made for Leitz by Minolta or were based on Minolta designs.

    So where did it all go wrong? How could a former market leader lose
    its way so comprehensively? The four Minolta dealers are all of the
    same opinion: Too much greed, too little investment.

    Minolta stopped trying, and became arrogant and smug. They thought
    in-body anti-shake would be the "killer application" of the DSLR age,
    but forgot about image quality. They put Konica Minolta badges on
    cheap Tamron consumer zooms, and hoped people wouldn't notice.

    When the very cheap Nikon D50 and Pentax *ist DL can produce far
    better images with the same Sony CCD as the premium priced Konica
    Minolta 7D, who is going to pay the premium? Offering non-optional,
    expensive anti-shake technology to people who don't need it or want it
    was a very big mistake, especially when the image quality just wasn't

    That comment applies equally to the 5D, which Konica Minolta expected
    to sell in huge numbers, and wondered why it didn't. When every
    single Konica Minolta DSLR was being sold at a loss, or wasn't selling
    at all, something had to give. Now it has.

    There is a lesson in this for every DSLR manufacturer, or aspiring
    manufacturer. If you cannot or won't make the necessary effort, don't
    even try to compete.
    Tony Polson, Jan 24, 2006
  16. Rich

    Jer Guest

    Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?
    Jer, Jan 25, 2006
    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.