clinton_abe

Michael- Can you post a link to the info you're referring to? I couldn't find anything about a 51%/49% split in any annoucement. I also question, your assertion that Minolta made most of their lenses. I've been told by numerous people, on numerous occasions, that Tokina made a number of them. These 'people' include the former rep for KM. There was a time Minolta used to make their own lenses, and all the glass for the lenses, by themselves. However, that was a long time ago, when I was working for them. Minolta stopped advertising that fact back in the late 70's. Also, where does it state that SONY owns any shares in KM? I think you're confused. The joint developing agreement did not say that SONY bought any shares in KM, so how can they control any percentage of KM?

 

Just because two companies agree to do something doesn't mean one company owns part of another company.

"But remember that Sony now also owns 49% of KMPI's production capacities and 100% of the photo technology."

 

Michael, I'm not sure I know what you meant to say. First of all, KM no longer has a Photo Imaging division, it shut down on 3/31/06. And when SONY and KM entered into their original agreement, SONY and KM did not form a separate company. SONY never bought any shares, financial interest, in KM, as far as I can see. It was merely a joint-development agreement, which was dissolved when KM decided to exit the photo market. KM has said, in so many words, that they will be making the bodies for SONY. There is no mention in any financial statement by either company, that shows SONY owned 49% of KM's Photo Imaging division.

 

As for the '100%' of the photo technologies, it hasn't been shown to be the case. SONY bought the A-mount, Anti-Shake, and some other stuff, but probably not all of what KM owned. For example, there has been no mention of the flashes or meters. The KM flashes were probably made for KM, by another company. What they bought was what SONY wanted for their DSLRs, not the whole of KM photo technology catalog.

Michael- We know that KM will be producing the bodies for SONY, but it's not sure if KM will be making lenses. Tokina made a number of KM's lenses, under contract. I'm not sure who made the 'G' lenses. But, if KM made them, I would suspect KM would continue to do so, if SONY plans on coming out with PRO-level lenses. Tamron's SP lenses were not quite up to the level of a 'G' lens.

I did some follow-up research as to Sony's interest in Tamron. According to Tamron's (Japan) website, SONY owns 3,130,000 shares, or 11.08% of Tamron's outstanding shares. SONY is Tamron's second largest investor. Therefore, I suspect that Tamron will me making a large percentage, if not all of SONY's DSLR lenses.

Chad- After I posted that last reply, I decided to check Tamron's Japan website and search for '290D'. There were no items found, so the '290D' that came up on Google, were probably a typo.

Chad- I did a 'Google' search for 'Tamron 290D' and there were 4 responses, but they all seem to be the same item, although I could not access two of them, which were blogs. All of the responses were in Japanese, and my father who could translate them, wasn't here. All of the responses also had '190D' in parentheses, eleswhere in the writing. I suspect the '290D' may either be a typo or may refer to the Japanese version of the 24-135mm.

"On a 7D, is (sic) equates to a 75mm lens with the DOF of a 50mm lens."

 

Chad- You might want to read the article at the link I left earlier on this question.

Chad- The '190D' is Tamron model designation for the 24-135mm. However, I'm not sure what the '290D' refers to. I checked tamron.com (US), and entered that number into their 'search', and nothing came up. I called my friend, who reps Tamron in my area, and he didn't know either. You might want to contact them, and ask them. If you find out, please post what you find.

I heard something today that I didn't know. My friends who work at

Ritz were telling me that SONY owns about 20-25% of Tamron. This

might explain why at least two of the last three lenses KM released,

were made by Tamron. In the past, a number of Minolta lenses were

made for Minolta, by Tokina under contract. Which ones, I don't

know, so don't ask.

 

So, while KonicaMinolta may produce the bodies for SONY, under

contract, I would expect the lenses to be made by Tamron.

 

And, if anyone is looking for a 5D, they have one in the showcase.

The 7D was sold, and they don't know if they'll get any more in.

They have a number of lenses left, including the 28-75 f/2.8.

Shirish- I own both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.4 G lenses. The 85mm is a noticeably sharper lens, not that the 50mm is a dog. If I were you, I'd use the 50mm for now, and just keep an eye out for the 85mm. I got mine on eBay, by looking every day for several months. Even if Sony never comes out with a Full-sized sensor DSLR, the 'apparent DOF' effect of the longer lens makes the subject 'pop' out from the rest of the shot when shooting wide open. And the slight flattening effect makes portraits look more pleasing. Furthermore, you get a little more working distance from the subject when shooting portraits.

You might want to look at the Tamron 24-135 SP lens. As it is a "SP" lens, its performance would be better than a normal zoom in this range. Plus, the wider view of a 24mm makes a difference.

Stephen- You might want to read the following link I found on the subject of Depth of Field between digital and film cameras.

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

Dave- KM got out of the Photo Imaging biz, as of the end of March (not January). Sony has bought the assets for the lens-mount, Anti-Shake, etc. They will also handle warranty work and servicing for the camera. So don't worry and enjoy your camera.

Arthur- Photoshop Elements 4.0 sells for under a $100. I paid $79 for it at Costco, and it came with 100 4X6. It can boost saturation with one button (slider).

