#1 Ben Murphy

The Minolta-Konica merger was a dud, combined with Minolta's late start in DSLRs and losses in its photo-related businesses.

It will be interesting to see what Sony does with the Minolta lensmount, and whether it has a contract with Zeiss for autofocus DSLR lenses (as opposed to Zeiss' rebadged manual-focus lenses now in Nikon mount).

Right now the leader in DSLR sales is Canon, with Nikon + partners (Fuji, Zeiss), coming close. Pentax is almost a goner, Olympus is at a technological cul-de-sac. Sony has an opportunity to use its digicam/electronix reputation to come up in the DSLR market, but more than that they can cripple Nikon and Pentax, which have come to rely on Sony sensors for the D50, D70, D100, D200, D2H, and D2X. Unless there are any ironclad contractsabout new sensor chips, you can bet that Sony will reserve the best chips for itself first if they're serious about getting into higher-margin DSLR sales.

5:55 pm - Saturday, January 21, 2006

#2 Arthur H. Sa

I agree with the comments above. But, since I use a Canon camera, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't think it will effect my future in photography.

Art

10:28 pm - Saturday, January 21, 2006

#3 neil owen

Well, as a long time Minolta user (including a raft of 35mm cameras - remember those?) and a recent purchaser of a 7D, it comes as no surprise to hear the news. I suppose I was somewhat naively hoping for a 9D to take on the Canon 20 and 5D's (plus whatever this ever growing beast is going to offer the market place) but this now will never be. Not, unless, Sony decide to up the game plan and start taking on Canon in a significantly different arena to that in which they have been operating up until now.

The comments regarding the lens mount are interesting and, from my perspective, it means that I still have a degree of life potentially left in my current system(s) whilst this is maintained. If it becomes 'unsuported' (to quote a modern phrase) then I am faced with holding a system that has little or no future. Welcome to the world of Canon at that stage I presume.....

What I find really interesting about all of this, and certainly it has become much clearer over the last few months (especially relevant are Ben's views), is the clarity of vision that must have occured within Canon probably about 10 or so years ago. I think it would have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall of the Canon Board meetings when the decisions were being made about the future of digital and the investment (and opportunity) that was needed. I suspect Canon (and, to a lesser extent, Nikon) have largely succeded in eliminating the opposition in the major market segments of the Casual/amateur/semi and full time Pro users. What we are now seeing is probably the result of a corresponding lack of foresight and decision making by the other Companies (Pentax, Olympus, Contax and, yes, most definitely Minolta) resulting in the position the market finds itself in today.

I really hope that Sony are able to make a go of the Minolta tie-up (I don't think I can bear to use the K-M title at the moment!) as the pruduct itslef is first class, robust, user friendly but - in places - crying out for a little more development. As with all markets, there needs to be a level of competition to keep everyone on their toes and, for us consumers, financially competetive.

Something of a sad day for variety in the market place but, I suspect, no great surprise and to those non-Minolta users, probably no great loss either. Very sad.

11:21 pm - Saturday, January 21, 2006

#4 m gottlieb

This is truly Darwinian.

What is surprising is that so many major players did not forsee this: Kodak and Leica in particular.

We are in the midst of the Digital Revolution, and its impact will be as great as the Industrial Revolution, if not greater.

I'm sorry to see this happen, because so many more jobs are going to be lost. The people Kodak let go in Australia will never earn those kind of wages again.

But, I have not shot a roll of film in three years, and I am glad to be rid of the stuff, and I am even more happy to be rid of the wet darkroom. It took me almost one hour to produce one exhibition quality print, and I had the full monty.

I always think of how much more I could have accomplished as an undergraduate if the PC had been invented at that time.

Remember, with film you had to spend money each time you pressed the shutter release, and had to spend more to process those shots, even if they were duds. That is inherently unfair.

3:49 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#5 Ross

As I mentioned somewhere else on this site, we are in the mildest of a technology revolution. Camera manufacturers are in the same boat typewriter manufacturers were in when they encountered the PC.

The inial reaction was “the PC will never replace the typewriter”. Then it was “we can build a better PC”. Then it became “we give up”.

Nikon/Canon are currently at the “we can build better” stage. I heard Nikon tried to sell out to Sony last year, so maybe they are getting close to the “lets give up”!

