What is Minolta famous for?


Status
Not open for further replies.

xfathom69

Member
For sports and action -Canon

build and quality -Nikon

Minolta - ?

although Minolta 's camera won many "camera of the year" awards (x700, dynax 5,7), but what is associated with Minolta?
 

Minolta is one of the pioneers of AF (originally was supposedly Honeywell or something, and they sued Minolta once).

Regards
CK
 

Minolta is good in making their customer "waiting forever".

We waiting for SSM lens(aka USM)
we waiting for DSLR.

That's about it for Minolta. LOL. :D
 

Originally posted by ninelives
ckiang , u are wrong. Minolta is good in making their customer "waiting forever".

We waiting for SSM lens(aka USM)
we waiting for DSLR.

That's about it for Minolta. LOL. :D

Minolta DOES Have a DSLR what. The RD175 is one of them. :D

Regards
CK
 

Originally posted by ckiang


Minolta DOES Have a DSLR what. The RD175 is one of them. :D

Regards
CK
that one is antique. :D someone at ebay is selling at $1000 . lol
 

wonder what the percentage of Minolta users in this forum?
 

Minolta are well known for gimmicky features and crap build quality. :P *runs*
 

YSlee, u made a mistake, Minolta is not the one!!!
 

Originally posted by YSLee
Minolta are well known for gimmicky features and crap build quality. :P *runs*
/me uses dynax 9/x-700 and kok yslee.

now, can u feel the build? ;p
 

Originally posted by xfathom69
For sports and action -Canon

build and quality -Nikon


Really?? Where did you get that from?
 

look at some of the sports events, the percentage of L-lens is noticeable

I know both Minolta and Nikon have white colour lens, but most of the sports photographers are using L lens
 

Originally posted by YSLee
Minolta are well known for gimmicky features and crap build quality. :P *runs*

thats not true, i hardly get paper jams with a Minolta.... stapling and sort functions also very reliable
 

Originally posted by erwinx


thats not true, i hardly get paper jams with a Minolta.... stapling and sort functions also very reliable

I am not sure about Minolta, but the Canon in office jams once in a while. The thing doesn't have an L lens, so sometimes, copies are not so sharp. It does print and copy well most of the time though. USM decreases focussing time, so the machine actually takes a shorter time to copy.

Regards
CK
 

Originally posted by ckiang


I am not sure about Minolta, but the Canon in office jams once in a while. The thing doesn't have an L lens, so sometimes, copies are not so sharp. It does print and copy well most of the time though. USM decreases focussing time, so the machine actually takes a shorter time to copy.

Regards
CK
lmao .
 

ok lar , serious mode on :

each photographer got it own taste. some like mango, some like orange.

Some like Minolta because of their portrait lens(they are well know for 9/10 rounded bladed lens)-super bokeh.
Some like Minolta because of their design(body).
some like Minolta because of their wireless flash TTL.
 

Understated quality for the discerning photographer with a mind of his/her own. :dent:
 

Originally posted by xfathom69
For sports and action -Canon

build and quality -Nikon

Minolta - ?

I would argue that Minolta's build quality is second to none. The 9 can go head to head with anything ever produced by any other manufacturer for an electronic AF camera, and the 7 hasn't got worse build quality than a comparable camera from, say, Canon. Previous generations of pro cameras (9000, 9xi) were also comparable to everything available at the time, even if they don't show the absurdly robust construction of the 9.

I agree that for sports, action and probably wildlife, Canon is king. The absence of a tilt/shift lens in the Minolta lineup makes the brand a bad choice for architecture photographers, too, but still -- these areas represents only a small amount of all pictures taken. Minolta, having the most limited lens lineup of all the "big 4", still has a very competitive selection of lenses for portrait, landscape and macro photographers if we want to seek specific areas where a brand excels. I think Minolta overall are very good in the mainstream range -- from 24 to 400 mm -- with a much, much worse selection when it comes to exotic lenses (no 400/2.8, no lens over 600mm, no rectilinear lens under 17 and no rectilinear prime under 20).

Originally posted by ckiang
Minolta is one of the pioneers of AF (originally was supposedly Honeywell or something, and they sued Minolta once).

Not only that; Honeywell won the case, forcing Minolta to pay lots of money (and, some claims, affecting the results of the whole camera division until this day).
 

Hahahaha, the 9 might feel solid, but is it really that solid? ;)
 

Originally posted by YSLee
Hahahaha, the 9 might feel solid, but is it really that solid? ;)
hmm, wat do u mean? like cracking your head or when comparing with Nikon or canon ?
 

Originally posted by YSLee
Hahahaha, the 9 might feel solid, but is it really that solid? ;)

Use a D9 to knock on a F5/1V to find out.

Regards
CK
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top