When manipulating your shot in Photoshop, don't forget to calibrate your monitor, so what you see on the screen is what you get when you print. The prices have come down and they're getting better.

It should be on the bottom of your camera, and on the warranty card.

Kin- It is only a MF vs AF issue because the MF Rokkor lenses are older. To me, it doesn't matter if Minolta never came out with AF or not, my arguement is that the Rokkor lenses in question were designed 25-40 years ago. My arguement is that lens design, lens manufacturing techniques, and everything else has advanced. I went to college in the early 70's, and the computers the school used punch cards, it was no difference for an engineer working for Minolta. My sisiter went to Japan in 1972 and paid $75 for a small AC powered Sharp desk calculator that only did the 4 basic functions, no memory, no square root key. She let me take it to college and I was the first student in my accounting class to have a calculator, even the professor didn't have one. Imagine an engineer designing a complex lens trying to determine the optimal curvature of a lens element back then. Can you imagine them trying to design an aspherical element using a slide rule and a computer programmed with punch cards?

 

I've mentioned in the past, that I worked for Minolta back in the late 70's. Back then, Minolta was still manufacturing a lens element the old fashion way. They would mix a batch of glass in a vat and let it cool. Then they would break the large piece of glass and pick out pieces of the right size for and element and anneal and grind it into the right shape. Then they would remelt the other pieces and do it all over again. It wasn't until later that Corning's Continuous Melt process allowed lens manufacturers, like Minolta to more cheaply produce the elements used in a lens. I remember my sales manger was giving a chunk of broken glass as an award, by Minolta. It was neat to hold that chunk of rough glass in my hands.

 

In addition, later on in time, I was an independent manufacturer's representative for Corning (Glass Works), selling their line of sunglasses. During a sales meeting held in Corning, NY, I learned that glass manufacturing is in many ways, black magic. By making even small changes in the ingredients used to make glass, you may make major changes in the properties of the glass. The process is so secret, Corning is very strict in allowing access to the manufacturing plants. I'm sure in the past 25-40 years, glass technology has advanced.

 

So, Kin, while you may think the only difference between a modern lens and an older design is the coating, I know there is much more to it. And whether the lens is a MF or AF, has little bearing.

Jim- How is that question germane to this discussion??? We're discussing a technical point, and your question has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Try and stick to the subject matter, rather than trying to take this to an area of personal attacks. My remarks about the pictures posted taken with the Rokkor lenses on a digital camera, were a objective observation, and not of a subjective nature.

"As for MF vs AF, resolution isn't everything. There are plenty of older lenses that resolve higher than current lenses, but contrast is lower or CA or distortion may be a problem."

 

Kin- I wasn't talking about MF vs AF, I was talking about older lenses that may not be 'optimized' for a digital camera. It doesn't matter if a lens is MF or AF. However, your second sentence actually backs up my contention, especially your point about contrast. Loss of contrast is due in part to light bouncing around the inside of a lens, so a lens that is optimized for digital has better anti-reflective coatings. I think a number of posters need to look up the word 'optimized', as they seem to be attacking me for no reason.

Chad- I guess the lens manufacturers can't fool you with their 'marketing-babble'. It just goes to show me that you're no body's fool... Oh, wait, weren't you were fooled by Antony?

Chad- I wasn't concerned about the 'zeiss' lens, but about the DSLR. So, do you know what Kin was referring to with that reference?

This is from the Tokina website-

 

"Optically, the AT-X840 AF D has new multi-coatings applied to the elements that are formulated to compensate of the highly reflective CCD and CMOS sensors in today�s Digital SLR cameras. The new multi-coating greatly reduces the chance of internal flare or ghost reflections."

This is from the Tamron site explaining what their Di do to make them better for digital (and film) photography.

 

"Di = Improved Resolution

Minimized Peripheral Light Fall-off

Compensation of Ghosting & Flare

Reduction of Chromatic Aberrations"

 

note- Tamron's 'Di' lenses are made to be used either with DSLRs with smaller than 35mm sensors, or with 35mm cameras.

This is from the Sigma site, explaining what they've done for lenses that were designed for digital SLRs.

 

"Q: Some Sigma lenses are designated "DG". What does this mean?"

 

"A: The DG designation applied to certain newer Sigma lenses (mostly wideangle and wide zoom type lenses) indicates that the lens is especially suited for use with digital SLR cameras. The DG lenses feature improved (more even) light distribution from image center to edge, especially at maximum aperture, compared to conventional fast wideangle lenses. This is important in digital photography, but is also useful in 35mm photography, especially when slide film is used. Also, the shorter focal lengths are desirable, because most digital SLR cameras have image sensors whose dimensions are considerably smaller than a 35mm negative (usually by a factor of 1.3X to 1.7X), making the lensﾒ angle of view equivalent to that of a longer lens on a 35mm cameras."

 

If you have any comments, contact Sigma.

"The latest Zeiss zoom on the Sony DSLR has the last element _very_ close to the sensor..."

 

Kin- I hate to tell you this but SONY hasn't released their DSLR yet... so you're either wrong, or you got an advance look at the SONY DSLR.