DSLRUsers.com

Anyone else shooting with Minolta gear?
It seems lonely here

I use a Konica-Minolta negative scanner. Does that count?

I still have a couple of minolta 35mm SLR's but I don't use them anymore.

I have shares in Sony

Peter Mc

Yeah, sorta.

I had a 7D loaner for about 2 months last year. Still have regular access to one.

Interesting camera and feature set - keen on how you can pretty much use it without ever going in to the menus (but a top LCD would be handy).

Was a bit disappointed with the on-board flash - sometimes you'd end up with chronically underexposed images.

Filum cameras and scanners sort of count

My personal opinion is that the 7d exceeds every current non pro DSLR in controlability - a really ergonomically photographer designed unit.
I agree about the flash.

I am currently agonising over a new flash. Thinking Metz 54MZ4 in case the Sony replacement flash and/or cameras don't make the grade.

Still have my S R T 101

I use the KM 7D. Previously Minolta 800si.

Stebsy...are you related to Stubbsy?

Hi Matt, not that I'm aware of.

Hrmmm - a Stubbsy AND a Stebsy, both from Newcastle!

I used to shoot Minolta, and would probably have held out for their DLSR, but they wacked a dirty Konica logo on it! Still have some Minolta gear, or at least my sister-inlaw does

sheepie wrote:Hrmmm - a Stubbsy AND a Stebsy, both from Newcastle!

I used to shoot Minolta, and would probably have held out for their DLSR, but they wacked a dirty Konica logo on it! Still have some Minolta gear, or at least my sister-inlaw does

Well actually its a Minolta Logo with the word Konica added to it. Of course all moot these days as the next ones will say Sony....good bad or indifferent that will be the interesting thing to see.

Anyone shoot Minolta?

I would, if I had a gun.

Well actually its a Minolta Logo with the word Konica added to it. Of course all moot these days as the next ones will say Sony....good bad or indifferent that will be the interesting thing to see.[/quote]

The next ones will be badged 'Alpha' and hopefully be a 7D with sony 10Mp sensor.

Matt. K wrote:Stebsy...are you related to Stubbsy?

Not that I know of either

Between the Kodak/Nikon of 1994 and the D1 in 2000 I used the Minolta RD-175. 1.75Mp but with interchangeable lenses. Did the job for awhile.

hi

i bought a minolta X700 a few years ago, then gave it away to my sister.

was a very nice camera.

christian

Anyone shoot Minolta?

I thought Sony just did...

Cheers
Steffen.

Well I have a foot in two camps, Minolta 5D and Canon 20D.
When the lights low or the lens is long, the Minolta is in the hand although I now have a Mono thingy and the Canon gets more of a run.

Hang on, aren't you, checks sig, yes Craig.!

The Minolta has helped me to learn how to use a DSLR, the camera just gave me more confidence with low light and to compensate for the old age hand shake.
I also found that the camera was more natural to use without the reading of manuals, in fact I still have only referenced the manual a few times.


The Canon interface I still find a bit of a dog to use but that would change if used more..
Tried selling the Canon before the 5D and 30D came out with out a bite but had two offers for the Minolta, both from beginners.

The Minolta 7D still does have the best interface of all cameras IMHO.

I'm waiting to see what Sony bring out before deciding what camp to stay in..

Bodak wrote:The Canon interface I still find a bit of a dog to use but that would change if used more.

That's really cruel. Dogs are nice.

The Canon interface does not come across (to me) as being intuitive, natural, or ergonomic. I run out of hands trying to hold this while pushing that and trying to turn something else on the 1DS MkII, all at once, when trying to do something so very basic to the task of photography

I'm waiting to see what Sony bring out before deciding what camp to stay in..

It's sure to be a marvel of <strike>engineering</strike>marketing. . Check the thread on the just-announced Sony Alpha. - the ugly camera thread. Be sure to check the link, and enjoy the marketingspeak that the site's description of this upcoming <strike>piece of shit</strike>masterpiece of engineering is littered with.

Amongst the featrues I'm expecting to see ...

It'll probably have the same battery as the Nikon D750/D70, but with a slightly different casing precluding use of such a battery. Instead, the Sony battery will cost about Au$270.

It will forsake the use of CF cards for the now industry standard Sony Memory Stick. Or was the the Memory Stick Pro? Maybe it was the Memory Stick Duo? Duo Pro? Whataver, the 2GB cards that we're enjoying now for $110 are simply not achieveable in the Sony, and the 1GB cards will cost around Au$200.

