A little bit of "Only From The Mind of Minolta" history ...

<p>.</p>

<p>Browsing archives everywhere, I rediscovered our own Gary Friedman's</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>A History of Minolta Innovation</strong> <br /> <br /> "<em>... Minolta actually opened shop in 1928 using the name “Nichi-Doku Shashinki Shoten” (which means Japan-German camera-vendor) by its founder, Kazuo Tashima. Thankfully, the name was later shortened to Minolta (Mechanism, INstruments, Optics and Lenses by TAshima) in 1931 ...</em> "</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://friedmanarchives.com/Writings/A_History_of_Minolta_Innovation/index.htm">http://friedmanarchives.com/Writings/A_History_of_Minolta_Innovation/index.htm</a> </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>... and I found that no matter how much I hold in my mind, there's always more for me to grok about the Minolta Photographic Engineer's genius, including (see the link for details:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 1929 ... The Nifcalette was Minolta's first ... folding roll-film camera with the format <strong>40x65mm film</strong> ... lens and a diaphragm shutter manufactured in Germany.<br /> <br /> 1955 ... The Autocord, a twin-lens reflex camera that took roll <strong>medium format film</strong> (larger format than 35mm) ... 1955 to 1972<br /> <br /> 1958 ... Minolta introduced its SR-2 <strong>SR-Mount Camera</strong> with a whopping selection of 3 interchangeable lenses ... no meter, needed no batteries, and the viewfinder would stay dark until the film was wound ... lens mount would endure, unmodified, for 27 years ... manual-focus lens mount design is still flourishing; it’s being used by the Seagull camera company of China under license from Minolta.<br /> <br /> 1962 ... John Glenn blasts into <strong>space</strong> with a Minolta Hi-Matic ...<br /> <br /> 1966 ... prototype <strong>Auto-Zoom-X</strong> featured a 30-120mm zoom lens with aperture-priority exposure and auto winding, and used 16mm film ... the start of Minolta’s frequent use of the name “X” within their model numbers. The design informed Minolta 2000s digital DSL/EVF cameras 35 years later. <br /> <br /> 1966 ... Minolta SRT-101 <strong>TTL SR-Mount Camera</strong> . A classic by anybody’s standard. The most successful SLR-model of its time. Fully manual with built-in CLC light metering. Can use it in Siberia in the wintertime. Mine still works after years of hard use!<br /> <br /> 1972 ... <strong>Leica collaborates</strong> with Minolta, Leitz-Minolta CL M-mount rangefinder<br /> <br /> 1972 ... Minolta <strong>XK professional SR-Mount Camera</strong> decided to take on the immensely successful Nikon F2 professional camera by offering their version with the same features (more accurately: they blatantly copied the Nikon design) and going one better: In addition to rugged construction and interchangeable finders and focusing screens, Minolta added aperture-priority automatic exposure to the design, making it the most advanced professional-caliber camera body in the world at the time. <br /> <br /> 1976 ... <strong>Leica R3 is a Minolta the XE</strong> ... Minolta also produced the R3, R4 & R5 models for Leica.<br /> <br /> 1978 ... XD11 <strong>world’s first auto everything exposure camera</strong> with both aperture-priority, shutter-priority, and program mode exposure, the basis of the Leica R4 ...<br /> <br /> 1981 ... The <strong>Minolta CLE M-mount rangefinder</strong> with <strong>auto exposure</strong> 18 years before Leica.<br /> <br /> 1985 ... Disruptive technology hits with the introduction of the Alpha Dynax Maxxum AF line of <strong>autofocus 35mm SLR cameras - THE Alpha Mount Cameras</strong> . It took Nikon and Canon years of scrambling to catch up ...<br /> <br /> 1985 ... DR-1000 <strong>Remote Light Meter Release</strong> – controls the camera from the in-hand light meter. Incredible!<br /> <br /> 1992 ... <strong>xi-series for the dummy</strong> turn the camera into a Macintosh, allowed people who knew nothing to get things done ... “intelligent” auto-zoom ... the new, <strong>improved flash hot shoe</strong> , and (thankfully) the <strong>wireless flash system</strong> ...</p>

