RE: [Leica] Why Minolta?

["Bergman, Mark A." <mabergm@nppd.com>]

I have not used any of the recent Minolta lenses.  But I have used plenty in
the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's.  Sorry but in my opinion they suck.  just
my opinion.  rather use pentax.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dan Cardish [mailto:dcardish@microtec.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 9:47 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Why Minolta?


Do any of you experts actually use modern Minolta lenses? (I do)   Or are
you the sort of people who look out the window and conclude that the Earth
is flat because it is obvious?


Dan C.

At 10:20 AM 22-08-00 -0700, Dan Post wrote:
>Axel-
>I thinkthe question is a bit more involved than a simple "no'- just in my
>opinion. Not wanting to start a flame war, I will say that in part I agree
>with you. MInolta chooses to sell to a much broader market. They make and
>sell lenses that are servicable to a large portion of the market, and while
>they are probably indistinguishable from the issue from Canon, Nikon, and
>Pentax, they serve the purpose for which they were designed- and built.
>I am sure that when they make the lenses for Leica- and I have had a couple
>of them, that the materials, and quality control standards are those of
>Leicas, and that Minolta 'raises the bar' so to speak, higher than they do
>for their own products. They also have to charge more. I am  sure that many
>of the modern lens makers- from Cosina, to whatever, could and would make
>lenses of the same quality as Leica if the market would support it, but
>Leica has firmly entrenched itself in the 'quality' high end lens market,
>and it would be quite costly, and probably not cost effective for say,
>Cosina, to make its lenses to Leica standards. They are satisfied, for
>example to have a 'runner up' status, and sell a lot of their Heliars and
>Skopars at a lower price- all the while knowing they don't quite match
>Leica's quality, but being good enough to draw the audiance they do
attract!
>I see a Hologon on sale for $8000, and while it might be what a narrow
>market will buy, I can see that Cosina with a $400 Heliar will make a lot
>more money, and sell many more lenses at that price. It goes without saying
>that they probably could copy the Hologon, and make it to the same
standards
>as Zeiss, but then, they would be competing with Zeiss head on and would
>likely sell very few lenses. In a way- they 'Know Their Place'! And they
>continue to sell relatively large numbers of Heliars to the Hoi-polloi like
>myself, because with it gets down to an 8x10, or a web photo- the
difference
>between the $8000 lens and the $400 lens is not all that apparent.
>Sure, I appreciate a fine single malt (trying to stay on topic here!!!) but
>there are time, like when I have a taste for a Scotch Collins ( Oh, I can
>hear the moans!), or as we call it here- a pink lemonade- that I use a
>blend. It'
>s cheaper, and serves the purpose as well or better than mixing a single
>malt (Heresy- burn him! burn him!)
>So- In short.... Minolta probably COULD build a lens of Leica calibre, but
>NO they don't, since it wouldn't be practical for the vast majority of
their
>market.
>Dan ( Humming "If I Only Had a Brain" while I type!) Post
> > > Does Minolta match the high optical knowledge and quality of Leica?
>>
>> No. 'Nuff said.
>>
>> Axel
>>
>
>
>