Slashdot Mirror
Konica Minolta Quits Photography Market
halenger writes "Japanese photographic equipment maker Konica Minolta has announced plans to withdraw from the camera business. Konica Minolta said the market had become too competitive, and added it would sell its digital camera business to Japanese electronics giant Sony." From the article: "Its decision to ditch the camera business altogether includes the cessation of its colour film and photo paper business, in which it has trailed Eastman Kodak of the US and Japan's Fuji Photo Film. Instead, it plans to focus on products such as colour office photocopiers and medical imaging equipment." We just recently reported on the decision by Nikon to go completely digital.
means the competition's cameras are too cheap and we have no margin left...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
the same thing happened to 16mm film in the news business around 1978 - 1979. ENG minicams and tape started infiltrating newsrooms, and everybody was saying they'd keep both. we moved our color processor into the basement, and I built a splash pan for the open-bottom drain. frezzolini was saying their next cameras would be computer-controlled and monitored to the extent that you would know which cell of the battery pack was dying.
but this coincided with kodak's deciding to drop E4 for E6 color processing, and E6 was desperately sensitive to water pH. in other words, all of a sudden, your film came out either deep blue or wildly yellow.
this plus the one-time nature of film costs put film out of business in our 8-station tv operation in four months.
if you can find ANY new film cameras, ANY, offered in one year, it will be a major surprise. I suspect canon and nikon will offer one more digital back for their F lines, and that will be it. the major players in one-use supermarket cameras will be offering digital one-shots by next christmas, probably on the order of grill gas bottles... pay $50 up front, swap the camera for $10 when this one is full.
glorious silver halide photography, R I P. don't dip a finger to taste the developer any more, it's done.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Japanese photographic equipment maker Konica Minolta has announced plans to withdraw from the camera business."
Was this a well-thought out resolution? Or just a snap decision?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I have an old Minolta SLR camera. It is roughly as old as me (well, it could conceivably be older, I don't really know). All the important controls are manual -- focus, aperature, speed. It takes great pictures. Much better than my wife's auto-everything camera. Not that I have a flash.... but who needs a flash when you can brace the camera against a wall or a knee and take really long exposures?
Upon first hearing the news that Minolta was getting out of the camera business, I thought, time to upgrade.
On the other hand, the only thing I buy for this camera is film.
My one complaint is its size. I guess you can't get everything.
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
*sigh*
And another one bites the dust.
I've got two Minolta 35mm film SLR cameras, (an old 7-series, and a much newer Maxxum 4). They're not professional-grade cameras by any means, but I like them far more than any digital camera I can afford to buy. Minolta dropping out of the camera business entirely probably means that finding accessories for them is going to suddenly become difficult.
And I still need a good flash for the Maxxum, as well as various lenses for each.
Looks like I'm being left behind by the march of technology, and it's really too bad. I won't argue that digital isn't better than film in almost all respects, but I really enjoy making B&W prints in my little darkroom (and, honestly, I have yet to see a digital camera that can give you authentic-looking B&W. I don't know the technical reason, but I can always tell the difference between a picture that's just been desaturated, and an actual B&W). The more niche it becomes, the less I'm going to be able to afford it.
*shrug*
Call me a luddite, but losing the environment wherein you can buy a decent camera and expect your kids to use it after they grow up in favor of the fast-paced furor of modern electronics sort of depresses me. It used to be all about the photographer: a talented amateur with a fairly cheap 35mm camera could take pictures all but indistinguishable from those taken by an average pro if they just used quality film/paper. That is, the stuff that made all the technical difference on the print was the cheap stuff. Now, the stuff that makes all the technical difference on the print is the expensive stuff.
I'm not a serious artist, and I can't afford to spend serious artist money on just a fun thing I like to do. Looks like the market is squeezing my hobby out.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
KM will be making DSLRs and glass for Sony (they've been working together since last summer, apparently the first ones will simply be rebranded KM), their consumer point&shoot cameras do indeed appear dead. However, I think the real news here is that Sony may suddenly be a DSLR player. With KM expertise (the 7D and 5D are quite good) in making cameras (and their in-camera anti-shake patents) coupled with Sony's sensor experience (Sony makes the ccds for everybody save Canon), Sony will suddenly have a vertically integrated DSLR business, with proven and well known lens availability (a big barrier to acceptance of new DSLR by pros and prosumers). Canon is the only other company that matches this. That said, keep the -expletive deleted- memory stick out of 'em!
Film is dead. Digital at 11.
We've become accustomed now to imagery being cheap, fast, and easy. It makes us look at the effort required to achieve a chemical photograph - and maybe even the value of the result - a lot differently.
"of course the sad day for digital has already come,... all these people with top of the line digital SLRs that have no clue how to use them "
How typical of the elite mindset. I own a digital slr (proud owner of a Canon Rebel XT) and have no clue on how to use it besides auto mode. But guess what! Digital SLR'S made photography actually fun fun for me and actually pushed me to learn more. So, sad day? I don't know it's your call I guess
Just to go off topic for a bit. My wife just recently bought a Konica-Minolta Magicolor 2430-DL printer. Great printer, great price, reasonable priced consumables. The built in ethernet print server supports OSX and Linux out of the box.
I didn't even know they made printers. Much less good ones.
You can get them for $350 (if I remember correctly) at Costco. It's a much better deal then the inkjet ripoff.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
And if they decide to cut us all off? Oh well - I'll still be using my shiny new Maxxum 5D (picking it up Saturday) until it finally dies and Sony decides to not support it anymore. This will likely be quite a long time, because in my experience almost every SLR I've owned was built to last. My old Maxxum 7, Maxxum 5, and Maxxum Qt-si are still cranking away after literal years of abuse (the old Maxxum 7 most of all - it's been beaten to within an inch of its life on my trips to the backcountry throughout the US West, and it still happily comes to life whenever I want it to).
