Konica Minolta Quits Photography Market 239
halenger writes "Japanese photographic equipment maker Konica Minolta has announced plans to withdraw from the camera business. Konica Minolta said the market had become too competitive, and added it would sell its digital camera business to Japanese electronics giant Sony." From the article: "Its decision to ditch the camera business altogether includes the cessation of its colour film and photo paper business, in which it has trailed Eastman Kodak of the US and Japan's Fuji Photo Film. Instead, it plans to focus on products such as colour office photocopiers and medical imaging equipment." We just recently reported on the decision by Nikon to go completely digital.
management speak decoded... (Score:5, Insightful)
means the competition's cameras are too cheap and we have no margin left...
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the 'innovations' in the DSLR market are going to slow down a bit now, the 18mo lifecycle for $1k - $10k bodies will probably stretch to 24mos, maybe 36mos. Unfortunately w/ several hundred thousand 350D Rebels and D70s cameras having been sold, the early adopters have already bought into mount systems, making prospects of explosive growth for one of the niche players unlikely... if you're not profitable now, you won't ever be.
Sony might do something interesting with the KM patents their acquiring, but the odds are against it.
And yes, DSLR bodies might become cheaper...the D50 is a good entry level, perhaps a D500 for Nikon at the $500 point might be possible in the future... but if you're selling $500 cameras, you're not tapping a segment that will buy $1000 lenses regularly.
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:4, Interesting)
They were never as cheap as the low-end Nikon or Canon, but for a little bit more money you got a lot more features. I thought this was the case with their digital line as well.
I think where they failed was waiting so long to bring out a DSLR that was lens-compatible with their Maxxum series of film SLRs. They played around for a long time with the idea of DSLRs that used special digital lenses, a standard lens format that would be brand-neutral (not a bad concept, really). It required them to retool their factories completely, and in the meantime Nikon and Canon brought out DSLRs that were basically a chip shoved into their film bodies and used the film-series lenses. These were a lot more attractive to photographers and left Minolta photographers in the lurch for a number of years.
Frankly I think the Minolta 7D, the digital version of the Maxxum 7, was sweet -- it was just introduced too late and at too high a price to compete with Nikon. And the features it offered were a tough sell to an "average consumer" whose primary concern is price. (Image stabilization is not an easy feature to sell, altough I think it's a really good deal given that to get the same thing in Nikon or Canon you'd need all new lenses.) I guess I should hurry up and buy one.
I find it odd that they're selling out to Sony; Minolta's products always seemed to me like the anti-Sony: not a lot of proprietary accessories, inexpensive addons, etc. I would have thought that selling out to Kodak would be the logical step. I guess they got a better offer. I wonder if Sony will retain the digital-Maxxum series DSLRs, given that Sony doesn't have any DSLR history. There are a LOT of Maxxum users in Japan (I've heard that the Maxxum 9 is the most popular film camera for photojournalists there, versus the Nikon F5 in the states.) It seems silly not to continue with it, but Sony has never been constrained by the bounds of what I'd consider to be logical behavior.
I had been afraid this was going to happen though, ever since Konica and Minolta merged. It's really too bad, though. They made good gear, and I hope that Sigma and the other aftermarket manufacturers will continue to support their lineup in the future.
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2)
Same as it ever was. (Score:2)
Sony's in a fine position to upset the applecart... they're the dominant consumer/prosumer digicam brand, and a DSLR with Minolta's electronics know-how coupled with Zeiss optics at a Sony price-point will be a world beater, believe it.
(And Contax sold more Arias and NXs than they could make, precisely because they were $50
Re:Same as it ever was. (Score:3, Funny)
point-and-shoot market is very different (Score:2)
(year-old statistics, US-only [com.com])
20% Sony
20% Kodak
16% Canon
12% Olympus
32%
There is lots of money to be made there. Camera phones will intrude, but a percentage of people (like me) will insist on lenses that are too big to fit on a phone.
