Discussion of all digital SLR cameras under the Minolta and Konica Minolta brands
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Excellent offer just in from Park Camera for Barry Fitzgerald to switch to Pentax for onlyl £599.99 including kit lens and it has a 12.4 Mp sensor. Look here for details and competitive pricing. http://www.parkcameras.com/16971/Pentax ... newsletter
•12.4 Megapixel stabilized CMOS sensor
•Sensitivity range: ISO 100 to 25 600
•6 fps high-speed continuous shooting
•CMOS-shift Shake Reduction
•SAFOX IX AF sensor with 11 selectable points
•Live View on a 3’’ LCD monitor, 921 000 dots
•Video recording in HD compatible
Just look at that ISO range.
I wonder if this camera has been equipped with a Sony sensor as predicted by this chap at Sonyalpharumors
on 27 August
Pentax tried Samsung sensors. They dropped tham and went quickly back to Sony. No company cam produce better sensors than Sony.”
So perhaps an excellent Sony sensor in a competitively priced Pentax? Surely this is too good to be passed over for those so disappointed by Sony now trodding down a path so dissimilar to that of Minolta. Don't forget that Sony took over Konica Minolta because they pursued the wrong strategies. One can hardly blame Sony for trying something different and playing on their technological strengths.
£599 is the list price and I've never paid full price for anything in my life Even back in 35mm days.
K-r looks pretty decent overall though it needs a price around £100 lower.
Yes the Sony sensor is better than the Samsung one so really nobody minds about that.
Km sold out because they were dumb to buy Konica (pointless purchase) and they entered the digital market too late, not because they made bad cameras or sales flops.
Km sold out because they were dumb to buy Konica (pointless purchase) and they entered the digital market too late, not because they made bad cameras or sales flops.
Both were faulty strategic choices. That's the point I made. They got their strategies wrong. If sales had not flopped there would have been no reason to get out of the DSLR business, so there must have been a downturn in demand. I appreciate this could well be a function of the late entry into digital photography. Apple have shown that a revival of a brand is closely linked to innovation and smart marketing. Sony will only be able to become No. 2 by following the Apple approach to a certain extent. That is what we are seeing now. Just look at the kind of praise DPReview are now heaping on the A55 after the RAW update. Resolution equals Canon's 18Mp sensor and dynamic range best in class. Ghosting is a minor issue and for pixel peepers. Phase detection beats competitor's contrast focus in video/LV etc. etc. I think the time has come for the people looking for Sony to become an updated Minolta to get off the bandwagon. Sony cannot live off just satisfying old Minolta users. They must attract new users from scratch to get a large enough customer base.
I disagree sales flopped, the information I got was that the 5d was a decent seller for Km. But it was too late and the cash flow was drying up..along come Sony with a big cheque book and bingo, I can't say I blame Km for selling the photo division..though of course I did not want them to. The mistake was as said too late to market, the 5d should have come sooner as well.
Not that any of this matters now it's all done an dusted. I'm not living off of sentimentality and don't really care what badge a camera has never have done. With all the wow factor of the A33/55 and you say it's a Canon rebel beater, Canon will of course hand over fist sell far more DSLR's than Sony will A33/55's. Old ways die hard and the top 2 makers are very entrenched in the minds of users. BTW I never expected Sony to be a carbon copy of Minolta, but you have to admit the mistakes made have been a bit too obvious and really unnecessary esp with crippling of features and models for no good reason.
Things have improved recently and that's a good sign, but it's a lack of trust many Minolta users have with Sony. You are probably right Sony probably view Minolta users as not part of their big plan, which is why I think so many have already left and to other makers. If the new Sony generation is based around purely consumers and not photographers or their needs, then I'll be happy to put the life jacket on and jump off
The impression I got about the Konica deal was Konica bought big into Minolta too get their copier division, Minolta had lots of cool patents there, just as they had and most likely still do in the camera/lens division. The problem they had with Sony was getting 'timely' sensor information (KM are on record as saying just that). KM probably came to the conclusion they were never going to be able too compete on level terms with Canon and Nikon while they were dependant on other companies for sensors, and sensor information so they could design the rest of the camera to suit. Nikon seemed to have the necessary 'clout' with Sony to get the information about upcoming sensor design ahead or the opposition, (KM for one), and even supply to Sony the revised specs of the Sensor that Nikon wanted, and reserved only for Nikon.
