k_michael Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 You don't see much about Minolta 35mm SLR at all. How come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond bradlau Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 I would guess lens selection has a lot to do with it, it is a harder to find fast glass for the Minolta (at least in Pittsburg) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmueller Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Depends on where you are looking. If you look <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minolta/">here</a> or <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1781">here</a>, you will see a lot ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond bradlau Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 I would guess lens selection has a lot to do with it, it is a harder to find fast glass for the Minolta (at least in Pittsburgh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emaxxman Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Marketing and pro support. Most people will buy the brand that they think pros use...if it's good enough for the pros, it's good enough for them. Canon and Nikon do an incredible job of supporting pros. Therefore, they will get more pros to use their equipment. On top of that, a greater variety of lenses at various low, mid, and high end price points helps them out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The widest choices for lenses, accessories and flashes for a complete 35mm SLR system are offered by Nikon and Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wind.dk Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Minolta owners use their cameras instead of talking about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_strong3 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Better marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Because you hardly see a movie where they show a photographer with Minolta? <p> Because on the fifteen-meter high stand at the Schiphol airport is written "Nikon", not "Minolta"? <p> Because people feel embarrassed about what's written or not written on their camera strap/body? <p> Because people don't know the few advantages of a new Minolta camera such as wireless HSS flash? <p> Because people get involved in the "F5 or EOS1" battle before they go and buy the cheap eos300 or F55 with a sloppy low-end but "Nikkor" or "Canon" marked zoom lens? <p> Because Minolta marketing, as noted above, sucks? <p> Because most people let themselves convinced that <i>"The widest choices for lenses, accessories and flashes for a complete 35mm SLR system are offered by Nikon and Canon"</i> -type sentences are <i>important</i> for them, although most of them will never buy thousands-worth "L" superteles or tilt-shift weirdnesses? <p> Because of other million reasons? <p> Dunno, but why would you care? If you want something really popular, buy one of those fancy cell phones with built-in "camera". Now that's gonna be cool!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 There was a time when a lack of pro gear (in case one wanted it later) was the main reason people went for nikon/canon. <br>Now both canon AND nikon make better speced low end bodies/lenses at lower prices as well as their great pro stuff. <br>The only serious reasons i can think of considering a minolta is the truly well thought out dynax 7 and the allready mentioned flash technology.All in all they are very nice cameras and lenses but for the same prices one can get better in most ways nikon - or for less money some seriously usefull technology in canon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 About 15 years ago, I seriously considered a Minolta Maxxum 9000. I was coming from Leica RF and needed something more befitting my style of photography. I delayed because of other pressing financial problems and it wasn't until 2 years later the I could reevaluate the merits of the various manufacturers. Now I was familiar with camera systems when using Leica. I think that is why they survived their competition with Contax. Minolta's system was secondary to Nikon and Canon, so expansion was somewhat limited with a Maxxum 9000. With Nikon, "If they didn't make it you didn't need it"! Pentax also dropped out of the professional market when they discontinued the superb LX body. Olympus and Contax never really promoted top end equipment, but instead kept to the consumer levels rather than compete head-to-head with N and C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zave_shapiro Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Distribution and pricing have something to do with it. In North America Minolta is as expensive as, and sometimes a bit more than N or C. Checking the European prices I find they're often just a few percentage points below the two majors when comparing their better products. So in Europe Minolta has a larger share. There's little doubt that for any given product Minolta really can produce just as good a lens or flash system as the two biggies. If they recognize they have to be a bit more price-competitive then they'd have a much bigger presence in N America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 To put it into easy words Nikon has tradition, 1 bayonett for AF and old lenses, Canon offers the fastest AF. - So why get Minolta? If you have a manual focus MD system there 's no difference between the AF systems; you cant combine your old gear with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Because Minolta blew it on digital SLRs as a general strategy on how to lose in a market - Nikon and Canon keep ahead of the game and push - VR and IS lenses are good. Am I bitter? Yes - I had a Minolta 35mm setup and ended up going to Canon as I went to digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokkor fan Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 At the moment it is because Minolta do not produce a DSLR that is compatible with their AF lenses. As a result, in a world turning digital there is more marketing power than ever available to Canon and Nikon. Traditionally, Minolta has always been an amatuer's brand. While they produced lenses that were in many cases superior to the competition, the bodies (with a few exceptions) were more designed for the advanced amatuer than the pro. Additionally, they didn't (at least in the early days) produce the fast teles (eg. 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8 and f/4 etc) that attract many professionals to a brand. It is interesting because Minolta have often been a very innovative company when compared to the others. For example, they had the first "Auto" exposure electronic pro body (the XK), the first multi mode SLR (the XD - Aperture priority, and Shutter Priority) the first "Program" mode (the X-700), the first AF body (7000AF), the first wireless flash system etc. These were all huge advances and should have provided Minolta with a competitive advantage, but most were all focused at the amateur, not the professional. Pros wanted things like big glass, faster sync speeds etc. They didn't really need a Program mode. Nowadays, Minolta is losing even the serious amateur because they don't as yet, have a current digital body that takes AF lenses. When they do provide one (and they will), it will be more expensive than the Canon alternative, and so will be less attractive to new users. Minolta just won't get the volume required to match Canon on price. I love Minolta products, but the end is in sight for the brand in the SLR market unless the new DSLR is something earth shatteringly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 The Watergate guys used a Minolta! They also used 20 exp rolls of tri-x; instead of 36 exp rolls. They also left the film still in the paper tri-x boxes too. Imagine the extra time having to remove each roll of film from the boxes; and then loading almost twice as much; because you bought 20exp rolls; instead of 36 exp rolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now