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2)
This is a very common complaint re: the D50. I recently got a D50 and am thrilled with it, but I'm a hack, just taking pictures for fun. Dollar for dollar, I have to say the D50 is a better buy for someone like myself; the D70 is *seriously* more expensive, and AFAICT the only significant differences are the depth of field preview and a higher pixel count on the CCD. Feel f
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2)
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2)
KM has got an in-camera anti-shake system which works really well. While you have to pay over a $1000 for an IS lens for Canon or Nicon cameras, ALL your lenses become IS lenses on a KM dSLR camera. This for example means no more blurry pictures when shooting handheld without flash indoors, which is Significant with a capital S.
I bought a second-hand 70-210mm zoom lens for my KM 5D and I can take blur-free shots at 210mm (305mm film equ
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2)
Not really. [bhphotovideo.com]
Although it would still be a nice thing to have built-in to the camera. (How does it work on the Konica Minolta cameras? Does it wiggle the sensor round or something like that?)
Re:management speak decoded... (Score:2)
It means the competition makes better cameras than we do and we getting our asses handed to us in our hats. We're going to hopefully sell our shit to a real company and hope to keep our heads above water.
The first might be true. Since when have you seen a pro using a minolta? The second isn't true because no matter which way you turn it sony sucks dog balls as a company.
Already working w/Sony (Score:2, Insightful)
Film won't die. (Score:2)
It's too easy to edit EXIF data, and it's way too easy for someone to claim that a digital photograph is his, even if he didn't take it. BUT - if you have a 35mm negative o
Evolution of the Species (Score:2, Insightful)
Notice how right as Nikon announced they would stop most of their film cameras, Zeiss recovered from the Contax failure by offering their glass for the Nikon F-mount.
Film photography is far from dead, but we are past the point in which you can wrap a business around expensive film-based gear and exotic film types. Kodak killed their B&W paper products, but it was not the end. Ilford is still around.
The same will happen with film. Now it would be nice if we can get Nik
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:3, Interesting)
I expect the sheer price of producing digital medium format camera's will safeguard the 35mm format for quite some time. I certainly don't see medium format DSLR's entering the consumer market in the foreseeable future.
That is assuming you meant them moving towards medium format ofcourse
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:2)
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:3, Interesting)
...and when Ilford isn't around, there might still be Seagull and Foma and Efke.
Chemical photography is going to become like etching and engraving: a specialized art or trade. This makes me sad, because I used to enjoy chemical photography a great deal...but I just don't have the time/space for my darkroom anymore.
WRT the withdrawal of Konica/Minolta: I'm not surprised. My next thought is--who's next? Asahi-Pentax? As a Pentax user, that'd make me very sad, as I've always liked their bodies & le
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:5, Insightful)
We've become accustomed now to imagery being cheap, fast, and easy. It makes us look at the effort required to achieve a chemical photograph - and maybe even the value of the result - a lot differently.
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:2)
I agree. In the distant future, I forsee a revival of the more archaic, non-silver-based photographic processes--cyanotype, for instance--among the real enthusiasts. Maybe now would be a good time for me to start buying up those old 8x10 view cameras...
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:2)
Disposal (Score:2)
Depends what stuff you're talking about. For most hobbyists using conventional b&w chemistry, the chemicals involved are largely benign. The big worry would be the silver dissolved in exhausted fixer, but again, most hobbyists don't produce this in enough volume to make this a problem. If, however, you're talking about commercial-type volumes of this, then you will need to add a silver recovery step to your disposal routine.
(More modest silver recovery is possible for the hobbyist. I used to put pe
Re:Disposal (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't speak about slide development, as I've never worked in an E6-process lab. Or a Kodachrome lab for that matter, but from what I've heard, processing Kodachrome is more art than science, and uses some really exotic stuff. Besides, there's something like only 3 labs in the world th
Re:Disposal (Score:2)
the bleach-fix is the big culprit. C41 and RA4 are just too fussy, and I can't control my environment well enough. The fact that bleach-fix is noxious and needs an additional disposal step means that it's not really a great choice for the home user.