Sad to see them go, though - it's kind of cool to have image stabilization without the need to buy image-stabilized lenses.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I wield a KM 5D, and I dread naught. In fact, I find the move rather delightful in what promises are held for me. For one, I'm likely to be able to use my lenses on an SLR equivalent with an EVF (Electronic ViewFinder), meaning that lacking a mirror in front of the CCD I'll be able to capture high-res video. This basically turns what used to be a still camera into a HDTV video camera. Couple it with KM's Anti-Shake system and suddenly a world of new possibilities open up.
Another benefit I get is better support for my camera. Yet another the name recognition to increase the second-hand value of my gear. Further Sony's hit-and-miss tendency technology-wise means I'm likely to see all sorts of experimental features in models that come and go, giving new photographic opportunities. All point toward a bright bright feature.
My only concern is that Sony might jump on the Microsoft-only bandwagon, with encrypted file formats & ilk. Yet, with Sony marketing the PS3 as a computer, Linux support might not be a mere pipe-dream. If they do support Linux they will be the only manufacturer to do so, and might grab some additional market-share because of this. This would be enough to redeem them from the rootkit fiasco in my eyes.
All rites reversed 2010
8 bits of brightness per subpixel which is fine for most situations ... but duplicating nature can require about 20 bits
I'm not buying it. Where's the proof?
Check out http://kenrockwell.com/tech/ev.htm...the Light Value scale is logarithmic, each additional Light Value is twice the intensity of light of the previous value. The highest LV you'd see is about 20, the lowest about -15, but those wouldn't be in the same scene. Since LV 20 is basically looking straight into the sun, and LV 1 is typical outdoor scene at night, probably 20 bits is an exaggeration.
On the other hand, my Nikon D50 has 12 bits of dynamic range and it certainly is possible to both blow out highlights and underexpose shadows in the same scene.
Of course, this all gets more complicated by the fact that one usually applies some sort of non-linear gamma curve to remap the intensity levels to something more closely approximating the human eye's response, which means that 8-bit intensity coding using a gamma curve can almost capture the 12 bits of "linear" response of the Nikon sensor (I put "linear" in quotes because it seems more like an exponential to me, but whatever).
All is Number -Pythagoras.
Konica films in general, were not, IMO, that great to begin with. Compared to other colour films from Fuji and Kodak, they always seemed a step behind. Thier one, unique product, Konica 750, was a black & white, near infra-red film.
But Konica 750 was usually only available once a year, while other IR and near IR films could and can be bought year round. Also, other near IF films from other companies, were, IMO, overall better films. I know, I used Konica 750, Maco 820, Ilford SFX, Kodak HSI (no longer made) and more. Konica 750 was pretty much my last choice for near IR films.
So for me, hearing that there is no more Konica film, while, that's almost like saying "sorry, no more Lada's". Yes, I did drive a Lada once, a famiily member owned one. the experience was "interesting".
Bear in mind that it's basic marketing 101 to make the "death of film" a self fullfilling prophecy. My 25 year old Nikon 35mm cameras works just as good as the day they were brand new, and i know guys using 50 year cameras they bought used. But my 4 year old Olympus digital camera, soon to be 5 years old, while it works fine, is pretty much toast. The memory cards are hard to find, and everybody tells me "soon no longer supported", and the specific USB cable to connect it to my computer is no longer made, and parts for it, should it break, are no longer supported, the drivers for it are all Win 98, etc, etc.
Think about it - you own a big camera company - what makes you more money in the long run? A camera that is useable for 25 + years, or a camera that needs to be replaced about every 5 years?
Also, the finer, higher quality, double weight, black & white photo paper you can buy for a wet darkroom, on a sheet by sheet basis, is still less money than most comparable, high quality, "photo grade" papers for inkjet or laser printers. I've done some side by side comparisons in the past - colour or black & white - it is more money to run a "digital darkroom" than a "wet darkroom" in terms of both hardware and consumable supplies.
I am not here to fence with anybody on which is better, film or digital. totlaly useless arguement - there is room and need for both, and i use both. I just feel, reading posts here and elsewhere on the internet, that many people seem to avoid or skim over or not pay enough attention to the fact that there is a real, definite, * long term * financial advantage to all the large companies to convince John Q Pulic that film is "no good" and go all digital on many different levels. ths is the driving force behind the "death of film" or whatever you want to call it.
Film still has several advantages, and always will, but these advantages for differnet situations, IMO, are totally ignored in the marketing rush to digital.
Put it this way, the fact i own a car does not mean I was ever in a rush to dump my bicycle. In fact, I seem to be using my bicycle more and more these past few years. We may find the same is true for film.
There have been a number of others that have, for example, started out as German companies, then the name was bought and a Japanese company sold cameras under that name for a while, and finally the whole venture died, but Konica (the company itself, not just the name) has now exited the camera business for a second time. I'm not sure, but offhand, I can't think of anybody else who's really done that.
My other minor observation is that this seems a prime example of a theory I've been building for quite a while: to do well in the market, doing brilliant things matters a lot less than avoiding doing much that's really stpuid.
Konica and Minolta combined absolute brilliance with astounding stupidity. Canon (for one) has never introduced a feature like autofocus that has completely transformed the market, but they've mostly avoided massive stupidity, so the dominate the market.
Those who care to look might easily see something similar in comparing Apple with Microsoft.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.