Let alone capacities beyond 2GB!

Your copyright on your images will read something like Copyright (c) Sony Corp, Japan. You won't be able to change that without payment of royalties to Sony which will anable you toactually view your images on your pc.

There won't be any Mac or Linux versions of their software.

And yes, I can see the hoardes of pro photographers lining up now to trade in their Canon and Nikkor glass for the high end Sony stuff.

gstark wrote:The Canon interface does not come across (to me) as being intuitive, natural, or ergonomic. I run out of hands trying to hold this while pushing that and trying to turn something else on the 1DS MkII, all at once, when trying to do something so very basic to the task of photography

The 1D-series is different from the D30-thru-30D/5D cameras in this regard. They make a point of not letting you accidentally change settings, but that does have a drawback in terms of ease-of-use.

It will forsake the use of CF cards for the now industry standard Sony Memory Stick.

I would be surprised by this. I expect the Sony Alpha (as distinct from the Minolta Alpha 5D and 7D cameras - the names used in Japan for the current cameras) will use a similar system to the DSC-R1, with CF and MS slots.

While a lot of Sony's cameras are pieces of crap (from a photographer's p.o.v) designed for handbags, they have shown a little aptitude for designing serious cameras. I was quite impressed by the R1 when using one recently, although I wouldn't say it was perfect. It will be interesting to see what they come up with in an SLR.

Wow Gary you sure dropped some serious luggage in that post.
Reading between the lines I take it you don't like Sony

Your response was a bit too american for me. I think it will be easier to jump down their throat after new stuff is released when all those flaws are actual not in people's heads.
My personal thought is that the initial releases will be based heavily on the new models KM were due to release this year. I would think Sony have not had sufficient time to make their own full designed DSLR yet.

So you will probably have to stone KM first

DaveB wrote:

gstark wrote:The Canon interface does not come across (to me) as being intuitive, natural, or ergonomic. I run out of hands trying to hold this while pushing that and trying to turn something else on the 1DS MkII, all at once, when trying to do something so very basic to the task of photography

The 1D-series is different from the D30-thru-30D/5D cameras in this regard. They make a point of not letting you accidentally change settings, but that does have a drawback in terms of ease-of-use.

It's actually very strange, realy. Nikon had that problem solved in the mid-70s, in the FM and FE range. The ISO setting was on a wheel surrounding the film rewind knob, and that wheel had a small locking button. It was easy to use, could be performed one handed, but accidentally changing the settings was really difficult to do.

The only such problem I've percieved in two year's D70 ownership is on the exposure mode wheel, which is too easily bumped in to anything except what you want; this could easily be resolved by reverting to something derived from 30-odd years ago.

It will forsake the use of CF cards for the now industry standard Sony Memory Stick.

I would be surprised by this. I expect the Sony Alpha (as distinct from the Minolta Alpha 5D and 7D cameras - the names used in Japan for the current cameras) will use a similar system to the DSC-R1, with CF and MS slots.

I too will be interested in seeing this. Sony are, above all else, a marketing company, and I can think of no product of their's that requires the use of removeable storage that does not use some form of MS.

This sort of decision, in a company as devoutly marketing focussed as Sony, is going to be dictated by the marketing dickheads and beancounters, rather than the engineers.

It's sad, but I've seen it before, and sadly, I'll see it again.

And again.

And again.

As good as some of the engineers that they employ undoubtedly are, they're not likely to be the ones that make these decisions.

hdj80 wrote:Wow Gary you sure dropped some serious luggage in that post.
Reading between the lines I take it you don't like Sony

Now, there's a big surprise!

You're relatively new in these here parts, arent you?


The truth is that I have very little respect for Sony. As I'm sure you're aware, there's actually quite a significant difference between liking, and respecting.

Sony treat their customers with disdain. They'll sell you a laptop that has zero build quality, and expect you to pay 1/3 the price of it for a replacement battery. Excuse me?

They force you to use their (inferior) memory stick technology in many of their devices. Why? Because they think they are able to trade upon their name.

They will try and force unsual, inept and obscure technological solutions upon their customers when no such need exists.

Why? Because they think you're an idiot.

Their attitude might work with many elements of consumerdom, but it rarely does with those at the pointy end of the discernment spectrum.

If you like - or, hell, even respect - them, then that's fine. Please go right ahead and continue down that path.