Whether Sony intentionally dragged their feet on sensor info with KM, who knows, it's hard too believe that Sony would do something like that...whatever, the end result was KM decided there wasn't room in the market for a partnership with Sony, (one of the proposals that was floated by one or the other of them at the time was some sort of joint effort), so KM decided to hand over 'certain parts' KM's words, of the camera div. to Sony and Sony becomes responsible for outstanding warranties etc. I never found out exactly what parts weren't handed over too Sony. Sony also had to observe strict requirements from KM that Sony had too maintain a certain level of retrospective compatibility with the A-mount, (so I remember reading somewhere), that's why Sony has maitained the Minolta i-shoe flash mount for so long, and the in body AF motor most likely. An amazing feat for Sony really, too make something the same consistantly, and be retrospectively compatible for a number of years.
Greg
Barry, Minolta did not buy Konica, other way round. Konica was the larger company by far, with a large paper converting and emulsion coating operation and much more minilab and copier business.
Sony's current strategy can not be assessed for success or failure yet.
Nobody can see the future . Because I will not have lost all that money in investment in the past of Nortel Networks company where I was working myself. Sometime, even with the best technology and 10 years in advanced compare to other company for developing and testing product, it is just a matter of bad decision at any level in a company.
And for merging company ... , I have pass through this two time too, and I can tell you that probably Sony is just starting to control the acquirement of Minolta (that probably shows what we are seeing).
Has an engineer in the manufacturing of technology product, I can tell you that design team always want to make the perfect and better product, it is all question of time and $$$ and yes cash flow of company ... (I hope new president of company will start looking at the future instead of trying to please next quarter business status ).
And the funny thing is that before to buy a Minolta 7D, I was certain that Konica Minolta was only a photocopier company ... and Canon a Printer company because I was working in school and computer business. As musician Yamaha was a Trumpet and other instrument maker.
Regards,
Frank
Frank
A7 (R, S & R II) + NEX 3N ( and few lenses )
So if Konica acquired Minolta (merged with) what was the logic behind that? Only to run down/sell off the camera business. Whichever way you look at it seems a rather ill advised and pointless business transaction.
From Sony's point of view I've often wondered if it was a good idea to buy the photo division (giving them some kind of user base and system pre-built) or simply start from scratch.
I guess the attraction for Sony was all the IP of KM DSLR and lenses, plus their engineering expertise. That's a whole bunch of stuff. You don't just start a DSLR business from nothing.
BTW I did see somewhere that the semi-transparent mirror design was in development from some years by the ex KM people, I wish i could find that again.
What they didn't know was as well as the IP they'd also get the grumpy KM fan-boys criticising every move they made, lol...
A lot of the points made over the years have been pretty strong. I take it you thought it was a good idea doing NR on raw with the A700? I was frankly astonished on that one..really they did themselves no good at all there. Still that's all done and dusted.
I agree I am critical but I am of other brands too. K-r looks pretty decent (with a lower street price) but the 35mm f2.4 plastic mount prime is frankly dumb. Too slow and plastic mount not a chance for £170 odd. Maybe a real cheap kit bundle it might pass if not then forget it, esp when Nikon do their metal mount f1.8 35mm. All companies make blunders, Canon's 60d got a hammering from Canon fans (lack of AF adjust the most obvious blunder)
I think the biggest Sony gripe is the feature stripping Sony did on previous models. That has been corrected to a point with some of the newer bodies. It still leaves them with horribly outdated lower entry level bodies though. And it remains a mystery how you can pay £750 for a camera that does not have P-shift, or DMF..and Sony have still not discovered how to offer in camera corrections/raw development or proper customisation either. I could nit pick on all makes no problems, just seems there is more to question on Sony's offerings.
If I was too venture a guess I'd say that KM had priced the cost of a sensor fab and decided it was too costly for the expected returns and were stuck with and at the mercy of a supplier of sensors, (Sony, Samsung, Toshiba etc.) which is probably an equally bad situation to be in than what they decided to do. And I don't know why people keep saying that KM 'sold' the camera business to Sony, when at the time KM said it was a transfer of 'certain assets' of the camera business, I never did find out exactly what 'certain assets' meant in real terms, just the A-mount side of things? and not the lens making facilities, or the whole shooting match...still don't know for certain. But in any case the word 'transfer' implies that it was not 'sold' or 'bought' it was an agreement under which Sony had too do certain things, and in return Sony can take control of this and that, or maybe just this and not that...who knows.
Greg
In my experience companies don't "give away" assets or even knowledge. If Sony acquired the techology, lens designs, AS system etc I'd be fairly astonished if they paid nothing at all for that.