<p>1995 ... <strong>DSLR</strong> ... RD-175. The Minolta RD-175 was a pioneering <strong>1.75 megapixel RGB Alpha Mount Camera </strong> (that's 1.75 MP red, and 1.75 MP green, and 1.75 blue, sort of like the Foveon captures R, G, and B at every sensor pixel location) DSLR camera based upon Minolta’s Alpha Mount Camera lens 400si film camera body, 3 video chips with a 3-way beam splitter and “stitched” all the images together in software ... (2x crop factor)<br /> <br /> 1999 ... <strong>DSLR</strong> RD-3000 APS-C sensor <strong>3 megapixel</strong> digital camera, sadly using new <strong>V/Vectis lens mount</strong> ... (1.5x crop factor)<br /> <br /> 1999 ... <strong>digital camera with remote screen and 3D capability</strong> ... DiMage EX Zoom 1500 camera with a MetaCreations add-on which enables it to take a picture of an object and have it show up in the computer as a fully-rendered 3D model ...<br /> <br /> 2000 ... Maxxum 7 ... the best <strong>user interface of any autofocus 35mm SLR</strong> ...<br /> <br /> 2002 ... <strong>Hassleblad </strong> H1 ... <strong>Minolta </strong> lent their expertise in <strong>autofocus and extremely bright focusing screens</strong> to Hassleblad (who lacked such expertise in house) in the creation of their new H1 645-format roll-film camera.<br /> <br /> 2000 through 2004 ... DiMage & through A1 and A2 digital cameras ... world's first <strong>5 megapixel digital cameras</strong> , Minolta was the first to offer a digital camera with a real <strong>28 mm (equivalent) wide angle lens</strong> , they were also the first to offer its unique <strong>in-camera, sensor-based Anti-Shake technology</strong> ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... enjoy. Thanks, Gary!</p>

<p>Has anyone <em>else</em> found nice, if perhaps under reported, Minolta background resources that may help put into perspective where Sony may be coming from <em><strong>now that Sony is proffering Minolta Alpha Mount Camera technology</strong> </em> ?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>You forgot to mention the big lawsuit battle between Minolta and Honeywell over the A/F design used in the '85 Maxxum. I heard that lawsuit battle dragged on for years, and that Minolta eventually lost, and being in a quite weakened financial state, was forced to merge with Konica, eventually being aquired by Sony. </p>

<p>Ever since reading the "history section" in Gary's book for the A100 I've always wondered with the Auto-Zoom-X would have been like to use. Did anyone ever see the prototype in the flesh, or does anyone know if more than one was ever made?</p>

 

<p>Minolta also lost the lawsuit against them by Exxon with the "crossed x" logo issue.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Ahem, I was seeking links to Minolta history around the web, not mind dumps of what we remember accurately or not. Minolta settled out of court over the crossed X in Exxon versus the crossed X in Maxxum, silly since the US Government was a witness behind Minolta in their favor. Tired of such "attack the guy with the money" law suits, Minolta fought Honeywell, and sadly Minolta's engineers and lawyers were ill prepared to successfully entertain a non-technical American judge -- ouch!</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>I see David Kilpatrick has reproduced a nice history of 70 years of Minolta cameras:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/useful-and-vital-links/minolta-history-seven-decades/">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/useful-and-vital-links/minolta-history-seven-decades/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p><em><strong>113 Minolta cameras</strong> </em> -- how many do YOU own? I have ... lemme see ...1, 2, 3 ... how many does anyone else have?</p>

<p>Also,Minolta lenses 30 years ago:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/26/minolta-lenses-30-years-ago/">http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/26/minolta-lenses-30-years-ago/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Any other Minolta history and innovation link listing around the web -- any more insights as to what Sony found on the table before they started playing with an Alpha Mount Camera of their own? (Of course this begs for a sibling thread on what Sony was doing on it's own regardless of Minolta!)</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Sorry for the "mind dump" Peter, but they lost in the sense that they had to stop crossing their X's.</p>