Its time the manufacturers understood something. There is NO BRAND LOYALTY left when you move from 35mm to DSLR. I was always a Nikon man. My F4 lies in the cupboard. A few years ago I bought an Olympus E10 because it was the best digital deal at the time. The next camera I buy will be a Samsung 815. I don’t feel I need to be ashamed to buy a camera from a “whitegoods” manufacturer, because Blind Freddie can see that Samsung know as much about digital photography as Nikon/Canon do.

I will make a quick prediction. At least two other big brand manufacturers will be out of the business by the end of this year!

6:53 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#6 nick in japan

Why on earth would you buy an 815 when all reports indicate it is a flop! Sounds like you have stock in the company! Samsung has some good ideas, they just didn't come together in the 815. A friend in Canada tested one, I can give you a list of disappointments if you want... never mind, I think you have already ordered it, sounds like you are trying to justify your mistake!

8:39 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#7 Ross

No Nick, no shares in the company!!

But I am sufficiently broadminded and not "brand concious" to know that i dont need to spend AUD5000+ (body only) on a Nikon/Canon to take a good photograph!!!

What are the problems you talk about?

Shake at 420mm? What DOESNT shake at 420. Does Nikon?Canon offer image stabilisation? I have a AUD50 tripod if I want to shoot at that range.

The noise at high ISO settings? I only ever use ISO50 on my E10, and given the ability of CCDs to capture at lower light than film its not such an issue.

you know Nick, sometimes we forget what photography is all about. we get lost in brand names, noise settings, and picky little things that dont really matter. Well they dont matter to 99.9% of people buying camers this year, which some manufacturers seem to forget - to their cost.

Photography isn't about esoteric technical issues. Its about capturing images.

9:15 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#8 Ross

Incidentally Nick, the BEST photograph I have was taken with a cheap 480x360 Sony Fd73, and I cropped that down to about 1/4 size then blew it up to A4. Of course all the "Pro" users laughed at my camera. Whislt they saved up for the latestr big brand "name" bosdy i got on with taking photographs.

9:20 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#9 nick in japan

I presently use the 2 Canons, a pentax S6 ( my wifes Christmas present), Sony F505k, 707, 717 and 828, as well as the U2 and V-1, also the Panasonic LX-1. I dont favor one over another, they have different personalities and I use them for different reasons. Please explain what the "whitegoods" remark is all about, is that a racist term?
I have a motto, "20 pictures a day keeps the doctor away" . How many did you take today? I almost got my quota this morning at the flea market, I'll make up for it tomorrow. I use the LX-1, piggybacked in the F-828's hotshoe.
Noise DOES matter, to me at least!

9:29 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#10 nick in japan

The favorite Black and whites I have are from the 2mb, Sony 505K.

9:35 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#11 Ross

Hi Nick,

No, “whitegoods” is an English term for refrigerators, washing machines, microwaves etc. Samsung and many of the newer Prosumer digital manufacturers started out making such home equipment.

I didn’t take a single shot today, despite my plans. :down: I was going to take a few of my Japanese wife at the harbour, but she had other plans!!!

Like you, some of my best shots are from a cheap 2Mp camera – a Chinese made Oregon Scientific I picked up for AUD150 . Its quick and dirty, bet catches the mood far better than a large SLR.

Noise IS an issue, but its not to the extent that some people make out. What makes it prominent is that commentators and magazine editors can capture it, and compare it!! If they couldn’t, no one would know about it. God forbid if they ever understand compression algorithms and analog to digital conversion routines they will go crazy!

10:01 am - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#12 m gottlieb

More of my two cents:

Noise is NOT an issue. Ever hear of Noise Ninja? Why do people complain about electronic noise - those same people gladly accepted Tri-X pushed to 1600.

My Leica Digilux 1 has visible noise at ISO 400. I clean it with Noise Ninja and convert it to B&W with Ulead Photo Impact's duotone action. The results look just like Tri-X.

Remember - it's the photographer,not the camera. I just wish the digital camera and PC had been invented when I was a college student.

3:50 pm - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#13 m gottlieb

One final: digital photography has been a renaissance for me. What more could I possibly say?

3:56 pm - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#14 Eddie Belasco

Sony has now announced that it will have at least one DSLR out this summer. Since they make the sensor chips for Nikon's low- as well as top-line cameras, I expect we will see replacements for the Minolta 5D as well as something using (at least) the chip in Nikon's D2X ... for less than Nikon sells at.

My real hope is that Sony does something about autofocus in their DSLRs. Canons focus faster because the lenses have their own motors in them. Minolta did not go this route so as to allow backward compatability. Something has to change, or Canon will always offer better, faster autofocus.