Kodachrome is a weird, weird process. From what I understand, it's really more science than art, as it requires still more rigorous control of time/temp variables, as well as requiring some not-so-nice chemicals.
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:2)
But hey, they need to move on. It's a different world now.
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:3, Interesting)
No
The size of the light-sensitive area dictates the size of
Re:Evolution of the Species (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask any professional photographer; the collection of lenses is a bigger investment than the camera body. Newer Nikon digital camera bodies, for example, are designed to accept many of the existing Nikon lenses. These lenses were all optimized for a 35mm film frame, so it only makes sense to use a digital image sensor of roughly the same dimensions. Photographers can make thew jump to digital without th
no loss really (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:no loss really (Score:4, Insightful)
How typical of the elite mindset. I own a digital slr (proud owner of a Canon Rebel XT) and have no clue on how to use it besides auto mode. But guess what! Digital SLR'S made photography actually fun fun for me and actually pushed me to learn more. So, sad day? I don't know it's your call I guess
see definition of "paradigm shift" (Score:5, Interesting)
but this coincided with kodak's deciding to drop E4 for E6 color processing, and E6 was desperately sensitive to water pH. in other words, all of a sudden, your film came out either deep blue or wildly yellow.
this plus the one-time nature of film costs put film out of business in our 8-station tv operation in four months.
if you can find ANY new film cameras, ANY, offered in one year, it will be a major surprise. I suspect canon and nikon will offer one more digital back for their F lines, and that will be it. the major players in one-use supermarket cameras will be offering digital one-shots by next christmas, probably on the order of grill gas bottles... pay $50 up front, swap the camera for $10 when this one is full.
glorious silver halide photography, R I P. don't dip a finger to taste the developer any more, it's done.
Re:see definition of "paradigm shift" (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt the film market will disappear, but it will probably wind up being a boutique industry. You'll be able to find camera places in major cities, and there will be companies that specialize in manufacturing replacement parts for discontinued major brands. That's getting cheaper to do all the time with computer aided manufacturing.
But yeah, they'll probably stop selling film cameras in the discount stores fairly soon.
Jon Acheson
Re:see definition of "paradigm shift" (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a ridiculous assertion. You do know that 16mm motion film is still in wide use, right? You can go out right now and buy a 16mm camera no problem:
http://www.aaton.com/products/film/aminima/index.p hp [aaton.com]
The switch by TV journalists did not end the availability of 16mm film and equipment. The same will be true for 35mm (or other format) still film and equipment. Just because every wedding photog in America
16mm film availiability (Score:2)
there is still a market for the arriflex and nagra crowd, but that's thinning out, with even feature film distribution going to direct digital to theater servers.
we now have all of agfa, sakura, konica/minolta, 3M, and most of ilford a lot of kodak's lines of film off the market. kodak closed its color paper plants in colorado, the last lines I think are in spain and brazil.
i
Re:see definition of "paradigm shift" (Score:2)
ian
Re:see definition of "paradigm shift" (Score:2)
It'll be like how CDs and MP3 players totally "killed" tape. Film will become harder to find, there will be less choice, and it will get more expensive (as will processing), but it will be around for a long time.
http://www.tape.com/ [tape.com]
Re:see definition of "paradigm shift" (Score:2)
if you can find ANY new film cameras, ANY, offered in one year, it will be a major surprise.
Canon just upgraded several cameras. the Elan7n(30V) was a major upgrade, and the Rebel Ti (eos300v) got a refresh as well. Canon seems to be stable in film, not many new upgrades, mostly using tech developed for the digital market. The elan7n has ETTL-2 from the D20.
I suspect canon and nikon will offer one more digital back for their F lines
Only nikon makes the F, and it's called the N in consumer level Cams
other formats (Score:2)
halide photography is on the downslide from commercial product to art form, and it's sliding fast. once the theater market for 35mm and larger strip forms disappears, and the holdup really is getting a common distribution system and theater equipment in place, you're down to the real nutcutting.
that's just a matter of getting financing out to theater chains and the remaining independents.
witho
Focus on the future (Score:4, Funny)
Was this a well-thought out resolution? Or just a snap decision?
