I'll chip in on this one if that's okay, Titoy. When I was a 13 year old
shopping for my first SLR in 1970 the Minolta SLRs were outstanding values.
Solid pro-quality cameras and lenses and a complete system that was an
excellent value compared with Nikons. (Tho' I've been a Canon user for many
years now, I knew little or nothing about the line in 1970 because nobody I
knew used one.)
While I didn't buy a Minolta at the time (a short but uninteresting story in
itself), over the years I've continued to be impressed with how well the SRT
line has held up. The bodies are nearly indestructible and the lenses have
proven to be among the best ever made. Even Minolta's Celtic line of
value-priced lenses were, and are, excellent performers and very well built.
A Celtic 135mm f/2.8 we once had was the best 135mm I've ever used -
incredible clarity, if I may use a nebulous term.
Also, if you're just dying to own a lens in the now-trendy 40mm-45mm, f/2
focal length, you can still buy the Minolta version for less than $50. In
fact, that's too high - $15 is more appropriate for this plasticky
paperweight. It's not a bad lens at the middle apertures. But who cares
about quality when it's trendy. Just don't stick it on an SRT, which would
swallow it whole and ask for seconds. It belongs on something like an XD5,
the rough equivalent to the OM-double digit/letter series.
Best of all, most of the manual focus SLR lenses Minolta ever made (and the
third party Minolta mount lenses) will work with all of the Minolta manual
focus SLRs. That's 30-something years of continuity, something few if any
other camera makers can claim. (The Pentax K-mount is only around 20 years
old, the Nikon mounts are not all interchangeable with all Nikon bodies, and
Canon abandoned the FD line around 10 years ago.)
Unfortunately for Minolta and Minolta fans, they didn't build upon the rock
solid feel of the SRT line and instead began cheapening the bodies beginning
with the X-series. Even when they made a pro-quality camera they failed to
market themselves as aggressively as Canon. And, let's face it, while I am
a Canon fan their success is primarily due to marketing, not superior
product. Canons are *as good as* any other camera made...but not better.
The difference is that Canon has persuaded many, many people that it *is* a
superior line.
Worse for Minolta, they also cheapened their once-superior optics. Even
tho' some current Minolta lenses have excellent ratings they're still
battling the stigma they saddled themselves with when they introduced their
first AF SLRs.
Anyway, by the time I got into the Canon line about 10 years ago I could
just as easily have been persuaded to buy an old Minolta SRT 101. But Canon
mount lenses in good condition were more readily available in my area so
that cinched the decision. Feature-wise, they were a toss up. Both were
equally large and heavy (my first Canon was an FTbn, a beast compared with
an OM-1). Both had depth of field preview and mirror lockup. Both had
unique, if different, metering patterns.
Yeah, I could easily be persuaded to add an SRT and a 58mm f/1.2 to my
collection...someday. Not for any particular reason.
Meanwhile, tho' it got a later start, Olympus carved out a niche that
remains unique today - the small, manual focus SLR with a complete system.
Pentax tried to share that niche and faltered. Nobody else has even
bothered to try. Not because the niche isn't economically desirable - the
huge success of the Canon Rebel line proves that many people want a small,
lightweight SLR. I theorize that other makers don't want to risk losing
money on a market already dominated by Olympus. Sure, it's a small market.
But extremely loyal and devoted, as this list demonstrates.
I've been using an OM-1 for less than a year now (to supplement, not
replace, my Canons). I love the compact size and light weight. In
comparison my Canon FTbn feels like a studio camera. But I wouldn't
compromise quality. Zuiko optics equal Canon in every respect, and exceed
some Canon FD lenses in build quality. Also, to the best of my knowledge,
there is no Zuiko that's an absolute stinker (tho' some folks have
criticized, I believe, an early variant of the 50mm f/1.4 SC). Canon, OTOH,
has sold some truly bad zooms, and even a couple of their "desirable" primes
don't match up to the Zuiko (see Gary Reese's tests of the Canon 85mm and
Zuiko 85mm).
But I digress...
===
Lex
===
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|