Konica - Minolta getting out of the camera business

[ndelaware]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10922697/

"But the Konica Minolta brand will disappear, ending a legacy that started when a predecessor of Konica introduced its first camera in 1903. The first Minolta brand camera came in 1933, followed by Konica in 1948."

Looks like Sony will be taking over K/M's SLR business. I get the impression that the non SLR business is finished. It's sad when companies with long histories like Minolta and Konica have to leave the business. I still have an old Minolta XG-7 which I used in the 80's. It's a tough world out there.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

 

[MICKEY88]

sad in so many ways... they were late getting into the digital age, but as far as 35mm slrs went, they always kept Nikon and Canon on their toes, they came out with so many firsts , they were great for the consumer because they kept trying to be so innovative...


I find some comfort in the fact that they will continue to make slr bodies for Sony,

I hope Sony pushes ahead with the making of a D9 for minoltas professional users..


wow I guess I'll hold onto my 2 9000s and my 800SI, and all the lenses and accessories...

they just became collectables...

 

[rhiannonwales]

My DH who works for a camera store has also been told this.We are very upset as we are devoted minolta users, owning a p&s 2 slr's and the k/m digital p&s. DH is also concerned because they are official K/M dealers, and carry/sell little of the canon and nikon line.After years of promoting the minolta line, and convincing customers to buy minolta, they are folding up.And they just sunk 250K for a konica digital processing lab and fear that that may go under as well leaving them with no parts or service options.

Dh was told at this past PMA (Photo Marketing Assoc. or something like that) convention that After Konica took over Minolta, there were serious mismanagement issues and there is no $ left for the camera market.
I'm no fan of Nikon as i feel they are heavy and over priced, and Canon is a little slow on the shutter for my taste. Now i'm praying that nothing goes wrong on any of my Minoltas!
Sherrie

 

[ndelaware]

From the article;
"Noritsu will take over maintenance and service of Konica Minolta's minilabs."

 

[LordAthens]

That's a bit sad. It was the Minolta Dimage 7 (not Konica-Minolta!!! ) that really got me interested in Digital photog.

Oh well, Kodak is going out of the film business too.

 

[Charade]

Sad, but it was just a matter of time. Look what happened to the vinyl record business after CDs came out. Would you rather drive around in a model-T or a 2006 (pick the car of your choice(on a regular basis that is))?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

My sadness stems from the fact that it was my first "real" camera (PS but with manual override and 28mm lens). Too many memories. (My first camera is a Kodak, but that's before I knew better )

 

[MICKEY88]

MY first slr was a MInolta xg7, then I bought my first 9000 Maxxum, loved it so much I bought a second 9000, then 2 years ago I bought a used 7000i and an 800si, with a bunch of lenses...shortly afterwards I decided to go digital, so I bought a Minolta A2, sold the 7000i and have never loaded a roll of film in the 800si...LOL,,,I have been patiently waiting for the release of a d9,


now I have to decide if I want to buy a D7 while they can be found or wait and hope that Sony comes out with something equivalent to a d9....

how sad...

 

[rhiannonwales]

I know Noritsu will be taking over the minilabs.But that doesnt mean that in 6 months they wont decide it is not worth it and stop producing chemicals and paper. And i have no love for Sony so i dont know if i will be buying any Sony products for minolta cmaeras. Sony makes good stereos, TV's, and laptops.But i find their cameras to be lacking ....
Sherrie

 

[Kelly Grannell]

PS: Sony lower end laptops and desktops are made by Acer and lower end TVs are manufactured by Samsung, btw

 

[rhiannonwales]

LOL Kelly I didnt know that....
But im curious, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my dislike for Sony?

 

[ndelaware]

Sony makes the CCD sensor that was in the K/M DSLRs and is also in some if not all of the Nikons.