Re:Focus on the future (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Focus on the future (Score:2)
Re:Focus on the future (Score:2)
I'm not sure if this shows insight, or if it's just a shot in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad to see Minolta go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Upon first hearing the news that Minolta was getting out of the camera business, I thought, time to upgrade.
On the other hand, the only thing I buy for this camera is film.
My one complaint is its size. I guess you can't get everything.
the only thing I buy for this camera is film. (Score:2)
Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:5, Insightful)
And another one bites the dust.
I've got two Minolta 35mm film SLR cameras, (an old 7-series, and a much newer Maxxum 4). They're not professional-grade cameras by any means, but I like them far more than any digital camera I can afford to buy. Minolta dropping out of the camera business entirely probably means that finding accessories for them is going to suddenly become difficult.
And I still need a good flash for the Maxxum, as well as various lenses for each.
Looks like I'm being left behind by the march of technology, and it's really too bad. I won't argue that digital isn't better than film in almost all respects, but I really enjoy making B&W prints in my little darkroom (and, honestly, I have yet to see a digital camera that can give you authentic-looking B&W. I don't know the technical reason, but I can always tell the difference between a picture that's just been desaturated, and an actual B&W). The more niche it becomes, the less I'm going to be able to afford it.
*shrug*
Call me a luddite, but losing the environment wherein you can buy a decent camera and expect your kids to use it after they grow up in favor of the fast-paced furor of modern electronics sort of depresses me. It used to be all about the photographer: a talented amateur with a fairly cheap 35mm camera could take pictures all but indistinguishable from those taken by an average pro if they just used quality film/paper. That is, the stuff that made all the technical difference on the print was the cheap stuff. Now, the stuff that makes all the technical difference on the print is the expensive stuff.
I'm not a serious artist, and I can't afford to spend serious artist money on just a fun thing I like to do. Looks like the market is squeezing my hobby out.
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2)
I bought my current Canon EOS3 with powergrip for $400.00 USD used a year or so ago, and I still get a kick out of the high quality pictures at ASA-100 or slower film. I can do sports-action shots at 6 frames/second, and take multi-hour exposures for astronomy stuff.
Ditching this for a digital SLR of similar photo quality would cost me close to an order of magnitude more than I paid, and it would be superceded by the next newest model in about 2 years.
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is still true in the digital age. Why wouldn't it be?
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:4, Insightful)
With digital cameras, however, no matter how much work the amateur is willing to do, he cannot make a 3 megapixel camera take 10 megapixel pictures. Other things being equal, a 10 megapixel picture is simply superior to a 3 megapixel picture.
To analogize: switching from a $200 film camera to a $2000 film camera is sort of like switching from DOS+Assembly to, say, Win2k+IIS+VBScript to generate active server pages. You can accomplish exactly the same goals either way, but one tool makes it easier on the developer. The switch from a $200 digital camera to a $2000 digital camera, however, is like switching from a 486 with 64MB of RAM on a 28.8kbps connection to a Dell Poweredge 6800 on a dedicated OC3 to serve your active server pages. No amount of work is going to make the 486 do as well at, say, streaming video as the 6800.
The baseline quality is now inherent to the expensive part (the device), rather than to the inexpensive part (the medium).
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Image optics vary dramatically between amateur and professional lenses, not to mention that without bright (expensive) lenses one often needed to use faster film, accepting the compromise of visible grain. Alternately they could accept motion blue (which was more prevalent), or they had to accept the terrible compromise that is flash photography [yafla.com].
If you spent the money in the 35mm space, there were a lot of
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2)
Following that logic - then you really should have ditched that film Minolta for a Hasselblad.