And that's another mystery too me, why do camers now suddenly 'need' in camera individual lens focus adjustments? when you look at the previous generation of camera that didn't need it, such as the KM7D, KM5D and A100, at lest my KM5D and A100 focus accurately with the lenses I've got first time every time, so why don't the cameras of today do the same? Is it because people are more 'bokeh hunting' than before and buy faster lenses and shoot with more open apertures at longer FL-higher magnification and thus run fowl of small AF errors more frequently with faster focusing systems...I can't quite put my finger on it, and apparently it's not just Sony either, it's also something that's appeared in other brands as well.
Greg
ps. Caught you post Barry, Yeah like I said the other day I've been puzzled since approximately 2006 and have remained so since then, who knows what was in the agreement...exactly, all I'm basing my thoughts on is what was said at the time, and KM said transfer of 'certain assets' so that has been just ONE of the reasons for my puzzlement, the way Sony conducts it A-mount operation is another whole batch of puzzlement, that there never seemed to be a focus by Sony in developing a core DSLR operation that would inspire one to think that here is a camera co. who knows what they are doing and one can depend on Sony to do the right thing by their customers etc. I just never got that sense with Sony....so far anyway.
Whatever the case, Sony brought a lot to the mix in 2006. It's pretty certain the A100 was mainly a KM camera. In mid-January, when the announcement was made, KM staff worldwide had no idea this was going to happen. KM had almost ceased to be a lens maker, relying entirely on Tamron for all of the new lenses from 2004 and the KM merger. I would challenge anyone to find a 70-200mm or 300mm G which has the words Konica Minolta on the lens itself (as opposed to the packaging).
Konica was far bigger than Minolta, but recognised the value of the brand. As a result, Konica shut down all camera production except the Hexar rangefinder, and Minolta 'took on' the only good part of their digital line, the G-series (G500, G600 etc). At photokina 2004, the Hexar models were shown on the KM stand. A new 21mm ultrawide in Leica M mount was previewed; by 2005, it was clear the Hexar had been dropped, the 21mm was never made commercially. Only Minolta products survived the merger, on the photographic side; Konica's camera division was the casualty. Much the same happened in the copier division. Konica native products were entirely replaced by the Minolta/Magicolor/Qume product line.
Then in January 2006, Konica Minolta announced cessation of ALL photographic activities - including their photo film and paper production plants, and the production of minilab systems. This was not an elegant exit, it was complete meltdown; 'we're out of this wreck, jettison the cargo, stick the passengers in the lifeboats, scupper the ship'.
Sony was the lifeboat for the camera division - there was no lifeboat at all for the photo materials division. There is nowhere you can buy Konicacolor or Konicachrome (née Sakuracolor and Sakurachrome, and also known for ten years as Ilfocolor and Ilfochrome in Europe and the USA).
Yet within three months of the announcement, KM had shut down all worldwide camera division operations and emptied all warehouses. Nothing remained. On April 4th, the last documents were signed off (March 31st was the operational deadline) and on April 6th with the start of new fiscal years in most regions there was no KM Camera Division. The final accounts were closed.
On June 6th, three months later again, Sony did their worldwide launch of the Alpha 100 and did so with working cameras that were not prototypes; they showed images which had been taken on the A100 in the last few months, showing that it existed before KM shut down. But they brought Carl Zeiss into the picture and announced a new range of lenses, which would never have existed under KM because there was no link to CZ for that company.
It's only four years since the acquisition of the Alpha system by Sony. Though four years is a long time in digital imaging, you really have to consider how far they have come. The 10 megapixel CCD sensor was seen for the first time in the A100. It had not yet been released in the Pentax K10D or the Nikon D80. Within one year of that launch Sony had adopted CMOS and released a professional-grade body (A700) replacing in real terms the KM D7D (the A100 was clearly a 5D successor). Remember it's only three years ago. Nikon's D300 this time 'beat' the Sony rollout. Three years later how far has the D300 progressed? To D300s; added video, and really that's all.
Two years after the A100, Sony really did shake up the market with the Alpha 900 and again we have to remember this is only two years ago now. My first A900 photographs were at photokina 2008. Now we come up to 2010. Since then the rate of innovation and progress has been little short of amazing compared to KM (or any other single maker). We forget that Alpha owners compare Sony progress not with one single make (like, say, Nikon) but with ALL makes. Therefore we look at what Samsung, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon and Pentax are ALL doing and complain because Sony does not match model features across this entire span of rival brands!
