Talk:Konica

Japan Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:42, April 23, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Merge[edit]

Should the Konica and the Minolta articles be merged with the Konica Minolta article? Minolta's talk page can be accessed here for convenience. --Mayfare 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a bad idea to me. Konica was the last of a series of names (Konishi, Rokuoh-sha, Konishiroku) used by a company that was entirely independent of Minolta for well over a century (and that predated Eastman Kodak), that was notable within Japan for that period, and that (like Minolta) was widely known and at least fairly notable outside Japan for over half a century.

For most of their histories, Konica and Minolta had no resemblance to the "Konica Minolta" of today. The company later called Konica was a photographic importer and distributor from the start, a camera maker from shortly thereafter. The company later called Minolta was a camera maker from before the war. Both companies were photographic lens makers from the mid-century. Konishi didn't become Konica, and Minolta didn't become Minolta, via merger (unlike the way Yashica acquired Tomioka, Zunow and perhaps others, or of course the way Konica and Minolta became Konica Minolta); instead, single companies grew and experimented with new names.

Konica Minolta carried on the rather unimportant photographic units of their predecessors for a short period but of course quickly jacked it in and sold out to Sony (which seems to believe that the toy-buying masses are brand-conscious yet have a limited memory for brands, and thus has its lenses labeled "Zeiss" rather than "Hexanon" or "Rokkor"). -- Hoary 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to agree with Hoary on this. The independent histories/identities of Konica nad Minolta are far more notable than that of Konica Minolta, and in practical terms, because they are really two subjects, writing a merged article would be very diffiult and not worthwhile. Pinkville 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep them separate. The companies had long histories under separate names, and only a brief history under the joint name. The separate companies were famous for consumer products (photographic equipment and supplies), but the merged company is mostly not in consumer products, and so has a very different identity. Of course, the predecessors made more than just cameras, lenses, meters, and film; they also made the products that the new company continues to make; it's the absence of the consumer products that makes the new company's identity different. Fg2 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be separate (all three of them). There are other companies that have separate articles for companies that existed before a merge, and Hoary's arguments are very convincing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both companies has a long history, and as pointed out, differently. I think them better to be separated. See my addition to "history" section ... and it should be expanded. It is hard to merge two different and long histories in one place. --Aphaia 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I am very strongly against merging the two articles. Konica and Minolta both had a very long and comendable history on their own and I get the impression that the idea of a merger of the articles on Wiki is supported by persons who are not really familiar with either company (though I may be wrong). Konica's history goes back to 1873 and Minolta's reaches back to the early 20th century while the history of KonicaMinolta Corporation lasted but half a decade. Just my 2 cents worth. jj (this has been reposted from elsewhere) jj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.55.34 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're all on the 'same wavelength' and I'm pleased that there is respect for Konica as, they made very fine 35mm SLR's. For a brief period of time, I did own the original Konica Autoreflex and the ability to switch from full frame to half-frame format mid-roll was very interesting and at times, a film saver! Congrats to User:Hoary|Hoary and everyone else who 'weighed-in' on this.--MurderWatcher1 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the proposal to merge was overwhelmingly opposed. I've therefore removed the "Shall we merge?" templates from the articles. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Cameras[edit]

Does anyone have comprehensive information on the line of digital cameras that Konica made (prior to the merger with Minolta, of course)? Some of them were actually quite good, and were very popular in Canada. I don't remember a lot of them, but I know the KD 310, 400, 500 series were especially popular. RainnIceberg January 1, 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Invalid links[edit]

http://konicaminolta.com/environment/pdf/report/konica/2003/C3.pdf , --Wikisympathisant (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]