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2)
The difference, though, is that 35mm was nigh unto ubiquitous all up and down the scale of photographers, stopping only as you approached the very high end (when medium- or large-format cameras were required to be taken seriously). Thye convenience of 35mm made it the professional's choice for almost all "candid" situations I'm aware of. Which means you could go to somebody's wedding and take pictures very much on par with the pro's pictures just using your mid-grade camera. You just couldn't ta
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2)
It's generally because film has much higher contrast and noise, and most people who try to convert to black and white simply desaturate their files, which makes them look very flat
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2)
Oh well, guess I'll have to buy the very good but very expensive Maxxum digital body now. I'm too deep into the Maxxum platform to switch at this point...
Re:Quality isn't the issue. Fun is. (Score:2)
In my experience, the cost of even a second hand SLR has surpassed the price of a mid-market digital. Not to mention that modern SLR's are too light and just don't feel the same.
They're Still in the DSLR business (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They're Still in the DSLR business (Score:2)
Even so, I still think it's a great loss. They never really recovered from the (what were they thinking?!) business decision to not produce a new digital SLR for years, letting Canon and Nikon thrash them in the market.
I knew it! (Score:2)
They never really owned any niche (Score:3, Insightful)
A few months after I bought my Z5, Canon effectively leapfrogged it with their own new IS model, also using AAs which was a selling point for me. Maybe Konica Minolta drove that new model some, so they had their positive competitive effect on the market, but they didn't have a clear winner in my book for more than a few months, and I'm someone who actually bought their product.
They had their own way of doing things, though. The design of the Z5 is one of those ones you immediately recognize as having some thought to it, even if you don't like it in use (which I did). You hate to see another independent voice vanish.
My Dimage Z3 (Score:2)
I own a Dimage Z3 that I bought as my first digital camera. I bought it for the 12x optical zoom and for the form factor that is identical to the Z5 discussed by the parent article. A lesser factor was its use of SD cards, which I already used in other devices and had plenty of and its use of AA batteries. It is definitely different from other cameras in its niche, and shows a lot of well-thought-out ergonomics. Fringe benefit is the moderately high geek factor from its different shape.
I do own a Ricoh
Makes my choice of a new DSLR easier... (Score:2)
And in more local news... (Score:5, Funny)
Bring on Sony Minolta (Score:2)
It's British. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OT: Some assistance, please. (Score:2)
Nikon still makes film cameras (Score:2, Informative)
Nikon continues to make their top of the line F6. It's hard to imagine a better 35mm SLR. They will also continue to market the entry level FM10 (made for them by Cosina).
Having said that, the writing's on the wall. I suspect they can only still make the F6 since it shares much with their top of the line DSLR.
And another one gone (Score:2)
Big prints? (Score:2)
The reason for the post is quality in large print (especially zoomed prints). Even with the 6.1-8.1 MP images I feed the large format printers I use, there is something "magic" about the drum scanned photos that come out of even my old Rebel SLR with stock kit lens.
I lost the analog war many times over (I
Re:Big prints? (Score:2)
Also consider that the D50 is pretty much the lowest level of current dSLR (though that doesn't mean it's bad). If you compare a high end camera
Re:Big prints? (Score:2)
Assuming you've nailed the exposure and not done anything weird postproccesing, you have to up rez the file, sharpen correctly and print on a decent printer.
Then, there is this little problem of the lens. If you're using a kit lens (18-70mm), well, it's really pretty good, but not anything near the
Re:Big prints? (Score:2)
I also didn't realize how high resolution film grain can be -- it never occured to me that drumscanning a continuous-grain photo is MUCH higher res than delineated "pixels" of a CCD capture
They make a nice printer now too (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't even know they made printers. Much less good ones.
You can get them for $350 (if I remember correctly) at Costco. It's a much better deal then the inkjet ripoff.
Re:They make a nice printer now too (Score:2)
I wield a KM 5D, and I dread naught (Score:4, Interesting)
Another benefit I get is better support for my camera. Yet another the name recognition to increase the second-hand value of my gear. Further Sony's hit-and-miss tendency technology-wise means I'm likely to see all sorts of experimental features in models that come and go, giving new photographic opportunities. All point toward a bright bright feature.