 

[rhiannonwales]

I never owned a K/M DSLR, we have one digital K/M P&S and i dont use it.I dont like digital in general, although its gotten SO much better in recent years.Just too many negative points for me.I hate the fact that digital in general tends to really blow out white tones, and i also dont like that if your digital breaks its almost as costly to fix it as it is to buy a new one.Digital media is also corruptable, magnetic sensitive, and generally doesnt give me the same warmth and emotion that film does. When you add that to the fact that unless you are printing your images at a good lab that doesnt use inkjet laser or dye sub paper, chances are that in 50 years your image will be gone.Contrary to what the hype is, unless you are using true photographic paper, images can and will fade.Compound that with the fact that many digital users tend to not even print a lot of their images but leave them in hard drives, cd's and memory cards means that there is an entire generation out there that will probably have no photos of their childhoods.
Trust me ive seen it before.People come in and say , " Oh i need a picture printed off this disk/card but i dont know which one it is none of them are marked." Piles of CD's with no labels, hard drives that become infected, memory cards that become magnetized, an entire family history lost.

Ok ive had my digital rant, lol sorry i will climb off my soapbox now.
Sherrie

 

[MICKEY88]

I never owned a K/M DSLR, we have one digital K/M P&S and i dont use it.I dont like digital in general, although its gotten SO much better in recent years.Just too many negative points for me.I hate the fact that digital in general tends to really blow out white tones, and i also dont like that if your digital breaks its almost as costly to fix it as it is to buy a new one.Digital media is also corruptable, magnetic sensitive, and generally doesnt give me the same warmth and emotion that film does. When you add that to the fact that unless you are printing your images at a good lab that doesnt use inkjet laser or dye sub paper, chances are that in 50 years your image will be gone.Contrary to what the hype is, unless you are using true photographic paper, images can and will fade.Compound that with the fact that many digital users tend to not even print a lot of their images but leave them in hard drives, cd's and memory cards means that there is an entire generation out there that will probably have no photos of their childhoods.
Trust me ive seen it before.People come in and say , " Oh i need a picture printed off this disk/card but i dont know which one it is none of them are marked." Piles of CD's with no labels, hard drives that become infected, memory cards that become magnetized, an entire family history lost.

Ok ive had my digital rant, lol sorry i will climb off my soapbox now.
Sherrie

digital has gotten so good in recent years, that it's next to impossible to tell the difference with a good print.

unless you properly store your negatives and prints they will fade no matter what format...

the people who take such horrible care of their digital pics, and don't print them are the same people that would have dozens of rolls of unprocessed film sitting around the house, or throw their pics in non-archival quality boxes, so the acid in the cardboard can cause quick breakdown of the pics and negatives..

unless you get your film processed and printed at a lab that changes their chemicals frequently, your pics and negs are likely to fade also, and their are a lot of labs out there that don't properly maintain their machines..

 

[rhiannonwales]

Mickey88
I agree, all things are degradable to a point.However, i still have family photos from the turn of the century before they had archival boxes and paper and they are still intact.I dont know if digital media would last that long.
I have run a lab so long, and DH runs a lab/camera store, that i suppose i am spolied in knowing that my film is treated with top notch care.It never ceases to amaze me that a family will spend 1000's of $$ on an important event (DW vacation, wedding, communion) and then take that precious film to Costco or CVS just to save 2.00 on processing.
I'm not trying to put down people who love their digital cameras.I think that used appropriately, and with the right knowledge, they take good pics.But I think that a lot of folks just buy what they see on tv, and assume that because its new and technologically advanced, its better and maitenece free.
Sherrie

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey88
I agree, all things are degradable to a point.However, i still have family photos from the turn of the century before they had archival boxes and paper and they are still intact.I dont know if digital media would last that long.
I have run a lab so long, and DH runs a lab/camera store, that i suppose i am spolied in knowing that my film is treated with top notch care.It never ceases to amaze me that a family will spend 1000's of $$ on an important event (DW vacation, wedding, communion) and then take that precious film to Costco or CVS just to save 2.00 on processing.
I'm not trying to put down people who love their digital cameras.I think that used appropriately, and with the right knowledge, they take good pics.But I think that a lot of folks just buy what they see on tv, and assume that because its new and technologically advanced, its better and maitenece free.
Sherrie

are you talking black and white, from the turn of the century..old b&W's last forever for some reason,

I have those also, on the flip side I have colored prints and negatives from 20-25 years ago, that are badly faded, because at the time, there was no such thing as a minilab in my area, and everyone sent their film to a lab thru the local drugstore, which apparently didn't maintain their machines and chemicals very well, not using fresh fixer alone, will lead to premature fading...

the beauty of digital is I have better control over everything, I can edit on my pc, make multiple backup copies, and send my files via the internet to a professional lab for the best photo finishing available..