Nikon may have to start scrounging around Kodak, Cypress and Imacon/Hasselblad for sensors if Sony starts holding back chips. It won't be pretty for Nikon.

4:59 pm - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#15 m gottlieb

What about Dalsa chips? They have an off the shelf full frame chip, as well as cropped sensors.

Sony is not going to sell their best chips now, to anyone.

Anyone want to conjecture about Pentax's dSLRs and the Pentax/Samsung dSLR?

5:26 pm - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#16 Thomas

This is no surprise that Minolta is out of business, because they have waited much too long before starting a DSLR. After a couple of Minolta 9000 bodies and a 800si I sold my whole Minolta stuff two years ago and switched back to Canon.... after many users had asked for months in the Minolta mailing list and newsgroup, without a sign from Minolta Development.

11:02 pm - Sunday, January 22, 2006

#17 terry chay

Hmm, the D2H/D2Hs sensor is Nikon-designed, not Sony.

As for the spurious claim that Sony won't sell their best chips to anyone then with the Minolta deal, then someone please explain to me the 3CCD sensor sitting in the CANON XL-H1? Or the Sony sensors sitting in so many consumer digital cameras that last years recall affected the entire industry, INCLUDING Canon? Or the CCD sensor in the Sony H1 looking surprisingly like the same sensor in the Nikon D200?

The reality is that Sony has proven time and time again that they will sell their technology and market it themselves. If they didn't, another company like Masushita, Fuji or Kodak would step up to the plate.

Choosing a sensor for your next camera requires a two year design commitment, let alone the two to four year lifespan it might have. I don't think that these companies would do so and allow their provider to pull the rug under them mid-cycle.

3:48 am - Thursday, January 26, 2006

#18 Nigel Taylor

I do think the loss of any mainstream brand is a great pity as we all need there to be plenty of competition to keep all the manufacturers on their toes. Currently Canon and Nikon do have the bulk of the market but there are numerous reports of difficulties ahead for Nikon. Firstly to compete with Canon they will need to concede the need for full size chips but alas it seems their lens mount will not facilitate this, being smaller than Canon's. If they are forced into a total redesign of their DSLRs what will all their loyal users do if forced to consider replacing all their highly expensive lenses. Canon are already the preferred choice of the majority of professional photographers using DSLRs with APS sized chips. As the price of cameras using full size chips continues to fall Canon will take an ever growing share of this market. Now we are also realising that their reliance on Sony chips could go very pearshaped if Sony set up in direct competition with them. I believe Canon are the only major manufacturer who who have wholly read the digital market correctly and produced the goods inhouse to satisfy all levels of photographer. Inasmuch as I use Canon kit I am very happy but if the time comes when Canon have no real competition in certain segments of the market I suspect we users will feel the disadvantage of such a scenario in our pockets. I am guessing that Canon will continue to be as innovative as they have been for many years now but we also need strong competition to keep pricing on its current downhill spiral.

7:25 pm - Friday, January 27, 2006

#19 terry chay

Yes, the Nikon F mount, which has been supporting 35mm film since the 1959, cannot support 35mm sensors because the bore is too small. What a load of…

Currently there are no makers of digital specific full-frame lenses. None. Canon doesn't make an L-series EF-S lens. None.

If you own a 300D, 350D or 20D you are a second class citizen in your own brand. Please keep predicting the death of Nikon while Nikon keeps reporting record-breaking profits.

It is just that sort of ignorance that causes the death of Minolta. Minolta makes a dSLR that is, in many ways, better than Canon or Nikon, but people blindly purchase one brand or the other.

8:51 pm - Friday, January 27, 2006

#20 Ross

There will always be some people who have Nikon "brand loyalty" - always owned Nikon, always will etc.

However, the camera market has made a seismic shift. Its NOT the same market we grew up with. You need to talk to younger people to appreciate this, or talk to some of the people involved in marketing.

Nikon (and to a lesser degree Canon) stood on the side of the digital swimming pool for far too long. They started out convinced it was no threat, then waited ot see what direction it would take.

A major innovative manufacturer like Nikon should be leading the pack, not producing "Me Too" cameras. There are a number of reasons why this is happening, not the least of which is the changes in Japan in recent years.

The photographer of the future starts out taking snaps with a Nokia phone camera. He/She graduates to a 2Mp Chinese made pocket digital camera. Both of these market segments are subject to a variation of Moors Law - they improve 100% every 18 months.

