Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 02:49 PM 8/15/96 EDT, you wrote: >I can't speak for others but I fail to see the relevance of the testimony >of a "sponsored" spokesperson. This was a personal discussioin I had in the kitchen of my photojournalilsm professor, not some public lecture where Harry has to be a Minolta cheerleader. He was very candid about his relationship with Minolta, and the reasons he uses the cameras. And Harry is a good shooter, recognized as one of the top celeb. photograhers in the world. Shoot, he got Nancy Regan to ride a rocking horse for Life magazine! >>course, he uses their top-line pro camera. Which is all metal, very reliable >>and extremely fast. Their lenses stand up to the abuse that Nikon and >>Canon's does. You played with the lates AF versions in either of those >>lines? Hardly rugged by any standard. Pure poppeycock. I use the EOS1n with the 70-200 2.8 L series lens every day. Now for over a year. And I'll stack it up against anything out there except maybe Leica M and Alpa for ruggedness. Nikon's F5/4/3/2 were are super tough cameras. We're talking pro cameras here. The Minolta SRT series had a reputation among professional photographers who actually USE cameras at work as built like tanks. I see people using them even today. And sure many of minolta's pieces are not terribly rugged. They have pretty much abaondoned the pro market with the demise of the XK. But they do have one pro quality camera in their lines at all times, and many pros use them. Leica also seem to have a reputation for not so good reliability, in some circles, as does every other manufacturer. Just depends on who you talk to. I'm sure your experience with Minolta's repair history is true, but what breaks most? An XK, 9Xi, or the X70, and other cheapies? >I, in turn, wonder what information you based this conclusion on. I have >personally never found any of the AF equipment to be a reliable long term >investment. Admittedly, my requirements may be a little unusual as I spend >a great portion of my shooting time in the Arctic creating work for AF has nothing to do with it. You can buy Nikon and Canon and Minolta stuff that's built tough, and other stuff that's not. The Canon EOS1n will match the R7 or R6.2 for ruggedness, and pretty much beat it. But, there are advantages to a thumb wind in the world you shoot in. That's going the way of the dodo if rumors about the R8 are true. The lenses are another story. The Canon L series are close the the R and M lenses, but no cigar. You are right there, for sure. But for most pro use, there can be argumetns that less rugged, more disposable lenses might be the ticket. Like maybe someone who shoot's in dangerous situtations where they lose a lot of hardware. We can come up with all sorts of reasons for going either way. For most people, it's a moot point. Anything would serve their needs. And besides, it's not the pros that support any camera system short of medium format. ================== Eric Welch Grants Pass Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB Chair