But if you look at what Sony really offered - and don't assume that for example the A700 or A900 were 'discontinued' when stocks have remained available - the choice and range has been amazing, and the progress rapid, almost on a quarterly cycle. From 10 megapixel CCD to 14 megapixel CCD as a higher 'entry level' specification took only two years; in the meantime 10 remained to provide ultra-low cost (£200 bracket) deals. 14 megapixel CMOS arrived before the three-year mark, along with true live view for manual focus; HD video arrived along with a complete new compact system in NEX four years after the Sony takeover; 16 megapixel CMOS, pellicle mirror and a stack of other technological quantum leaps hit us just four years on from the Alpha 100 launch.
Sony never made a single DSLR using the 6 megapixel sensor again, after June 2006. where Pentax continued to offer this for a long time. The point at which Sony and Pentax lines began to show the different philosophies was March 2008. The new 14.2 megapixel sensor went into the Alpha 350, with its odd Quick Live View and consumer-level build; Pentax's 14 megapixel sensor went into the K20D, a far more professional (and conventional, in its way) offering.
Now compare the fortunes of Pentax and Sony since March 2008. It does look as if Sony made the right decisions, and their development path suited the market better.
I think what we are hoping to see is that Sony can also do what Pentax continued to try to do - and that comes down to the already-seen, previewed, successor for the Alpha 700. We know it has a mag/alloy body, that it will do HD video, and little more. photokina will provide the answers.
I've no doubts Sony can "shake things up" in the market and they have done in the past. I'm trying to look at things as a whole here and I'm looking at some fairly obvious inconsistencies across a time frame.
I have no idea how the A100 sold if it was a good seller or not, so I'll leave that to those who have the info on it/
When we moved to the A200-350 range for the entry level I was puzzled mostly by having 3 entry models and I didn't get the logic of that decision and still don't to this day. (2 ok 3 nope)
So the line up was 3 entry models with the A700 at the higher price for APS-C joined later in 2008 with the A900. Overall I think that was a pretty good line up though I felt the A350 should be a bit more of a mid level body rather than just a 14mp version of the A300. The A200 whilst annoyingly had some bits ripped out (MLU, DOF preview) still stacked up pretty well v rivals and it was dirt cheap.
After than things went a bit "weird" Sony decided to replace the entire entry range with 3 models that were essentially "dumbed down" on the previous generation. You know my thoughts on that so no need to bore everyone, but in short it was a serious mistake as you never release "new products" worse than older ones. They were unpopular, mocked and mostly got mixed to unimpressive reviews from the media. So all the good work A200-350 wise was thrown out the window. Sony also made a critical mistake of ignoring the "up-graders" market something Canon have learnt to do very well.
During the new 3 entry models lifetime Sony seemed to let the A700 hang out to dry and did not update it. They made a slightly cut down FF body the A850, taking absolutely no risks or being a bit daring.. or implementing any known improvements. We got 2 or 3 so called mid level bodies that touted more pixels with an impressively fast FPS but looking rather uncomfortable in the market in every other department.
Onto recent times we have now only 2 lower entry bodies, again these are simply re-hashed from the previous generation with a better grip, and more pixels..but again looking very dated in the market place.
Now we have the addition of these A33/55 bodies which are priced at mid level joined by 2 DSLR's at least one of which has been put on the back burner to increase production. We can't judge their performance in the market too soon to tell.But there is an element of "anarchy" from Sony..quickly rushing to show a mock up of an A700 sucessor to appease some enthusiasts..apparently they were not going to make one at all prior to this.
So really from 2008 thing have been very up and down, lots of inconsistencies and a lack of clear direction.
I think Sony's best hope is the A33/55 models to capture some mid range consumers (I say consumers as I feel enthusiast photographers are more interested in traditional stuff) Entry level wise they are completely wiped out..semi pro level at the moment they are defunct until the A7xx or 2 as is said arrive.
FF wise nothing has happened since the A850 so the direction is unclear.
To me at least it's a real mixed bag. 2008 being the most solid of all so far.
Sony are a bit like a striker who can score great goals at times, and you see them playing great in training looking good all round. But on pitch they are not as consistent. This is what makes some Minolta users nervous..you never really know what they are going to do, sometimes great, sometimes not.
-
Even back in 35mm days.
. Because I will not have lost all that money in investment in the past of Nortel Networks company where I was working myself. Sometime, even with the best technology and 10 years in advanced compare to other company for developing and testing product, it is just a matter of bad decision at any level in a company.