They move on to Prosumer cameras, and look for the same levels of technological advancement in that area. They see it with cameras like the Samsung Pro815, but not in Nikon. Remember they have no loyalty to Nikon. They have no experience with Nikon. And they don’t like the high price of Nikons.

How difficult would it be for Nikon to offer a Prosumer full frame digital. With a big battery, large monitor, wifi, IS, etc?

This lack of innovation would not be so bad, but when it is allied to very high prices, it spells the end for Nikon.

12:53 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#21 Ross

Incidentally, one of the main reasons why I stayed with Nikon from 1975 to 2005 was the standard lens fitting. My EM, FG20, FE, F401, F501, F50, F3, F4 all used the same lens.

Although the lens still fits onto the digital cameras, it is now 50% closer, stuffing up all of the lens characteristics that made Nikon lenses (and thus Nikon bodies) worth owning.

This “reusable lens” advantage is now lost, and will remain lost until Nikon manufacture a full frame digital at an affordable price.

And anyone who tells you that you can use older full frame lenses on a digital camera simply has no idea of the issues involved. Yes it fits, yes it takes photographs. You may as well buy a cut price special digital with fixed lens, cos the lens your using was NOT designed for digital use.

1:03 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#22 Ross

And finally, before I bore and annoy everyone:

I am old enough to remember the demise of the British motorbike industry. I remember old men saying “oh the bike buyer doesn’t need four cylinders. They will always buy Norton, AJS, Matchless, Triumph, Ariel, Sunbeam, BSA” etc.

Small Japanese bikes came out, and this bunch of idiots they changed the mantra to “the Japanese can build small bikes, but they can never build big bikes.”

Then the Honda four came out, and in an instant it was all over, although the British manufacturers were too stupid and myopic to see the end. Even then they said thing like “Electric start? No one wants electric start on a motorbike. Indicators? that’s for wimps. Disk brakes? You don’t need disk brakes. Monoshock rear frame? Why bother with high tech stuff like that.

Now take a look at the Japanese camera manufacturing industry 30 years later.

See the same arrogance?

Watch them go the same way that British motor bikes went. (and before anyone replies, remember that all of my friends in the UK refused to accept that the famous British bike industry, as much as an institution then as the Japanese camera industry is now, could disappear in just 6 years)

1:15 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#23 terry chay

Ross,

Interesting points and there are some lessons to be learned, but I think there are a few errors in your comments that may counter some of your conclusions.

1) Nikon and Canon last year sold about 90% of all dSLRs on the market (nearly evenly splitting market share, with Canon slightly edging out Nikon). If anything, it appears they have consolidated more market share than they ever had with the 35mm film SLR market.

They were so successful last year that they have already wiped out one player, K-M. :-(

2) I believe a case can be made with that every Nikon dSLR release this year except one (D70s) has something which distinguishes it from "me too" status. The D200 is best of its class, the D50 is currently the cheapest dSLR on the market, the D2Hs has a unique sensor and performance characteristics, the D2X is the best all-round performing APS-C professional camera.

I would certainly agree that K-M, Olympus Fuji, Sigma, and Pentax digital bodies are more innovative. But that same statement would hold true vs. Canon.

3) How difficult is the full frame dSLR? Well I see at least one player, Kodak, was chased out last year. The only other player, Canon shows that the premium for a full-frame digital body is at least $1500. A $3000 body is a niche market—trying to sell that to prosumers and enthusiasts is asking for a lot of hurt. Canon, being the largest player, can afford it (but how much market share have they lost to the D70, D70s, D50, and now the D200?). I don't think Nikon is similarly positioned. As many a Canon zealot is quick to point out: Nikon doesn't design their own sensors. While that is actually false (LBCAST in the D2H series), the spirit of the statement is true.

4) A 35mm lens mounted on an APS-C body (whether Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or K-M) is not 50% closer to the sensor or mirror than it is with a film camera. What is going on is the film sensor size is simply smaller so a smaller image area is being taken. The optics is not messed up at all, if anything, it is better because you are using the sharpest and brighest part of the image circle. However, your DoF, Focal Length, hyperfocal distance tables will be messed up because of the output assumptions that go into them.

It is theoretically true that because the mirror is smaller, you can put the lens elements closer to the film plane in a digital body. There are only two systems that do this: Olympus 4/3 and Canon EF-S. And I still have no proof that the latter system even takes advantage of the extra room in the box. AFAIK, they just market it that way to keep you from mounting digital-specific lenses on 35mm bodies.

5) The issue you are talking about is that since a 35mm lens design doesn't care at which angle light hits the film plane, you get vignetting and light bleed when you use a 35mm lens with a full-frame digital back.

