Minolta shoots self in foot -- $1500 for Maxxuum 9

[james_golden]

Camera World of Oregon has the current price for the Maxxuum 9 at $1500, with the MSRP around $2200. $1500 for a camera which falls far short of both the new Canon ($1399) and Nikon ($1299) offerings, and w/vertical grip (+ $229 = $1729), only a few hundred dollars short of the F5 ($1949). What is Minolta thinking? Can they sustain a pro level campaign with such an outrageous price for a glorified HTxi?

[gary_wilson]

This is just basic economics. They will charge as much as they think

people will pay. This price will only pull from there existing

Minolta owners. I expect the price will fall rapidly to around $1100

before they start drawing on a new customer base.

[christopher_bordeleau]

I saw it in this months Shutter bug for $1299.00 . I can't remember

who advertised it... Most just said call...

 

<p>

 

This seemed to be about right... I would like it to be a tad bit less

(around $1000 would be nice) but if it was there I would want it for a

couple of hundred less still.... There is no pleasing me...

 

<p>

 

Now all minolta needs is a better lens line up...

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Minolta needed this body for current Minolta owners and to add

credibility to their line for new buyers. Without a "top of the line"

body current owners might start to look elsewhere when they want to

"move up". For new buyers it demonstrates Minolta's commitment to

being a full line maker; regardless of where a new buyer starts in

their line. Pentax doesn't have a body like this, and they are the

number one "switched from" brand.

Hardly anyone whose invested in the high end of the Nikon or Canon

cameras would switch to Minolta, because of this camera and I doubt if

Minolta really cares.

[marcus_erne4]

There is finally THE body we Minolta owners were waiting for all

these years. It is loaded with all the nice features we were missing

so long such as 100% viewfinder, MLU, DOF, rugged body etc. but it

comes at a high price.

 

<p>

 

If I had to start all over, I would get most of the important

features out of a Canon ElanIIe which I could get with 28-135 and 75-

300 mm lenses, both IS for the price of one Maxxum 9 body!!!

 

<p>

 

I agree with the poster who said that Minolta won't draw "new"

customers, noone is insane enough to do so unless the price

significantly drops. Last but not least Minolta is still lacking a

highspeed AF-motor and IS (rumours say IS it's coming soon though,

patent pending!).

 

<p>

 

The former price advantage over Canon and Nikon bodies seems not

given anymore. ADIOS Minolta, you've just lost some new customers!

[ron_stecher1]

One of the British photo mags just did a review/comparison of the new

Minolta, alongside the Nikon F100 and the Canon EOS 3. The Minolta had

the most accurate metering and was the overall winner, with Nikon

placing second. I would probably put a little more stock into their

unbiased tests then I would a Pop Photo test. However, I will remain a

dedicated Nikon user.

[evert_smit]

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I have to say it:

 

<p>

 

My God, are you a bunch of arrogant Canon/ and Nikon snobs! The

Minolta 9 is a better camera than either the 100 or the 3 and at a

similar price (i.e. in this segment). But it would be foolish for to

switch if you've invested heavily in "the other" gear, so this camera

will mainly appeal to Minolta-users: before you invest $ 1500 for

just a body, you likely will have invested already more than

double that in lenses.

 

<p>

 

Just my 2 cents. Fry me if you feel you need.

 

<p>

 

Evert

[gary_wilson]

It's not surprising that the Minolta's metering is so accurate they

happen to make one of the most popular hand light meters used by

professionals today. As to how good is the Maxxum 9? Only time will

tell, not some photo magazines, how it will perform in the field. In

a couple of years you will be able to better judge if it is up to pro

standards or not.

[mark_van_bergh2]

To the original poster of this question, and others who may have

similar views, don't judge a camera until you know the facts. There

is more than one comparison test of the EOS 3, F100, and Maxxum 9 in

which the Minolta is rated the best of the three, which are

all admittedly excellent cameras. This includes two British magazines

and, I believe, a German and or Swedish magazine. The 9 reportedly

has the fastest AF and best metering, not to mention handling and

viewfinder. While the differences are small, those are the results

(although there is at least one other comparison in a French magazine

that did not put the Minolta at the top). The point here is not that

one camera is better than another, but that the Minolta is at least

the equal of the others. Not to mention that its results are

consistent in all the tests, whereas the EOS 3's notoriously

inconsistent metering is reflected in several tests, one or two

finding it great, others finding it severely underexposing or

inconsistent. One test also found inconsistencies in the F100

metering.