My only concern is that Sony might jump on the Microsoft-only bandwagon, with encrypted file formats & ilk. Yet, with Sony marketing the PS3 as a computer, Linux support might not be a mere pipe-dream. If they do support Linux they will be the only manufacturer to do so, and might grab some additional market-share because of this. This would be enough to redeem them from the rootkit fiasco in my eyes.
Sony cams do work with linux (Score:2)
I recently got a Cannon SD450 (5mp) and not does the picture quality suck compared my old DSC-V1 (also 5mp, but a much larger body) I can't even copy the files to my old machine the way I could with the V1.
OTOH, the V1 was just too bulky to cary around with me all the time, while the SD450 is, and it uses a standard memory type -- no more memory sticks for me
And my equipment value continues to rise (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome many Nikon and Minolta owners to the orphaned cameras club.
I have watched the price of my cameras do nothing but INCREASE on e-bay and in used camera stores and shows over the years, to the point that I can sell my gear for mo
Re:And my equipment value continues to rise (Score:2)
A six-fold increase in price over 40 years is just 4.5% increase per year. Cumulative inflation from 1965 to 2005 would have resulted in a 6.2-fold increase in the value of the camera [bls.gov] if it was just sitting somewhere in a box.
So your camera actually lost some value in real-dollar terms, although very little.
they also are closing shop for their mini-lab busi (Score:2, Interesting)
http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_01_01. html [konicaminolta.com]
That leaves two major players (Noritsu & Fuji) and a revamped comppany (DigitalPortal - aka KISS) still producing traditional labs. (and yes, they all print from digital images as well as film (neg/pos).
No one is printing images on real, traditional (cheaper) photographic, silver halide paper. Everyone seems content with spending
Speaking of local labs.. (Score:2)
LIGHT METERS (Score:2)
Minolta 16 (Score:2)
Sold to Sony? (Score:2, Funny)
Sad... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's about Digital Cameras (Score:2)
Konica Minolta said the market had become too competitive, and added it would sell its digital camera business to Japanese electronics giant Sony.
Re:It's about Digital Cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
how many of you actually Konica film? (Score:3, Interesting)
But Konica 750 was usually only available once a year, while other IR and near IR films could and can be bought year round. Also, other near IF films from other companies, were, IMO, overall better films. I know, I used Konica 750, Maco 820, Ilford SFX, Kodak HSI (no longer made) and more. Konica 750 was pretty much my last choice for near IR films.
So for me, hearing that there is no more Konica film, while, that's almost like saying "sorry, no more Lada's". Yes, I did drive a Lada once, a famiily member owned one. the experience was "interesting".
Bear in mind that it's basic marketing 101 to make the "death of film" a self fullfilling prophecy. My 25 year old Nikon 35mm cameras works just as good as the day they were brand new, and i know guys using 50 year cameras they bought used. But my 4 year old Olympus digital camera, soon to be 5 years old, while it works fine, is pretty much toast. The memory cards are hard to find, and everybody tells me "soon no longer supported", and the specific USB cable to connect it to my computer is no longer made, and parts for it, should it break, are no longer supported, the drivers for it are all Win 98, etc, etc.
Think about it - you own a big camera company - what makes you more money in the long run? A camera that is useable for 25 + years, or a camera that needs to be replaced about every 5 years?
Also, the finer, higher quality, double weight, black & white photo paper you can buy for a wet darkroom, on a sheet by sheet basis, is still less money than most comparable, high quality, "photo grade" papers for inkjet or laser printers. I've done some side by side comparisons in the past - colour or black & white - it is more money to run a "digital darkroom" than a "wet darkroom" in terms of both hardware and consumable supplies.
I am not here to fence with anybody on which is better, film or digital. totlaly useless arguement - there is room and need for both, and i use both. I just feel, reading posts here and elsewhere on the internet, that many people seem to avoid or skim over or not pay enough attention to the fact that there is a real, definite, * long term * financial advantage to all the large companies to convince John Q Pulic that film is "no good" and go all digital on many different levels. ths is the driving force behind the "death of film" or whatever you want to call it.
