From Minoltas to Sony DSLRs and SLTs

great article, but sad to see my most used lens(min 28-70G) overlooked, when talking what lens could give the ZA 24-70 a run for its money

Fabulous stuff. Pretty pleased that a lot of the picks are in my camera bag.

It is because of Maxxum magic that many of us are here!

Romke see this

Zack wrote: Romke see this

Thanks

Hi,

Yes indeed a great article. Being a Minolta user since 1969, I have been aware of much of this. During my years as amateur photographer it felt like being part of a big family of Minolta users. Although the contacts via Internet forums didn't exist at the time, Minolta kept the family feeling alive by constantly renewing and expanding their product line, and reassuring that your past investment in Minolta products was keeping its value. All those years until 1985 there never has been any moment that I regretted not being part of the Canon or Nikon or Olympus or Pentax family. In 1985 when the A-mount was launched I more or less disconnected. I was in the age of having young children, used my Minolta gear heavily and didn't have budget to care about more lenses or consider the step to A-mount.
After 2000 my interest on what was happening in the SLR scene reappeared. While my children grew up and became self-supporting the photo-scene moved towards the digital age. Around 2004 the evolution of the digital camera reached the point that affordable gear could make better pictures as my analogue film based gear could, and while considering to start over with a new DSLR, Minolta got into financial troubles. Sony did a great start in bringing new life in the Minolta family. So in 2008 I rejoined the Minolta family with digital A-mount gear. But despite every effort that Sony put in DSLR/SLT/ILCE lines it requires Dyxum to bring the family feeling back, because Sony has made some big mistakes that a family father wouldn't.
The problem with the current line up is that it is not one family but rather four half related families. And though they bring out great new stuff that outperforms Canon and Nikon in the same price range, they have forgotten to care for their existing family members. What I am most of all missing is the feeling that your investment is protected and enhanced by subsequent new products.
You cannot prevent advance in technology replacing older technology, but you can do more to bring the benefits of newer technology to existing users who are willing to invest in extension of their gear rather than replacing. If I replace my gear with newer products why should I again choose for Minolta/Sony? If I extend, the question never comes up. Some examples:

1. The A-700 had a great feature: dual memory slots, apart from the opportunity to use this feature for continuous pictures even when a memory card gets full, or having RAW and JPG written simultaneously to dual media, it also provides a migration path for newer technology when you want to phase out the older CF card in favor of SD or (why not) Sony's own XQD. In subsequent camera models, Sony could have made a second cardslot, either builtin or in a vertical grip or similar add-on
2. Was it absolutely necessary to discontinue a cameratype so soon after a new model was launched that was incompatible in one or more of its interfaces: (CF-card replaced by SD-card; Battery FM500 replaced by FW50, flash shoe changed from Minolta standard to something else; A-mount changed to E-mount; vertical grip different for each model year, even when the battery is the same.
3. No clear strategy APS-C or FF or both

This constant changing of interface is prohibitive in the build-up of a long term investment in gear that belongs to the same family. And although this argument may hold less for professionals who more frequently buy the high-end stuff, make the most and the best pictures, the volume comes from the prosumers who during their lifetime keep investing in the build-out of a gear collection. Still Sony has time to fill the gaps, but if they continue on this way their innovations may be a year ahead of Canon and Nikon, but the long term strategy will work against them, and in the end they may loose the Minolta community and thus their identity.

Edited by overeema - 08 November 2014 at 06:23

romke wrote: hrstrat57 wrote: It is because of Maxxum magic that many of us are here! No doubt that that is true for those who shot Minolta prior for it being taken over. However, i wonder whether the majority of the Dyxumers still has a "Minolta-past". I myself don't - my first digital camera was a Sony a900, bought because it got rather difficult to obtain film, chemicals and paper at reasonable prices. When i got the a900 i retired my 2 Canon F1's from the seventies within a few weeks    My only experience with Minolta was the IIIF exposure meter, that still functions. I guess on Dyxum there are nowadays quite a few people around that never shot Minolta - and that just arrived here because they bought a Sony camera based on their actual features. It would be interesting to know whether the majority of the Dyxumers still have a Minolta past or that they started shooting with Sony coming from other manufacturers.

Well I've never shot a Minolta in my life. I bought into Sony because the A200 was a massive bargain at the time and then I bought an A850 for the same reason. I do however proper love the Maxxum lenses, or rather I love quite a number of them. I've heard some people on here be a bit disdainful about the idea of the "Minolta look" but I can't help feeling that it does exist and I really like it.

addy landzaat wrote: Well, those "Maxxum lenses" you talk about are only Maxxum in the States. Over here (including the UK) they're just AF lenses. Also, Europeans and the world outside the US and Japan refer to cameras by the Dynax name, not Maxxum. There is a (small) error in the original article (that is also there on Wikipedia). Dynax wasn't the original name of the Minolta AF mount in Europe, in fact it never was the name of the mount, only cameras were named Dynax, not lenses. Also, it wasn't original, the first generation (7000, 9000) weren't named Dynax, the second generation (Dynax 7000i) was named Dynax.

OK sure. You know what I mean though. The generation of Alpha mount lenses from the 80s is a bit of a mouthful...