 

<p>

 

The selling price of the 9 is within $100-200 of both the EOS 3 and

F100, and at this price range that's not much of a difference. The

higher Minolta price is, at least according to a Minolta rep, due to

the "full metal jacket" that is the 9's body, compared, for example,

to the largely polycarbonate (with some metal) body for the EOS 3.

One reviewer of the 9, in Practical Photography (British), who is a

Canon user and raved over the EOS 3, apparently raved more about the 9

and said it had him thinking about switching. While I agree that few

if any dedicated Canon and Nikon users will switch because of this

camera, there are others not yet dedicated to a system or who are just

starting out who should certainly consider this camera.

 

<p>

 

Further, the crack about Minolta lenses also shows ignorance. While

Minolta may not have every single lens in the Nikon or Canon line-up

(and Nikon and Canon don't have lenses in the Minolta line up, such

as the 1-3x macro, the 400/4.5, and the new 135/2.8-4 lens that does

amazing things with out of focus backgrounds), Minolta does offer an

extensive line and the top of the line lenses (usually designated as

the G series) are generally the equal of the other brands. While one

focal length from one manufacturer may test out slightly better than

the other manufacturers', the pecking order will change for other

focal lengths. Examples of some of the superior Minolta lenses

(based, at least, on published test reports - for whatever they're

worth) are the 200/2.8; 80-200/2.8; 100/2.8 macro; 400/4.5. I know

several pros who formerly shot Minolta and switched to Canon or Nikon

(largely because of Minolta's poor support for the professional/high

end user - which is, unfortunately, an undisputable fact), who have

stated that they generally don't see any difference in lens quality.

Minolta lenses also reportedly have better "bokeh" (out of focus

imaging characteristics). When I showed about 100 images shot with my

Minolta equipment (big surprise there?) to a stock agency owner one of

her first questions was whether I shoot Canon or Nikon. When I said

neither she then asked about Leica. When I said Minolta she was

surprised. The point is that she couldn't tell from the images and

that is what matters.

 

<p>

 

Finally, many people read these Q&A's to get useful information for

their own buying decisions. It would be nice if people would limit

their comments to matters about which they are knowledgeable and not

offer their own biased opinions without at least acknowledging they

are such. While most answers posted here are individual opinions,

people should at least be honest about where they're coming from.

Yes, I'm a Minolta user. I'm not knocking the EOS 3 or the F100,

which are both fine cameras. Which camera is best for any one person

is a subjective matter depending on that person's individual needs and

desires, not to mention ergonomic likes and dislikes. For many,

Minoltas are the "best" camera, and the 9 is indeed a superlative

product (not perfect mind you, but nothing is) that deserves

consideration in this price range. People shouldn't denigrate a

product they know little or nothing about.

 

<p>

 

If you've gotten this far, thanks for taking the time read this.

[james_golden]

For the record, I am a Minolta user as well (manual equipment though), and am looking objectively at all the systems (see an early post of mine in the archives). As such, I was truly drawn to the Minolta body because of the stated benefits and the early reports that it would be priced under the F100 and EOS 3. If the tests pan out and the AF is faster and as accurate (with only 3 sensors and one cross), and the meter is as accurate as stated (which I don't dispute and put the most weight on in looking at the cameras), then the Minolta will jump to the top of the list. I don't have access to any of the British Mags, so I haven't had a chance to see a review other than the one in Pop Photo (which I read only to see the 9's features). If someone can point me to a URL with a synopsis of the British reviews or would care to post a synopsis, I would be very appreciative.

[tom_jackson1]

One poster asked for a synopsis of the British reviews. Let me quote

the last paragraph of a comparison test of the Nikon F100, the Canon

EOS-3, and the Dynax [Maxxum to us USA folks] 9 in the March 1999

issue of Photo Technique (which can be gotten now in US bookstores).

"Who does this Dynax 9 bloke think he is? Sliding in the back way

and bashing the good guys. Before the test I knew that the Dynax was

going to be good, but I really didn't expect it to scratch the

paintwork of the EOS-3 or the F100. It has. And more. These are

all excellent cameras, and are so close in quality that there is no

reason for a serious Canon user to switch to Nikon just to get the

F100, or for a Nikon user to dump his whole kit in favour of the

Dynax 9, but the serious enthusiast upgrading from an entry level

machine might well be tempted. I am surprised at the EOS-3's

exposure problems, and that will lose it points. The F100 is a

fantastic camera, and will rightly occupy the daydreams of those

unable to afford the F5, but for me the Minolta Dynax 9 is the

winner. It's the combination of great handling, super fast AF and

unbeatable exposures that makes me feel funny all over."