However, there are no current digital-specific 35mm lenses out there. Not one.

6) I agree that the "reusable lens" advantage is mostly b.s. Sure I have $3000 currently sunk into Nikon optics, but there is nothing in the world preventing me from using them on my Nikon or Fuji or Sinar body just because I bought a Canon. Heck, with an adapter I can use it on my Canon.

But the fact that it is b.s. doesn't mean that there isn't a huge "herd mentality" causing people to buy Canon/Nikon brands simply "because."

Otherwise how come those two vendors were among the only companies to have profitable digital point and shoot lines? Are we to believe that a Nikon CoolPix or Canon Powershot are superior to a Panasonic Lumix or Casio Exilim? If anything, I'd argue the reverse.

2:42 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#24 nick in japan

I bought my 20D vs. the 5D specifically because the future is going to be full sized sensors and for my telephoto work the 1.6X factor is an added plus. Next is an adapter to fit the 300 2.8 ED AF on the 20D, I'll have to break that superglue loose that holds on the "Bigma" tho!!!
My first big-bike was an Ariel square 4, a piece of junk, as is most British stuff, and American bikes.

2:55 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#25 Ross

Nick, did the Ariel melt the rear pistons on a hot run :)

Terry, These are interesting times, especially from a marketing point of view.

Just out of interest, the British motorbike industry (like the British car industry) as never larger than the year before it went under. Why? Because market demand was increasing, forcing existing players to concentrate on production at the expense of development, whilst "new entry" competitors concentrated upon new innovations to give them market share.

This explains why Nikon is churning out large numbers of low specification cameras, and new players are offering innovative products. I am of the opinion that history is about to repeat itself!

The Japanese have a manufacturing philosophy of Kaizen - small incremental improvements to a product. That worked fine for the last century, but is not such a hot idea now. Buyers want massive quantum leaps in technology.

The "new" economies work differently. They offer instant quantum leap technology, and saturate economic segments, sliding down segment by segment. New adopters pay dearly, within months the product is a consumer item. (My first CD player cost $1000. Now I can buy a DVD player for $50).

Those new economies are now making DSLRs - or what i would call a DSLR. It may have no mirror, and a fixed lens, but it looks like a DSLR to the punter, and performs like one.

I agree with a lot of what you say Terry, but I think within 6 years Nikon will be out of the camera business. We can but wait and see. I for one will not buy another Nikon until they get off their backsides and give me value for money. Right now I don’t see it.

PS – according to a report that was on the web last month, Nikon were going to sell out lock stock and barrel to Sony. The deal fell through, but if they were confident of their position, why would they sell?

6:44 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#26 nick in japan

Ross, I couldnt keep the valves adjusted properly, seemed like the heat was just too much, or something???
Nikon has alot of fans in the world, that factor and also their fingers in alot of other areas probably will keep them competitive for quite a while... Almost a national instiution here!
There is no need for the primitive mirror system, perfecting the EVF is the future, that's the ONLY complaint I have with my 10/20D.
My dream bike, Ross, is the Yamaha MT-01, retro look and gobs of smiles per mile. I will never get one, unless I hit the Lotto, just like to dream, big bucks!

8:25 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#27 Nigel Taylor

It seems my comments yesterday stirred up a lot of discussion.

I suspect that 3/5 years from now many keen amateur club photographers will carry two camera bodies (just like we used to do with film) one with an APS sized chip and the other full size. That way we will have the focal length multiplier for telephoto work and the wide angle for landscape etc. From my experience with Canon the top quality optics on the market produce exceptionally good results with Digital as they did with Film. With my current EOS20D Noise is near non existent at all but the very highest ISO setting and similarly Colour Fringing no problem at all. When pricing allows me to buy a 5D or one of its full frame successors there seems no doubt that picture quality will be even better, although I'm not currently sure how that will be possible.

The move to full frame sensors seems to be based on two requirements. The first is to restore the performance of wide angle lenses where few photographers want to have to ditch their current expensive optics. However the second area is picture quality vis a vis colour fringing, noise and pixel count. The first two areas do seem very well under control by Canon although to a slightly lesser extent by Nikon, although this is probably maily to do with their absence from the full frame market. The final point seems to be being driven by the consumer but is it really necessary. Surely a camera like the EOS5D or 1DS Mk2 is as much as anyone should need. It seems that Noise and Fringing gets worse as pixels are forced smaller to squeeze them on the chips. Why increase the pixel count any further? Few of us need to print beyond A3 size and both these cameras provide ample quality for that purpose even if the 5D still falls marginally short of the magic 300ppi. As long as we crop our original picture correctly we really shouldn't need more.