I used to be old school also, and fought the switch to digital, but once I did, I haven't looked back..

 

[fiffy]

"the beauty of digital is I have better control over everything, I can edit on my pc, make multiple backup copies, and send my files via the internet to a professional lab for the best photo finishing available..

I used to be old school also, and fought the switch to digital, but once I did, I haven't looked back.."

Thats interesting, you failed to mention one single thing your can't do with your film camera. And your film camera will take a superior picture. Useing programs such as photoshop and the like only take away from your photograph because your become dependant on them and fail to capture the images to thier fullest posibility because after all, you could always edit them. You can bring your roll of film into a lab, have it processed and put onto CD without printing anything. You could take those images and edit them on your computer, email them, and even have them printed. But then again, you could always have the negatives printed which is a superior source then a CD is, and have a true photolab do corrections based on each individual negative, and pay very little more then you would at a drug store/warehouse store which has employee's who are undertrained and just print them on the auto setting of thier minilab. I have access to any digitol camera I would possibly want, but I still shoot film. Why? Just look at the pictures. They are sharper, considerably sharper. They do not lose all detail in bringt highlights as do digitol camera's. And they have more deapth then any compressed digitol file available. The only thing that digitol can do that film can't is give you instant gratification, which there have been film cameras that were even capable of that untill the other camera's got together and basicly squashed the technology. After all, why allow a superior camera wich cost maybe $250 give you the only thing that their $1,000 camera has over it? Why not make people think that they need that $1,000 camera and increase thier own profit?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I personaly am an old-school photographer. I deem my dSLR no different than my film SLR. I think, compose, do exposure settings (amongst other things) BEFORE I pressed the shutter button. So by the time I finish taking the pictures, I can just print without going through Photoshop process and ask my photo finisher to print them as-is without any further correction. Of course ocassionally I miss or don't have the chance to do all those settings. That's when the "digital-side" comes in handy.

On the other hand, most people (even so-called photo enthusiasts) no longer do "think then shoot" but "shoot then fix it later". That's why most of them takes 1,000 pictures in a week but will only keep about 50 pics. Whereas old-school photographers such as you may only take 200 pics but will keep close to all 200 of them.

Digital, just like any other tool, can be 'deadly'. I've witnessed people taking more than 300 pics a day, spend hours selecting the pictures they want to keep, spending hours and hours on end using Photoshop, and THEN taking them to Costco or Walmart for the pictures to be printed. What's the point?

As far as sharpness, colour accuracy etc. It realy depends on the photographer and how much they know their equipment. I compared a Canon A2E (using Fuji Superia ISO100 film) vs Canon's lowly 20D with controlled light, on a tripod, exact same settings, using Canon's 24-105 f/4L lens, no correction, printed as-is to 20"x30"... you know what? the picture is sharper using the digital camera. Of course, you can't compare them once you use JPEG compression on any digital camera. You'll have to use RAW (uncompressed) file to do apple-to-apple comparison.

Okay, enough with my rant.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

LOL Kelly I didnt know that....
But im curious, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my dislike for Sony?

The only brands (and this is just a generalization) that I can truly recommend are:

1. Canon
2. Nikon
3. Fuji (just for their sub-$300 P/S)

The brands I abhorr (based on personal experience using several cameras manufactured by them):

1. Kodak
2. Olympus
3. Sony

I'm not a great photographer by any means, but I'm a gadget freak (more than my husband) and I use at least 10 different cameras each year for the past 12 years (some of them I keep) and I base my recommendation on my personal experience alone (not review, not quotes, not so-and-so said so)