But I've been seriously burned by them, and as a consumer, it's my right - my duty even - to let people know of my Sony experiences with them (and others), just as I will when I have good experiences with similar organiisations who may be in competition with them.

gstark wrote:The only such problem I've percieved in two year's D70 ownership is on the exposure mode wheel, which is too easily bumped in to anything except what you want; this could easily be resolved by reverting to something derived from 30-odd years ago.

Agree! What I'd really like to have seen on the D70 is the exposure mode displayed in the top lcd panel like the D200. It's a pain trying to figure out what mode you're in when it's dark!

gstark wrote:

hdj80 wrote:Wow Gary you sure dropped some serious luggage in that post.
Reading between the lines I take it you don't like Sony

Now, there's a big surprise!

You're relatively new in these here parts, arent you?


The truth is that I have very little respect for Sony. As I'm sure you're aware, there's actually quite a significant difference between liking, and respecting.

Sony treat their customers with disdain. They'll sell you a laptop that has zero build quality, and expect you to pay 1/3 the price of it for a replacement battery. Excuse me?

They force you to use their (inferior) memory stick technology in many of their devices. Why? Because they think they are able to trade upon their name.

They will try and force unsual, inept and obscure technological solutions upon their customers when no such need exists.

Why? Because they think you're an idiot.

Their attitude might work with many elements of consumerdom, but it rarely does with those at the pointy end of the discernment spectrum.

If you like - or, hell, even respect - them, then that's fine. Please go right ahead and continue down that path.

But I've been seriously burned by them, and as a consumer, it's my right - my duty even - to let people know of my Sony experiences with them (and others), just as I will when I have good experiences with similar organiisations who may be in competition with them.

I have no experience with Sony at all. I think I have a pair of Sony headphones for my MP3 player but that is the limit of ownership.

It was just all the negative karma in the post upsetting the fen shei of my monitor.

I hope (pray) that they prove a lot of the detractors wrong with teh Apha range....elsewise I will have missed the boat on the crazy Ebay prices on all things KM at present when the merrygo round finally stops.

hdj80 wrote:I have no experience with Sony at all. I think I have a pair of Sony headphones for my MP3 player but that is the limit of ownership.

I've owned a number of Sony products, and have seen a serious deterioration in quality and design, over about 20 years of ownership.

My personal belief is that Minolta should have been left to die with dignity several years back, before the hookup with Konica.

gstark wrote:

hdj80 wrote:I have no experience with Sony at all. I think I have a pair of Sony headphones for my MP3 player but that is the limit of ownership.

I've owned a number of Sony products, and have seen a serious deterioration in quality and design, over about 20 years of ownership.

My personal belief is that Minolta should have been left to die with dignity several years back, before the hookup with Konica.

I guess my ownership of KM gear means I will disagree over the left to die statement. Nikon has hardly been innovative in design but incremental whilst Canon have pretty much lead in the digital hardware front but their interface is pretty awful as is some of the ways they make a low end camera low end.

Minolta have always tried to bring something innovative to market - I don't hold great hopes that Sony will do the same but hope that the KM staff they empoyed will ensure some commonsense in camera design.

We wait and see - as I have said earlier that is all we can really do.

I agree Craig. As I have said above I used a Minolta RD-175 digital SLR prior to the hoohaa of the Nikon D1 release.

It may have been primitive compared to the cameras of today but it existed at a price point that was excellent, well before Nikon and Canon.

hdj80 wrote:I guess my ownership of KM gear means I will disagree over the left to die statement.

You're probably misreading my intent in that statement. Minolta's demise is not something that I wanted to see, but I think that a decent funeral would have been far more deserving for them, given their heritage and the quality of their products, rather than being permitted to flollop around in the dim outposts of Sony, to eventually be swallowed up in the corporate giant and never seen again.

Apart, perhaps, in a badge engineered variant of something totally bland and unworthy of the name.

Nikon has hardly been innovative in design but incremental whilst Canon have pretty much lead in the digital hardware front but their interface is pretty awful as is some of the ways they make a low end camera low end.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Nikon ergonomics are regarded by many as far and away better than their equivalents in the Canon range. I think we're in basic agreement here, but your words are not clear (to me) so let me expand, if I may.

If we take, for instance, each maker's opening shot in the low end DSLR market, yes, Canon fired the opening shots with the 300D, but the "innovation" it employed was to lobotomise an existing model. That's hardly innovation - it's only marketing, in every dirty, cynical sense of that word. I think you agree with that point.