11:49 am - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#28 nick in japan

I agree with you, Nigel, except that Nikon , has indeed, done a great job with CMOS development. A look at the test results of the 4mb D2Hs, has to make a believer out of everyone, well, almost everyone. I love taking different cameras to a shoot, for the same reasons I brought the varied film cameras, of not so long ago. There is a different look to Sony images, compared to Canon, there is the wonderful feeling of not having to reset a camera, rather , just grab a different one that is already set-up with it's filter, mode, or adjustment, to produce that different look. The Infrared images on the F-707, the solarized infrared, on the F-828, the Telephoto effect with the "Bigma" on the 20D and the wide view from the Tokina with the 12-24 on the 10D.... AND the 72 sequential Velvia shots from the 25 year old half frame.
I am happy with what I use, I would be happier if compact camera makers would put CMOS sensors in their pocket cameras, and let us do QUALITY images right out of our shirt pocket, without having to employ noise reduction steps in Photoshop, or another software program. We are ALMOST there!
I dont need a full sized sensor, nor an expensive pro camera, the 2/3, APS is good enough!
We are being denied CMOS in pocket cameras, a calculated decision to keep us at a certain level, I'm sure, why?, because CMOS is in all cell phones that have integrated cameras, that tells me they have the ability to do anything they want with CMOS... except give us a noiseless image in pocket cameras! Sure! What would that do to DSLR sales? Yep! you're right!!

12:32 pm - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#29 Ross

Printing beyond A3 isnt really the issue. the problem is when we start to crop.

Cropping costs pixels, and when we start out with only about 8 million we cannot aford to lose them :)

At least digitals force us to get in close and fill the frame....

I dont think it the greater number of pixels that cause the problems with noise etc, I am pretty asure its the software handling the conversion to digital.

Maybe the digital camera of the future will be modular like the IBM PC. You will select your CCD/CMOS, add your custom software, slap in a bit of RAM etc. (I should pull my E10 apart and have a play with it) :)

1:30 pm - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#30 nick in japan

The E10 is capable of some awesome images!!

1:43 pm - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#31 Ross

It is, which is really why i have not replaced it. For its age, and despite being several generations behind the best, its still pretty good.

2:05 pm - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#32 nick in japan

When you get ready to get rid of it, maybe we can do some kind of trade, I would love it for my collection, it is, indeed , a classic! Gotta hit the sack, gonna drive over to Masuda tomorrow and do some beachcombing, pictures on the other side of the Island, a much better looking Sea than this, Seto-Benjo!
Oyasuminasai!

2:15 pm - Saturday, January 28, 2006

#33 Keith

KM posted significant operating losses on both the business and imaging sides of the business. I for one cannot understand the KM merger in the first place but I suspect KM's focus is no longer on imaging either film or digital and they were looking for a buyer. Sony's acquisition may well be a good thing to ensure the brand endures in some way although Sony's track record in that department is not good.

Most other people won't know or care about Minolta's passing. As a Minoltaphile I hope the brand endures and ends up keeping the Minolta soul rather than becoming another Sony appliance.

1:50 pm - Sunday, February 26, 2006

#34 Paul

What I find a little worrying about this situation is the limiting effect it may have on competition. If we end up with 2 or 3 manufacturers then the rational could well be that there are plenty of customers to go round so we need not compete on prices, we can all make hay while the sun shines.
As some have pointed out there may be new entries into the D-SLR market, that may prevent this scenario.
It always makes me a little sad to see what were once "legends" in their field fall due to lack of adapting to modern market conditions. But I guess that is the reality of business. It's not like KM's cameras were "crap", they were actually pretty good. So what went wrong? Marketing strategy? Product placement? I'm sure these and a hundred other questions have been asked at their board meetings, and doubt even they are sure of the answer. If they were they could regroup and make a comeback.

9:31 am - Thursday, March 9, 2006

#35 B-.

I am actually thinking of buying a KM7D this weekend. Seems like a good camera that performs good for a very decent price these days. I am - indeed - betting on Sony prolonging the life of the KM Bajonet, and do understand the risk, but willing to take it. Canon 20D would be better but is too expensive and I dont want to spend too much on a "hobby" - although I do love photography. Its not the onyl passtime I have.

9:04 pm - Thursday, March 9, 2006