Film still has several advantages, and always will, but these advantages for differnet situations, IMO, are totally ignored in the marketing rush to digital.
Put it this way, the fact i own a car does not mean I was ever in a rush to dump my bicycle. In fact, I seem to be using my bicycle more and more these past few years. We may find the same is true for film.
Best film (Score:3, Informative)
The second leaving (Score:4, Insightful)
There have been a number of others that have, for example, started out as German companies, then the name was bought and a Japanese company sold cameras under that name for a while, and finally the whole venture died, but Konica (the company itself, not just the name) has now exited the camera business for a second time. I'm not sure, but offhand, I can't think of anybody else who's really done that.
My other minor observation is that this seems a prime example of a theory I've been building for quite a while: to do well in the market, doing brilliant things matters a lot less than avoiding doing much that's really stpuid.
Konica and Minolta combined absolute brilliance with astounding stupidity. Canon (for one) has never introduced a feature like autofocus that has completely transformed the market, but they've mostly avoided massive stupidity, so the dominate the market.
Those who care to look might easily see something similar in comparing Apple with Microsoft.
Re:The second leaving (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect you are not the only one with that theory
Photocopiers and Printers (Score:2)
The Minolta has been nothing but trouble since it's installation. The Konica tech came on-site to install and set it up (brand new out of the box).
The print server that came with it wouldn't communicate properly, so it had to be replaced.
There are no diagnostic messages or logs that I can see for troubleshooting the scan-to-email functions. Of course, there is a test functio
proof? (Score:2)
I'm not buying it. Where's the proof?
Re:proof? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not buying it. Where's the proof?
Check out http://kenrockwell.com/tech/ev.htm [kenrockwell.com]...the Light Value scale is logarithmic, each additional Light Value is twice the intensity of light of the previous value. The highest LV you'd see is about 20, the lowest about -15, but those wouldn't be in the same scene. Since LV 20 is basically looking straight into the sun, and LV 1 is typical outdoor scene at night, probably 20 bits is an exaggeration.
On the other hand, my Nikon D50 has 12 bits of dynamic range and it certainly is possible to both blow out highlights and underexpose shadows in the same scene.
Of course, this all gets more complicated by the fact that one usually applies some sort of non-linear gamma curve to remap the intensity levels to something more closely approximating the human eye's response, which means that 8-bit intensity coding using a gamma curve can almost capture the 12 bits of "linear" response of the Nikon sensor (I put "linear" in quotes because it seems more like an exponential to me, but whatever).
Re:proof? (Score:2)
Re:Nikon High Dynamic Range (Score:2)
I did not do the research, was not a subject, and don't know the names of the people wo did, but it was Ca
Re:nikon and canon (Score:3, Insightful)
I see lots of the Fuji Finepix S series in pro hands. The older S1 at 3 megapixels kicks the crap out of canon's 6 megapixel cameras and the newest S3 with a native of 12 and interpolated at 24 kicked the ever living crap out of the newest canon pro DSLR we have here in the Graphics department.
It's a sleeper that you do not see advertised but even the older S1 can serve as a great money maker to a photographer shooting and printing 11X17 photos that wow people
Being able to use the cheaper
Re:nikon and canon (Score:2)
I'm still buying one, and here's why (Score:4, Interesting)
And if they decide to cut us all off? Oh well - I'll still be using my shiny new Maxxum 5D (picking it up Saturday) until it finally dies and Sony decides to not support it anymore. This will likely be quite a long time, because in my experience almost every SLR I've owned was built to last. My old Maxxum 7, Maxxum 5, and Maxxum Qt-si are still cranking away after literal years of abuse (the old Maxxum 7 most of all - it's been beaten to within an inch of its life on my trips to the backcountry throughout the US West, and it still happily comes to life whenever I want it to).
Sad to see them go, though - it's kind of cool to have image stabilization without the need to buy image-stabilized lenses.
Not quite :) (Score:2)