By way of contrast, Nikon introduced the D70, and its pre-announcement of the model equally reeked of the stench of marketing: "don't buy the 300D - we've got a camera too!".

But the big difference was that the D70, which didn't simply improve upon the feature set of its supposedly superior model (D100) and at a lower pricepoint, but its performance and feature set blew the 300D out of the water at the same pricepoint. Instant on, bigger and faster buffer, better quality kit glass ....

That the D70 introduced quite significant improvements into two different market segments is surely a tad more than an incremental design improvement.

Let's go further with Nikon's "failures" to implement new design or technologies: the D2X was the first digital with ME capabilities, and it remains the only camera with the reduced crop sports mode; the D2 series the first to include wireless capabilities ... so please take careful note that both manufacturers make great strides in technical inovation; it's really not the exclusive purloin of one or the other.

And of course there is nothing at all wrong with Canon and Nikon each beating each others' brains out in a featureset race: we, the camera consumers, win, regardless.

And more: Nikon ergonomics have long been regarded as amongst the best available. When a five year old kid can pick up a complex SLR camera - 15 odd years ago - and use it well with minimal instruction, that says something to me about the inherently good design. While they're not perfect, why should one change something that's not not broken?

The bottom line in this regard is that a featureset is specified for a camera based upon its perceived market and target pricing. Were that not the case, we'd all be using a $200 D2x or a similarly priced EOS 1DSMkII.

Through all of this remains the immutable fact that I can take a lens from my non AI Nikkormat FTn - a lens that's over 35 years old - and use it on any Nikon body.

That tells me so much about the total integrity of the Nikon design that it almost hurts.

And it really does much to reinforce the concept that when you buy into a brand - any brand - you buy into a system.

Minolta have always tried to bring something innovative to market - I don't hold great hopes that Sony will do the same but hope that the KM staff they empoyed will ensure some commonsense in camera design.

You're expecting commonsense and engineering integrity from marketing people? You must be a teenager or in your early 20s. Do you also believe what our politicians tell us?

I do feel for those who have bought into a system that is in decline. Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Mamiya ... Leica .... and many others.

How much longer do you expect Hasselblad to be around in its current form?

We are losing more than just the heritage that these manufacturers gave us, and the losses are real. That's, sadly, the way of the world.

Phew! That's a lot off your mind but you have raised some good points Gary, points that I will be watching IE:Battery, Memory stick/CF with interest.

gstark wrote:You're expecting commonsense and engineering integrity from marketing people? You must be a teenager or in your early 20s. Do you also believe what our politicians tell us?

I do feel for those who have bought into a system that is in decline. Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Mamiya ... Leica .... and many others.

How much longer do you expect Hasselblad to be around in its current form?

We are losing more than just the heritage that these manufacturers gave us, and the losses are real. That's, sadly, the way of the world.

Sadly I am no longer in my 20's but then I don't think I have to defend my age as I don't think my comments were juvenile or warrant such a judgement.

As far as believing what politicians tell us....well here in Beattie Qld we have no alternative since they decreeded to remove the sections of legislation that allow politicians to be prosecuted for lying to committee's or parliament. Obviously they must be telling the truth 100% of the time and this archaic legislation was wasting space.

I don't think we need write all off as a two horse race just yet. Only a fraction of public need big white lenses or even big black lenses so the market is there for consumer SLR's. Get past the hype associated with sports photogs walking around with a $10k lens and reality is there is two fifths or SFA between most of the current DSLR's when you put a half way decent lens on the front. Certainly enough not to mean 90% of users are limited to two brands.

I used to be quite fond of Sony stuff. I remember being given the first ever model of Walkman (the first model called "Walkman", after the initial "Soundabout"), complete with MDR-6 headphones. I was in complete awe. Likewise, my dad's first Handycam was a ripper. A handycam that actually deserved the name, and seemed like an impossible device...

That was then. 15 years on the disappointment with Sony products has almost displaced those memories. I had in the meantime found a gusto in high-end audio, and Sony simply didn't exist in that space. And I'm not talking about esoteric snake-oil stuff, just simple honest good sounding gear. Don't get me started on Sony amps and speakers...

In the gadget space Sony has lost the edge due to high prices (for what you got), and a tsunami of very poor quality stuff. I can't count the pairs of Sony headphones and earphones I threw in the bin. There had been such a decline since the MDR-6, and anything that came close would cost in excess of $100.