<p>The next time you want to come on here with your own "mind dump" or smart comments, try to keep it short enough that people will actually read it.</p>

<p>I still have a Pop Photo back issue with a description of the prototype <strong>Auto-Zoom-X. </strong> It is really interesting to look back and see what predictions were made and how many of them actually came true.<br>

A few that didn't come true: 127 is the format of the future. 110 will kill 35mm.<br>

Interesting to ponder what Minolta (or Konica-Minolta) might have accomplished if things had been different.</p>

<p>Minolta certainly did not produce the Leica R3, 4 and 5 models for Leica. It may have designed them (and in reality most likely Leica and Minolta designed them together) but the cameras were actually produced in Leica factories either in Germany or Portugal.</p>

<p>And the sad thing is despite all that innovation.......where is Minolta now?</p>

<p>Fortunately for most of us, Sony decided to pick up the pieces.</p>

<p>Maybe a little understanding of Minolta's economic history would be in order......<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?q=minolta+economic+history&hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=RKQlSpG1MIWdkAW-iPXeBg&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11">http://www.google.com.au/search?q=minolta+economic+history&hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=RKQlSpG1MIWdkAW-iPXeBg&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11</a></p>

<p>Yes, Pete, Minolta was a great camera manufacturer. I have fond memories of my SRT-101, and my other Minolta bodies and lenses. However, Minolta has decided not to continue with cameras carrying their own name. I was deeply sadden by their decision to sell to Sony.</p>

<p>However, I've moved on, as has most everyone else. You, on the other hand, still cling to the past, much like a mourner lingering at the grave of their past love. It's time for you to pick yourself up and dust the dirt of your pant legs.</p>

<p>Pete, come join the growing legions of those who have adopted to the reality that Sony now controls the reins of where the A-mount is going. Living in the past is not the way to go. Go into a retailer carrying the Sony Alpha line and buy an Alpha dslr.</p>

<p>The past is past, and it's not going anywhere. But the future is wide open and you should look to the future and not the past. You'll still be able to visit there when you close your eyes. Now, walk forward with your eyes wide open.</p>

<p>I for one would be interested in a good history of Minolta and what happened that resulted in such an innovative company to extinction. (There's an interesting article on The Luminous Landscape on <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rise-fall.shtml">The Rise of Digital imaging and the Fall of the Old Camera Industry</a> , which is chiefly about Hasselblad, and there may be some parallels in that story.)</p>

<p>Innovation is not enough by itself - as is touched on by Friedman when he talks about Minolta's xi cameras - but it would be interesting to know how much of Minolta's knowhow remains at Sony, and indeed how the decision-making process works in deciding what levels of functionality find their way into new cameras.</p>

<p>Howard, I hardly think Minolta has become extinct. They did what many other companies that exited certain market segments because they felt that it was no longer profitable for them to continue, they <strong>evolved</strong> . Minolta was more than a <strong>camera</strong> company. They were one of three Japanese camera companies that produced glass for their lenses, along with Nikon and Pentax. They made, and continue to make copiers and scientific equipment, and they produce products for the cellular market, as well as many other products.</p>

<p>Due to economic situations, they merged with Konica, a move that other companies have done to become a bigger and better company. They did not become bankrupt and their name and assets auctioned off or licensed, like companies like what happened to Polaroid. They decided to sell off their Photo Imaging Division, just as GM is trying to sell off their Hummer Division.</p>

<p>Minolta is not extinct, they just aren't in the photo imagining business with cameras carrying their name.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Nothing personal, Steve, and I apologize for criticizing your contribution here. The crossed X challenge is replete with trademark jargon and not a clear and obvious "simple" story. We seem to agree that Exxon challenged Minolta and Minolta capitulated. Got it.</p>

<p>My point, and I usually do bury one somewhere in my posts, is that I keep finding ersatz listings of "Minolta through the ages" all over the web, they are not coordinated, and I was wondering if anyone else knew of other listings, if so, please share.</p>