[george_rhodes]

Minolta is thinking clearly and wisely. Their 9 is a superb camera that will be a fine compliment to their excellent line of higher end optics. Contrary to the beliefs of some out there, Minolta's AF lens line-up is not inferior to their Nikon or Canon counterparts, unless you happen to need a perspective control lens or an AF 400mm f2.8. Of course, if you happen to need a superb AF 400mm f4.5 lens, then you're out of luck if you own Nikon or Canon.

[bruce___]

I think Nikon/Canon/Minolta wars are a waste of time. All the major

manufacturers have their pros and cons, and they are all different.

We should be glad we have options! Pick whatever system best meets

your needs (and don't slam someone else's system just because it

doesn't meet your needs). The price of the new Minolta is sure to

drop, just like all new cameras do after awhile. If it seems like too

much money right now, just wait! For those who can't wait, it is

obviously worth the higher cost to get one now...

[gary_walts]

$1,500.00 isn't a bad price at all in my opinion. Does anyone

remember the Minolta XKM from the 70's?. That thing cost $2,200 US

dollars back then!! I can't wait to buy the new Minolta 9. Another

thing, if somebody wanted to trade me a Nikon F5 with matching

lenses I have in my arsenal for my Minolta gear I simply wouldn't

do it. I work with a staff of 18 photographers & a few

freelancers. 2 of us have used the Minolta 9xi since it first

appeared. (My first Minolta!!) I can tell you that it is on a par

with every thing the Nikon & Canon users have. In many cases,

better: Wireless Remote flash , been using it flawlessly for many

years. Superior meter. Lens sharpness & contrast superior. Repair

frequency & turn around time far quicker, much less need of

repairs. Don't give me any crap about not knowing what I am

talking about because I have seen the comparisons every day for

the past 8 or 9 years, side by side results on film.

[t_c_khoo]

I just handled the 9 for an extended period in a dealer's shop today.

In terms of design, construction, build quality, ergonomics, feel,

viewfinder brightness, ergonomics and handling simplicity, it is

peerless. I've handled and used Canons, Nikons, Leicas and Contaxes,

nothing comes close to the kind of user controllability and speed

which the 9 offers on all critical camera settings. AF speed, lens

quality, metering are all very important, but if the camera does not

allow the user to change controls and settings quickly and easily when

conditions are less than ideal, then, IMHO, the rest are secondary.

As I hv developed my photo skills, I have come to realise that

ergonomics and handling are probably the most important factors to

getting a good picture for the kind of photography I like to do. For

me, the 9 is a compelling proposition because, all other things being

equal (and by and large, they are), using the 9 is easy, quick and

downright fun. And I hvn't even run film thru it yet!! USD1,500

expensive...for best handling and viewfinder, ultimate customising

capability, some truly unique practical features and the potential of

something interesting happening with the data back memory chip

facility...maybe not!

[keven_fedirko2]

Having only owned the camera for 11 days now (and it's been cold and

rainy here for most of it), my first impressions are first rate. One

hell of a camera in feel/build/ergonomics. Tools of any sort are a

"personal" thing -- what you like perhaps I don't, (as someone else

said, great to have choices!) but for even THOSE die-hard C/N users

out there -- you really should give your loyalty a rest for a few

minutes and test drive one. I think you'll be very surprised.

Definately worth the bucks.

[t_c_khoo]

I hv used the 9 and put film thru it. It is an incredible picture

taking machine and the images are excellent. All the reports from the

British Mags are now easy to concur with. Excellent handling,

tank-like construction, faultless exposure, great flash shots, still

the most convenient off camera flash capability, the brightest

viewfinder anywhere, very fast and quiet AF and lots of other

convenient features. The built in flash, data memory recall and mid

roll rewind have all come in handy so far.

 

<p>

 

Showed it to a Nikon friend who has an F5 and was going to buy an

F100. He was very psyched about it. Liked the design, handling, build

and viewfinder; admitted it was brighter than his F5. Could see or

hear no discernible difference in AF speed and noise. He was most

impressed with handling and ergonomics, confessed that he preferred

the knobs and dials simplicity over the his F5's buttons. But of

course, he would not/could not switch...had too much invested in the

Nikon system. In the end though, we concurred that the differences

between the machines were so marginal, they are both truly excellent.

It would probably be our own skill and experience sets which would be

the most severe limiting factor!!