Trinitron tubes used to be great, and some were till the end. At some stage Sony found a way of selling B-grade tubes with horribly distorting front-glass at high prices by dangling the Sony logo in front of the customer's face...

I don't know exactly when it happened, but Sony turned from an inventive, innovative company to a pigopolist, with allures of setting standards all by themselves. You can buy high-speed Duo Pro memory sticks in 2GB for $160 (at least half a year ago) but who wanted that format in the first place? And who else is using it?

In the end I guess they may have the financial might and marketing clout to disrupt the DSLR market. Traditional DSLR makers might be well advised to advance their own sensor development, Sony might not be as forthcoming in the future?

Cheers
Steffen.

Sony blew it with me last year with that root kit fiasco. I spent way too much time fixing my sister's and niece's laptops - one bloody music CD caused me so much hassle. I promptly ripped and burnt the thing so that it could never happen again.

I will never again buy anything branded as Sony. I may have cameras with Sony sensors... but I rely on Nikon not to do anything stupid.

Cheers

Craig,

Pay attention, boy. Pay attention.

MattC wrote:Sony blew it with me last year with that root kit fiasco.

...

I will never again buy anything branded as Sony.

Steffen wrote:I used to be quite fond of Sony stuff.

...

15 years on the disappointment with Sony products has almost displaced those memories.

...

Sony has lost the edge due to high prices (for what you got), and a tsunami of very poor quality stuff.

...

Sony turned from an inventive, innovative company to a pigopolist, with allures of setting standards all by themselves.

I think that there's a message buried somewhere in those statements.

hdj80 wrote:Sadly I am no longer in my 20's but then I don't think I have to defend my age as I don't think my comments were juvenile or warrant such a judgement.

With the greatest of respect, naiieve would be the word that comes to mind.

I don't think we need write all off as a two horse race just yet.

In fact, the race is already over, the jockeys have showered and gone home, and most of the bets have been paid out.

In terms of sales, it's Canon and then Nikon, and then daylight. I think beteween the two of them we're talking about something like 90% of the DSLR market.

In terms of those numbers, who gives damn about who's coming third? Or seventh?

Unless you're a specialist manufacturer making very specialised products for a very specialised vertical market, it's game over. And if you don't see that, I have some oceanfront land in Broken Hill that may be of interest.

Only a fraction of public need big white lenses or even big black lenses so the market is there for consumer SLR's.

Only to a point.

But there's very little margin in the consumer DSLRs. The higher up the food chain you go, the greater the margin.

By way of contrast, they can sell two or three lenses - big or small - for each sale of most bodies. What's your choice of glass for a Sony Alpha?

More importantly, who cares?

So, yes, the market is there, but it's not a quality market.

And if you go down the Sony path, there's no path for you upgrade, should you become so inclined, except by jumping ship.

To Canon or Nikon.

Get past the hype associated with sports photogs

Well, you're talking to the wrong person about that sort of approach.

When I started with Nikon I was doing wedding photography, and I looked at the sort of treatment that cameras would get in their working life. Nikons were being used in those days by the vast majority of press photographers because of their bulletproof reliability.

My personal experiences over something like 25+ years has been only a validation of that decision, and today's cameras are little different.

I do not expect to see any Sony camera survive anything like the abuse that I've put my cameras through, even though I no longer shoot professionally.

From that perspective, the only sort of expenditure on a Sony that I could see being made would be be for pure entertainment. Like going to the casino with a couple of hundred bucks to burn. Purely to waste, and with no expectation of any sort of a return or value for money.

Certainly enough not to mean 90% of users are limited to two brands.

But that's already the case: that's what they're already buying.

For that to change, Sony would really need to come out with something exceptional, along with some very high quality but inexpensive glass. And lots of it.

Given that Minolta already had the glass, but couldn't make the bodies that people wanted to buy, and that with Sony the quality is only likely to go downhill, fast, while the prices will be pointing in the other direction, what makes you think they're going to do well in this segment?

gstark wrote:When I started with Nikon I was doing wedding photography, and I looked at the sort of treatment that cameras would get in their working life.

A bit off topic, but this statement intrigues me.
I've worked as a professional wedding photographer myself, but I've never treated my equipment in that way.
I agree that professional equipment should be made to higher tolerances for longer shutter life etc. but why should the photographer abuse their equipment is beyond me. Even if the equipment is not owned by the photographer, that is still not good work ethic.

phillipb wrote:

gstark wrote:When I started with Nikon I was doing wedding photography, and I looked at the sort of treatment that cameras would get in their working life.