<p>Yes, I love it when we chat and "mind dump", but at the moment, here, I was trying to herd the Minolta cats to report back in on listings around the web.</p>

<p>However, carry on.</p>

<p>----------</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Minolta built the Leica factory. Minolta loved to build factories, and marketed themselves business to business as factory builders.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Minolta made more money in office products WHILE the X-700 and AF 7000 were world's best selling cameras of their type in their time. Henry Fox Talbot envisioned and practiced photography to copy artifacts, so Minolta copiers are a direct fulfillment of one of the inventor's of photography's intentions and imagination. Minolta is definitely in the photography business, we just call it copiers nowadays, but it is photography nonetheless. "Cameras" versus "photography", hmm ... </li>

</ul>

<p>My own challenge is my own "mind dumps" versus re-finding the references for us all!</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Interesting exchange -- thanks for the links. More?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Perhaps my language was loose, but (Konica) Minolta left the camera and film/film processing business(es) and - to photographers - you might argue their businesses are indeed extinct.</p>

<p>For sure, their DNA continues in Sony, but in a couple more iterations of the cameras we'll see more and more electronics (Sony) and less and less optics (Minolta). The mirror box may well be on the way out for consumer-level cameras (arguably Sony's latest iteration of the A2xx/A3xx is to be competitive with Panasonic's highly regarded G1 and the new Olympus (PEN-inspired?) Micro 4/3 camera).</p>

<p>Back on topic, the Photoclub Alpha site has a series of articles documenting the UK launch of the A900, and <a href="http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/09/12/alpha-900-launch-press-conference-part-3/">this one</a> is the closest I have seen of the Mind of Minolta at work today - the engineer responsible for the A900 viewfinder describing some of the challenges his team (200 engineers) faced.</p>

<p>Howard, I think you over estimate the move to EVIL cameras. Dispite the posts I see on various forums about how these cameras are the future, the truth is that the number of sales of these cameras haven't shown that the consumer is ready to pull their wallets out and lay cash on the counter.</p>

<p>I highly doubt that with the economic situation that the camera makers face, and the low sales of these cameras, that they are willing to put money into doing away with a formula (SLR) that works.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>So long as DSLR sales are 25% of a maker's profit with only 10% of a maker's sales, there will be much hammer and tong in the marketplace about the "SLR" style of camera, but ...</p>

<p>DSL/EVFs are NOT bridge cameras to DSLRs, they are an alternative path, and those if us with DSL/EFVs aren't thinking of DSLRs anymore -- too big and inflexible and expensive, no additional benefits, waay fewer features. Hmm ... photo.net categorizing by camera type (SLR and maker) seems ephemeral now, when we're really by vendor for support info, and even that is falling away.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Well, no matter how innovative Minolta were, they obviously didn't make enough money from cameras to think that it was worth continuing. Presuambly, that meant that they were crap at marketing.</p>

<p>The thing is I loved Minolta cameras (and still do). I still think that the M7 is still the most erganomic and functional SLR/DSLR out there. The A700 doesn't even come close to feeling as good in my hand and being as quick to set all the functions. I was totally gutted when Minolta threw in the towel. Fortunately as I said, Sony picked up the pieces.</p>

<p>So far, apart from the 58AM flash and maybe the advances in sensor development, I haven't seen Sony do anything particularly innovative, so I'm not really holding my breath that they will. I suspect that they are just too big a company and too focused on the commercial to really push for innovative results. I believe that they will produce some very high quality results which I will enjoy using, but I don't think I would have the same connection as I have with some of the Minolta stuff.</p>

<p>Robert, I actually think that in many ways, digital has probably increased the camera market significantly which makes me wonder if Minolta gave it away at the wrong time. After all, in the old days, no one went out and bought a new body every 2 years. The amazing thing is that it isn't just the high end users who replace either bodies constantly but also the lower end users and well as the p/s market. In that sense, I don't think camera manufacturers have ever had it so good.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>So, has anyone else discovered any other listings of neat and provocative Minolta references around the web?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>These are probably fairly well known, but may be worth listing:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Wikipedia on Minolta - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta</a></li>