[william_lowe1]

To the original poster: I suppose after reading the last several

replies to your message, you can see the error of your statement, that

you didn't think enough to look at tests and reviews before blowing

off your steam. The EOS-3 has its drawbacks, an AP reviewer

complained that it seemed a bit plasticy for a camera that cost 1000

UKP (they weren't even sure that it would last as long under pro use

as the other two). Photo Technique's review complained of serious

exposure problems. And both magazines rated its AF as slower than

either the F100 or the Maxxum 9 (although AP thought it was

marginally more accurate). And AP had given the EOS-3 their Camera of

the Year award the week before, which they mentioned in the first line

of their explanation of why the Maxxum 9 was the best of the three

cameras. On the other hand, the F100 seemed to fair very well in the

tests, and it was knocked for more of what it lacked in comparison to

the Maxxum 9, like mirror lock up and a very bright 100% viewfinder,

than any sort of performance issues (although AP thought the Max 9 was

faster at AF). Of course the F100 lacks those things, if it had them

no one would really need the F5 (as far as metering, the F100 seemed

to do as good as the 9 in the AP test, they liked a result between the

two cameras, and in the Photo Technique review it was rated as just

behind the 9 in exposures). The Max 9 is not a glorified HTsi. It is

a great camera, more than the equal of either the F100 or the EOS-3.

$200 over the price of the F100 isn't that much of a premium,

considering the differences.

[james_golden]

Well, my inability to research the 9 is no more short-sighted than your inability to read my later post which stated that I did not have access to any reviews and that I would sure love to read them (a very kind poster to this thread sent me a stack of reviews of all the cameras). Nonetheless, yes, the 9 is an incredible camera. But, to take your $200 premium logic a step further...at only $200 less than the F5 (with the vertical grip), it isn't much of a bargain. Further, yes, it is a glorified conglomeration of the HTsi, 600, and 7000. Minolta drew its best features together, put them in a tank shell, and gave it a 100% viewfinder. It is a wonderful idea, and has proven to be as practical in use as it was in theory, but it is still nothing new.

 

<p>

 

I wrote the "headline" out of disappointment. Press statements put the price of the 9 equal to or less than the F100 or EOS 3. Instead the price was higher than both. (Canon pulled this with the 3 and pissed a lot of people off too) I was not trying to bash the 9, but was bluntly stating that for all my prior exuberance over Minolta's reemergence into the pro market, they over priced the camera, and have since under-marketed it as well. I want Minolta to succeed, and if I have the money in a year when I am finally going to upgrade from my SRT101 (yeah, a MINOLTA), I will most definitely buy the 9.

[john_oconnell5]

The Maxxum 9 has flash metering and built in wireless flash and a 100%

viwefinder and a kind of MLU. F5's, as far as I remember, don't have

flash metering or built in wireless. When I add those features to the

price of an F5, I see that it has climbed quite a bit ($400 or so).

The F100 doesn't have any of these features.

 

<p>

 

And the viewfinder is important! I am constantly surprised going back

and forth between an F3 and an N90 how big a difference it makes,

confidently framing for 8x10 proportions rather than hoping. What

would surprise me is paying $1300 for a camera without the big

viewfinder. Toss in an extra meter and wireless control, and while

you might not have a better deal -- a lot of people need neither of

these -- you have a competitive camera. Certainly more competitive

than the F100: its only big improvements over the N90 are CF4, faster

AF, and a UI without the moronic picture programs. More like a

crippled F5 or an N90ss rather than a new camera. The EOS 3 seems to

be a better deal than the F100, but I'd have a 1N first. Why not take

true MLU for less money?

 

<p>

 

I think the Maxxum 9 is a great entry... if the glass is there to

mount to it. Perhaps all those Minolta users who think their lenses

should have as excellent reputations as some of C's or N's will get

their chance now.

[james_golden]

True, the F5 is lacking flash metering and wireless flash, but it has its own type of uniqueness which makes it an F5. Each pro-level camera has a unique feature which is a "decider": EOS 3 - 45 point eye control; F5 - 1005 pixel metering and 8fps; Maxxum 9 - flash metering and wireless flash. These are the features which help delineate the cameras from one another and also play to the marketing of each company. Thus, it is not prudent to pick one feature and compare all others against that marker. And, while the 100% viewfinder is excellent, it has been done without by probably 95% of the market and with little effect. Note that the picture of the year (or a derivation something thereof) in pop photo was made with a point and shoot. A 100% viewfinder is a luxury beyond most others and has the utility, for most people, equivalent of having the 8fps that the F5 offers -- hence, not much. Nonetheless, I love what the 9 brings to the market because it widens the competition, forces the Canon and Nikon camps to expand their definitions of acceptable, and gives a wonderful alternative to people willing to take the chance with a company that has ebbed and flowed quite a bit.