A bit off topic, but this statement intrigues me.
I've worked as a professional wedding photographer myself, but I've never treated my equipment in that way.
I agree that professional equipment should be made to higher tolerances for longer shutter life etc. but why should the photographer abuse their equipment is beyond me. Even if the equipment is not owned by the photographer, that is still not good work ethic.

Phillip,

This is not a matter of deliberate abuse, but more a matter of acceptance that the circumstances under which one shoots are less than condusive towards giving your equipment the careful attention and grooming that they deserve.

For instance, at a wedding, the photographer is usually amongst the last people to leave the church. Certainly, for instance, if one is taking a shot of the B&G departing the church in their limo, they have long left the scene by the time one gets back to one's car, yet you need to be at the next location in time for their arrival.

As the limo drivers will usually have a gig following this one, they're not interested in driving all that slowly, which means that you don't have the chance to put your gear nice and tidily back into its case/bag/whatever.

Instead, somewhere on the floor is found/prepared, and off you go, trying hard to not stretch one's compliance with speed restrictions too much.

But this means that the cameras are subject to some buffetting and movement that is perhaps not desirable, but sadly it's unavoidable.

And what if it's pissing down rain? Do you cancel the wedding? or do you shoot in the rain, trying your best to protect your equipment from the elements, but in the knowledge that there's nothing you can do to remove all elements of "abuse" from the equation?

Bottom line is that as a working professional, your equipment is merely a bunch of tools that you use, and you use them as you need to in order to get the results that you're contracted to pull in.

gstark wrote:Craig,

Pay attention, boy. Pay attention.

That one line sums up a lot.
Gary I'm only a newbie in this forum but that smacks of being a bully.
First you suggest that Craig must be in his 20s, then you use the boy comment above, and then throw in naiieve .

You may well be right with regards to Sony but the above IMHO was uncalled for and the smiley just dosent cut it.

Bodak wrote:

gstark wrote:Craig,

Pay attention, boy. Pay attention.

That one line sums up a lot.
Gary I'm only a newbie in this forum but that smacks of being a bully.
First you suggest that Craig must be in his 20s, then you use the boy comment above, and then throw in naiieve .

You may well be right with regards to Sony but the above IMHO was uncalled for and the smiley just dosent cut it.

Stephen,

Have you never seen nor heard of Foghorn Leghorn? That was my reference, and if you take anything quoted from "Looney Tunes" seriously ....

No, it's not bullying, and was never intended to be taken in that manner. I may need to refer you to the FAQ, where it reminds you that you need to come here with your sense of humour in place. In the vein, people here need to be prepared to discuss issues in a manner of good humour and light heartedness.

My comments and observations have all been made in a lighthearted manner, but with the rider that, given Craig's own admission that he has no personal experience of Sony products, my suggestion of naievity should be taken as an observation based upon his admission of that lack of experience.

To help clarify my intent, perhaps this dictionary definition of the word might help? "Unsuspecting or credulous".

More ...

na·ively adv.
na·iveness n.

Synonyms: naive, simple, ingenuous, unsophisticated, natural, unaffected, guileless, artless
These adjectives mean free from guile, cunning, or sham. Naive sometimes connotes a credulity that impedes effective functioning in a practical world: “this naive simple creature, with his straightforward and friendly eyes so eager to believe appearances”

Free from guile, cunning, or sham. Is that an insult, as I think you're suggesting? No, I certainly wouldn't take it that way.

Straightforward and friendly eyes so eager to believe appearances Naive also means, from reading these definitions, a level of, not so much innocence, but more an absence of cynicism. Perhaps gullibility (free from guile?) but again, is that bad? Again, I don't see this as being the case, and I fail to see any problem with this word. If you believe otherwise, please take that discussion off-line.

Again, given Craig's lack of exposure to Sony products, he is certainly entitled to afford them a viewpoint that is absent of cynicism, which, as I trust you will agree, could be held to be naive, as described above.

OTOH, I have been hurt by a number of sad experiences with Sony products. Is my opinion, based upon something like 20 years' accumlated experience with a number of their products any less valid than Craig's?

I'm not for a moment suggesting that it's any more valid, btw, but I am suggesting that it, being based upon the bitter pill of experience, and supported by a number of other testimonials, perhaps carries a small element of what the future holds.

That is all that I'm saying.