georg_kern

The future of the mass market is digital. All decisions have been already made, they just won't tell you. It's naive to think that the big companies ask for the need of the ordinary customer. No, they manipulate you via advertising and "PR" (money and gifts for journalists) to buy the kind of products, which allow them to maximise profit. It is much more profitable for a company to sell 100% digital products than, let's say, the same amount divided into 80% digital plus 20% analog. So, if anyone wonders why there is almost no advertising on traditional B&W-products from the "Big" manufacturers: they want you to switch to digital.

 

In (maximum) five years, B&W-films will only be manufactured by relatively small companies like Efke and Foma (if they can survive the increase in economical standards and wages after joining the EU), maybe some companies in India and China; Agfa and Kodak will definitly be out of business, because they dont't care for such a small niche. Don't know about Ilford; they are not that big, maybe they just disappear or turn into a pure distributer, which re-labels OEM inkjet products. Fuji might continue with B&W, because Japanese are very nostalgic with "classic" technology and products (think of Mazda Miata, Voigtlaender-Cosina etc.).

 

For sure, we will still be able to buy film and paper in the next decades, mainly through mail order. But selection (and maybe quality) will drop.

 

Regards Georg

Hello,

the closing of the aperture might be a little bit slower in the 70-210 just because the mechanism is bigger and heavier in a tele zoom than in a 50mm lens (distance between aperture lever and aperture blades). If you want to check the function, just shoot some slides at aperture-priority on a sunny day (short times!) with all f-stops. All pictures should be well exposed. If the pictures at small apertures (f11-f22)are overexposed, then the aperture closes down to slow.

 

Regards

Georg

If $1000 is a serious amount of money for you, then don't buy the Rebel. The chip is said to be good, but the rest of the camera is just a cheap SLR and the lens is as crappy as any other cheap 28-to-something zoom (though sharpening in digital is easy). All in all you will get a kit, that is about comparable to a Dynax 60 (70 in the states) with 28-100. So you will spend at least additional $700 just to be DIGITAL. The D70 is more expensive, and still not perfect, but a much more "serious" camera, which would satisfy you much more. The Minolta won't be out before Christmas and might be even more expensive.

And, don't forget: you might need a new wideangle (or zoom), more lenses, when you change the brand, a new, special dedicated flash (digitals can't perform real TTL, because the CCD doesn't reflect as film), memory cards, readers etc.

 

If investing in a digital SLR is financially "demanding" for you (as it would be for me, too), maybe it's not worth to break the bank just to join the digital party. There are too many other things (photographic and non-photographic) were you can invest your money better.

 

Regards

Georg

I also have a film holder with one broken clip (after several dozens of film, I suppose). The price for the replacement is a bad joke. When the second clip will break, I will try to fix it with a rubber band or a metal clip, or something similiar.

 

The fluorescence lamp is relatively easy to change (at least on the first model of the dual scan, but I thik there are no major differences in the mechanics of the dual-scan series)- if you are able to open the scanner, to remove the two screws which hold the lamp and to unplug it. The main problem will be, that Minolta might not sell the lamp to a private person (which is the ultimate meaning of "not user servicable"). But maybe a friendly dealer could order one for you. BTW, you also will loose any warranty as you open the scanner.

 

Regards Georg

The 9xi was a professional camera, so it is more robust (dust-proof, can stand knocks better...). The 800si is a later generation, very well equipped upper-level amateur camera. The layout of the si series controls is (in my opinion) more user friendly than the xi. So: for heave use (or if you just like the robust feel) go for the 9xi, while for general picture taking the 800si might be more useful.

 

Georg

Sorry folks, but I like this forum because it's an easy way to ask / answer technical questions regarding photography with Minolta equipment. If somebody likes to put mediocre pictures into a public place to have them praised by other people who like to do the same thing, there is already a perfect website established: photocommunity. So hope this stops before it really has begun. BTW, the fact that Leica and Nikon owners do this in their own forums does not mean that it is any good (maybe it just means the opposite).

 

Regards Georg

I guess we should leave the "my-brand-is-better" discussion to the endless Nikon-vs-Canon threads on their forums. Use your gear, be happy with it, but the name on the front doesn't matter at all. There is no manufacturer that is superior in all fields.

 

Regards Georg

A renaming to "Monica" might be hard to swallow for Minolta fans...

Embargo time is over, no announcement. Don't think there will be a real Minolta DSLR at the PMA. So all KonicaMinolta was able to do in the first months after the merger is changing the A1 to 8 MPixel (which it maybe was intented to be from the beginning, if Sony could have supplied the 8MP-CCD in time). Not really a hot start.