 

<p>

 

My final note, to those championing the statements made by the British Mags, is that many of those same British publications stated that the 9's price was prohibitive considering the latest offerings by Canon and Nikon. Basically, each article I have read has said much the same thing I did: Minolta is broaching the pro market for the first time in 7 years and priced its camera beyond the competition and has none of the glory or ingenuity of the Canon or Nikon offerings, aside from two basic pro level features -- metal chasis and 100% viewfinder. No doubt the camera is incredible, but Minolta did do itself a disservice pricing it as it did...and undermarketing it as it usually does with its goods.

[_____]

I had been in the market for a 35 mm system for a very long time. N

or C? Perhaps the small C (ontax)? or the L? Price was no object. I

was ready to go for the Nikon F5 about last month because its price

has become very tempting. Then one day I read about the Minolta Max

9. Monolta was the furthest thing in my mind. What swung it for me

were its steel chassis, and 100% viewfinder. As Minolta's flagship

camera it is not overpriced. In terms of build quality and features ,

it is not overpriced. I guess objections from those who associate the

name Minolta with cheap cameras because for the longest time all they

had were cheap cameras while N and C had their field day with the F5

and the 1N, respectively.

 

<p>

 

I wish it were cheaper so that more can afford it but it is not for a

good reason: Minolta can't be selling too many of these to spread the

cost of manuafacturing the steel chassis. At its current build level

I don't think a lower price is possible. When the F5 debuted in the

US it was going for about $2895, it debuted at about $2000 in Asia at

the same time. Today, the F5 costs about $1850-$1950; it's about

$1900 in Asia, may be $1800 on a good day. The Dynax 9 debuted at

about US$1500 in Singapore and Japan. Its doppelganger, the Max 9

costs about $1500 Stateside. Too expensive? I don't think so.

Contrary to what James believes, I don't think Minolta goofed with

their marketing.

 

<p>

 

Heft a Max 9 if you have a chance and compare it to the EOS 3 and

F100, and then to the F5. Use it if you have a chance, and forget

about all the techno-whiz-gizz of USM, AF-S, 1005-matrix metering, 45-

eye-point... If you believe what your fingers and senses tell you and

not the marketing hype that you read you'll determine for yourself

whether the Max 9 is any good and worth the money. If Minolta had

released the Max 9 right next to the F5 when that made its appearance,

I wonder whether the comments would flow the other way and say that

Minolta priced it too low and no-one will take it seriously now as a

pro camera.

 

<p>

 

You get what you pay for, you pay for what you get. It'll never be

cheap enough for some. There ain't no free lunch. I put my money

where my mouth is and after delibarating two long years, I finally

have a pro camera with its G-glass to start me on my career.

 

<p>

 

Cheers...Rene

[william_lowe1]

To James about the Brit reviews: You need to read the Amateur

Photographer group test of the the 9/F100/EOS-3. In the last section

about the results, AP considered the price issue and said that the 300

UKP more for the Dynax 9 was a non-issue considering the price of a

kit as a whole. The Photo Technique test didn't mention price at all,

and the 9 won that comparison as well. And the difference in price

here is even less.

[william_lowe1]

To James: Well hell, what in photography is new recently? The

eye-control focus of the EOS-3? No, that isn't new. The five point

focus of the F100? No, that isn't new. Doesn't that mean that the

EOS-3 is a glorified A2 and the F100 just a crippled F5 (and if you

add the price of the vertical grip to it, it gets pretty damn close to

the F5's price as well)? The 9 has things not on any Maxxum previous

to it, 100% viewfinder, 4 segment flash metering, MLU, the data back

with removable smart cards, as well as the things that were improved

upon from the 9xi, like motor drive speed, custom features and

customizablity, body build, and AF performance. Of course the most

important thing, much more than what parts it might or might not share

with any other camera, is how it performs. And 9 owners who posted to

the MML have raved about the camera, how it feels and works. One

owner even said that the AF performance was about twice that of the

9xi. Try and get that out of a HTsi.

[james_golden]

I think we are to the point of arguing semantics. You make some very

good points and my initial assertion of a shot to the foot was a bit

heavy-handed. I am most impressed by the Practial Photography article

which had the exposures compared between the 3, 9, and F100. That

truly showed what is most important (at least to me). I wish more

reviews would approach it from the standpoint of showing actual

exposures, rather than potificating about intangibles or

inconsequentials. I truly hope the price of the 9 comes down just a

bit, because I will likely buy it then.