What's Behind the Camera Market Collapse

Its called a metaphor.

And whst happened to minolta is relevent as part of the discussion.
 
OK.. Go hoer:

KONICA MINOLTA

Konica-Minolta is still VERY MUCH ALIVE and well making copiers WITH THE MINOILTA BLUE DOT symbol.

This is critical in the discussion of this.

The patent for the old SR mounts of Minolts expired decades ago. Minolta no longer owns or has control over the SR mount design, and they SOLD the rights and intellectual aspect of the A-Mount (formally known as the Minolta Automatic, hence "A Mount) and it was re-branded by sony to "Alpha" mount.

This is because sony though taking over the system wanted their own legacy process. BUT does NOT own the name "Minolta", the branding or the logos. just he photo hardware designs.

You talk about why a brand matters, and in all honesty and in the grand scheme of things... not a damn thing. its all Fan-Boy garbage.
But, the brand identifies who made something and the market determines if that brand goes on living or dying.

GM almost disappeared under our previous illustrious president.

Ford almost bought it in the 1970's with their brilliant moves of Mustang II, Pinto, Fairmont, the luxo-boat Cougars (formally a muscle car) and the early version of the Escort. And their desire to make more money off of repairs than the car itself. It almost killed the brand after Lee Iacocca left.

Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica
 
Still waiting to hear how a former US president almost caused The Disappearance of General Motors.

Alex is holding on line three for you.
 
GM literally had to cut V8s in half during the 70s because they have zero grasp of the market.

They feel into a similar rabbit hole in the late 2000s with the HUMMER brand. A had to cut other incredibly crummy brands like daewoo, pontiac, saturn, oldsmobile.

GM was falling before Obama came around, an injection of cash straight into the blood stream didn't seem to cure their AIDS.


Hell, the came to market with a plug-in car, WHICH IS ALL THE FREAKING RAGE RIGHT NOW, and still failed so freaking hard. They couldn't even design it to seat 5 people...or have incredibly bad press with the fake "sudden acceleration" issue like Toyota had to deal with. I mean, the LEAF did better than it. The LEAF. smh
 
Last edited:
So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, GM caused the camera business to decline precipitously, due to their introduction of a lame electric car. Right?
 
So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, GM caused the camera business to decline precipitously, due to their introduction of a lame electric car. Right?

nailed it.
 
Sad how wildly OT frothing is irresistible for some.
 
Sad how wildly OT frothing is irresistible for some.

Kind of like constantly second-guessing large multinational corporations based upon a small circle of Canadian friends... irresistible.
 
In the video that was part of the original post, the video producer cites the fact that cameras have become sufficient and that even though we may have a camera that's a little bit old, it will do everything we need. Over the past few days I have gone back and looked at some of the photos I've made as far back as 2003 and the best photos even with 2.7 megapixel cameras ( the Nikon D1 and D1h), and 6-megapixel cameras (Nikon D70 and D40, Canon 10D, and 12-12.8 megapixel (Nikon D2x and Canon 5D) still "hold up"....

People no longer need to buy a new digital camera for good results. If you have a model that was introduced from 2009 onward, you will not be getting that much of a performance increase, in most cases of regular everyday photography.
 
In the video that was part of the original post, the video producer cites the fact that cameras have become sufficient and that even though we may have a camera that's a little bit old, it will do everything we need. Over the past few days I have gone back and looked at some of the photos I've made as far back as 2003 and the best photos even with 2.7 megapixel cameras ( the Nikon D1 and D1h), and 6-megapixel cameras (Nikon D70 and D40, Canon 10D, and 12-12.8 megapixel (Nikon D2x and Canon 5D) still "hold up"....

People no longer need to buy a new digital camera for good results. If you have a model that was introduced from 2009 onward, you will not be getting that much of a performance increase, in most cases of regular everyday photography.
But you wont be able to take a RAW image at 24 megapixels, with a 2,000@ camera, of your whole wheat bagel that cost you 8$ at the trendy diner
 
I’m not sure you’ll need a Leica for that, you use that for when you want to take a pic of the flat white at your (not so) local coffee place. But remember to bring a mac and wear that hipster clothing too, you don’t want to look out of place, and preferably some hip philosophical or social realistic book too, that you can place next too that coffee, it looks great on Instagram and then you can pretend like you read that **** and drink cofffee too, but we both know you don’t, but what dos it matter, You followers don’t know.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top