<li>Camerapedia on Minolta - <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta">http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta</a></li>

<li>The Rokkor files - cameras, lenses, other gear and tips - <a href="http://www.rokkorfiles.com/">http://www.rokkorfiles.com/</a></li>

<li>Minolta (manual) SLR lenses - <a href="http://minolta.rokkor.de/minoltalenses.htm">http://minolta.rokkor.de/minoltalenses.htm</a></li>

<li>Photography in Malayasia has links to classic Minolta models - <a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/photography.htm">http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/photography.htm</a></li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Wayne, that's an incredible link into financial backgrounds -- the stuff on the net amazes me almost as much as the programs that automatically do stuff with all that stuff!</p>

<p>Thanks, Howard -- I especially like the wikis since we can enhance them each time we visit.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Minolta misread 35mm film, opting for APS energies, and then misread digital APS until after Pentax released a DSLR.</p>

<p>Otherwise, Minolta was cleaning up with the DiMage DSL/EVF series ... but marketing wise, they were seen as bridge cameras, not an alternative path, as Panasonic and Samsung seem to be pursuing.</p>

<p>Sony quashed Minolta's desire to incorporate a Foveon sensor, and in compensation, allowed Minolta first dibs on chips ... and still, Pentax was out the door sooner with a DSLR.</p>

<p>Our own <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5058287">Jon Sienkiewicz</a> , Minolta employee for years, now "defected" to Pentax, but left behind some Minolta history via his Shutterbug blog:</p>

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://blog.shutterbug.com/jonsienkiewicz/vectis_wrecked_us/">http://blog.shutterbug.com/jonsienkiewicz/vectis_wrecked_us/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>.</p>

<p>Ironically, I just received today a Vectis S-1 that I won at an auction, paying around £10/$15 for it. How the mighty have fallen. Nevertheless, this is an interesting-looking camera with a distinctive form (an SLR with no visible pentaprism/pentamirror 'hump' - this is the sort of style Olympus are expected to adopt for their new micro 4/3 camera). An example of the (deranged? ahead of its time?) mind of Minolta at work. I shall have fun exploring its capabilities.</p>

<p>BTW, I've seen references to V-mount > AF adapters (i.e. mount an AF lens on a Vectis body) - does anyone have any idea who makes/made these?</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>"Minolta only" was a source for a limited number of Alpha-lens-to-Vectis-camera adapters. Try:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MinoltaVectisS1/">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MinoltaVectisS1/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>... to chat with fellow sufferers. ;-)</p>

<p>Gotta get you a camera guard!<br>

<a href="http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/6777323/sn/325587927/name/n_a">http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/6777323/sn/325587927/name/n_a</a><br>

<img src="http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/6777323/sn/325587927/name/n_a" alt="S-1 with Camera Guard" /><br>

The Alpha-lens-to-Vectis-camera adapter is mentioned here, no pictures:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MinoltaVectisS1/message/864">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MinoltaVectisS1/message/864</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>.</p>

<p>I am still building my Minolta collection. It includes formats from Minolta 16 to 6X6. The only AF Minolta I have is a Vectis S-1. I have bar shaped 110 cameras, 126 RF cameras, 35mm RF cameras, 35mm SLR cameras and a TLR. Yesterday I got a beautiful 55/2.8 Vivitar macro lens in MD mount. It will keep the 55/2.8 MC mount Vivitar company. I have three 50/3.5 Celtic macro lenses and a 50/3.5 MD too. The MD lens is the least impressive of the bunch. The lettering is pretty but it has a lot of plastic parts. A few weeks ago I got a 28/2.8 MD Celtic which goes with my 35/2.8 MD Celtic. I also added a 50/1.7 MC Rokkor PF and another 50/1.4 MC Rokkor PG. I use the X-700s more than the SRTs but I enjoy both of them. </p>

<p>Is it more enjoyable to take a good photo with a vintage camera, or just more work?</p>