If you're allready blown away by the results you got, there is no need to change variables. Just keep your technique constant and reproducible.

 

Regards Georg

The orange filter increases the contrast in sunlight (sunlit areas are yellowish, shadows are blue), so the loss in shadow detail may also be due to the filter. Apart from that, snow and clouds look pretty nice on your example.

 

Regards Georg

I am sure that the 40QD will be less then 200 USD in the US. Despite the low Dollar, the prices for photographic equipment are still about 1:1. We Europeans are just the idiots, who pay an extra charge for the stronger competition in the US-american market.

 

Regards Georg

I did not name the shop because I was not shure if photo.net likes this. Anyway, Michael might be right (although the link does not work directly).

Dynax 40 and 60 are now listed by an German internet shop (a cheap

one, but not a cheapo). If you're interested:

 

Dynax 40: 139 Euro Dynax 40QD: 188 Euro

 

Dynax 60: 229 Euro Dynax 60QD: 279 Euro

 

To the 40: it's surprising, how cheap you can make a SLR these days

 

To the 60: slightly cheaper than the 5 (although the 5 will be sold

for less now), so the numbering is a little bit optimistic.

 

Both are clearly aimed at the low-end market, so if you look for a

more "serious" camera, but the price of the 7 is too steep for you,

you will have to keep an eye on the 2nd-hand market. I wouldn't

expect a new model to fit between 60 and 7 for the next two years (if

ever).

 

Regards Georg

A few years ago, Boots was Agfa (BTW, Agfa is the leading supplier for different sales brands, so it is always a good guess). But such films are often one or even two generations behind (maybe they are emptying their stocks by selling left-over film, when a new generation is introduced). So it might not be directly comparable to an actual film.

 

Regards Georg

You can find a gamma-time-curve in the corresponding Agfa-PDF. The curve for the new APX400 (more hardened emulsion, I think) has a rather strange shape. With Rodinal 1:25 you need about 10 min for gamma=0,65, but then the graph flattens out and even with "infinty" development you dont reach more then about 0,67 to 0,68. There's no curve for 1:50, but things might be even worse. So: for low to normal Gamma the old times might still fit, but don't try to get high contrast from APX400 with Rodinal.

 

Regards Georg

There is a Tamron Adaptall available to fit Minolta AF (please note:

I don't talk about the obvious MD-mount adaptor). It is clear that

you loose metering on the AF body (no aperture simulator), but what

about the automatic diaphragm? As the Minolta AF bodies close the

lens diaphragm via a mechanical connection with the lens (like in a

MF body, but different from the fully electronical system in Canon),

it should be possible to pre-set the aperture on the ring on the

manual-focus Tamron lens. The aperture should stay fully opened, and

only close down automatically when the picture is taken. In theory,

flash-TTL photography should be able without restrictions. Any

experiences?

 

Thanks in advance! Georg.

When I sounded a little bit unhappy about the features of the new 60, it was for the following reasons: Minolta never was able to connect excellent technics with good layout. First example: Minolta was a TTL-flash pioneer, but the X700 had TTL only when the shutter-dial was set to auto, which meant 1/60 all the time (no slow sync). There are dozens of tips on the internet to avoid this (glue a tape over one contact in the hot shoe, or: switch of flash, measure, AEL, then swith on the flash and take picture.....). Pure pain, and hands up everybody who didn't hate that. But the Nikon FE2 had TTL on all manual set times from 1/250 on. Then there were the Dynaxes with great AF for their time, but with an automatic switch to dynamic AF. This can drive you crazy when recomposing a picture after focussing, and, naturally, can't be switched permanently off (just transiently with an oddly placed little button). Then the xi series, with auto-everything, but no DOF-preview (except the expensive 9) and no manual settings on the 3 and 5 (but wireless flash-TTL! Who needed it in a 3xi?). Canon brought the EOS 1000 (and 100 and 10), and Minolta lost everything what they had built up by pioneering AF. They only turned their brains on after getting into serious problems with declining sales figures and remodelled the xi into 600 and 700si, the most clever and competitive Minoltas ever.

 

In the Dynax 5 they now would have such a great technical fundament do creat a real fantastic up-to-mid-range camera, and all they do is producing a mediocre camera for the comfort-orientated amateur photographer, which will move over to digital anyway and not buy another analog camera.

 

That's a huge contrast to the lenses, which I generally think to be the best on the market.

 

We all make mistakes sometime. But how do you call a person that doesn't learn from its mistakes: a Minolta camera designer.

You can find a PDF brochure including technical detail under:

 

http://www.minoltaeurope.com/pe/pdfs/dynax_60_cat_e.pdf

 

summary: DOF-preview, flash GN 16 (28 mm!), 1/2000 top speed, 1/90 X-

sync (highspeed: 1/125 or faster), no flash exp. comp., automatic

shift from static to dynamic AF.

 

I think it will hit the stores in the next weeks. Nice camera, but

absolutely amateur (hope I don't sound arrogant). Serious flash

photography only with a 5600HS. I thought the gap between Dynax 7 and

5 to be a little big, and now it's getting even bigger. I hope there

will be a camera to fit in between, but the names of the new cameras

make this unlikely (will there be a Dynax 69-and-a-half?).

When I heard about new Minolta SLRs about one month ago, I was hoping for more. Dynax 60 and 40 seem to be nothing more than repackaged 5 and 4 with new ergonomics. Theres no information on the shutter, but I suppose it will be the same, which means a relatively slow X-sync. And there might be no flash exposure compensation, too.

 

A cheaper alternative to the 7 (without built-in flash, the huge display and some other gimmicks) would have been great. I think, Minolta is starting to make the same errors again, as they did most of the last 30 years: they don't realize, that there is big number of serious amateurs on a tight budget, who want "work" features (fast shutter, override for each automatic) but without the "comfort" features. So, a used 700si might be still more attractive than a new 60.

 

Regards Georg

APX400 was modified a little bit about a year ago. I didn't try it out for myself, but when you look at the gamma-time-curve in the datasheet, Rodinal 1+50 is not a good developer for the new one. 1+25 at 9-10 minutes should make more sense.

 

Regards Georg

Simple answer: this "fine-print" supplier doesn't like to sell kodak products and favours other manufacturers (efke, foma, forte...), maybe because they give him a higher profit. I would not call this a credible source. But, even if Kodak would stop producing films in a few years (BTW, I don't think so), why change today, if you like the products? And to wich brand should you switch? Theres much change in the photo world today, and no manufacturer is guaranteed to survive the next 30 years. So, the "information" in the newsletter is nothing but marketing rubbish.

 

Some further thoughts: Every garage in southern India can produce inkjet paper, but you need much know-how to produce a good film. Kodak executives would have to be complete idiots, to leave a field where they are technology leaders in many respects. In general, I think that Kodak at the moment is by far the most active manufacturer in the "analogue" world. Not only a new b&w factory, but also a new, very aggressively priced colour paper, still the widest range in film types and so on.

 

The only reason I could imagine that Kodak would completely stop the making of traditional photo products in the next 10 years would be a serious finacial crisis, which could force them to sell this part of the company. (BTW., Agfa was trying to sell their consumer imaging division about 2 years ago). Let's hope thats not happening.

 

 

And, the silver price: If I recall correctly, a square meter of film contains just a few grams of silver. The ready-to-coat emulsion may be very expensive, but the price of the raw materials is the least part of it. But also electronics contain some silver. Maybe Digital cameras and memory card get more expensive when the silver price rises. Will they then stop producing digital cameras? Better stock up with film and a Leica M2? (PARANOIA...PARANOIA...PARANOIA.....;)

 

 

Regards Georg

I remeber that the Fuji-C41-B&W was announced as a Ilford-Fuji colaboration. It is only a very slightly (if ever) modified XP-2. So you don't miss much when it is not available in your area.

Nickname "Canon EOS rules"? Lens 28-90? Processing at Wal-Mart? And then there is a new "film test"-thread started on an otherwise really informative and serious internet forum? Sorry, but this is just one of the moments, when I loose absolutely all my confidence in any information given on the web.

In general: When you put a "what is better"-question on an internet forum, you will usually get so many different answers, that the information value for you might be close to zero.

 

To the "Nikon is sharper than MF"-discussion: Many MF-leses may resolve around 80 lp/mm, while even standard 35mm-Zooms might resolve over 100 lp/mm in the image center at optimum aperture (and, e.g.: 70-210mm-Zooms can be very sharp in the center at 70mm/f8-11). When you take into account the relatively small difference in negative dimensions (36 mm vs. 55 mm), a zoom might show more detail. BUT: the contrast at high resolution in 35mm is usually so low, that these details won't contribute much to the overall picture quality. Also, as the grain pattern is more prominent in the 35mm picture, the grain might contribute to the "sharpness" of an detail compared with the smooth appearence of the MF. But, finally, I can't imagine any conditions where the corners of pictures taken with a good MF-fixed-lens and the Mamiyas are known to be good lenses) are worse then that from a Nikon-zoom.

 

Regards Georg