This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose; is the system actually officially called "Minola AF" anywhere?- or at least referred to by that name more than it is referred to via the three official names? See "discussion" below. Fourohfour 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, move it then; it's not something I feel strongly about. I simply wanted to avoid moving to a made-up (or rarely-used/unofficial) name simply for the sake of neutrality. It seems that there's a plausible case for moving it. Fourohfour 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the lack of a worldwide title would be sufficient reason to name an article after a neologism or a rarely-used unofficial name. Would "colur" be a good article name, given the lack of worldwide spelling for color/colour? The redirect system provides for these cases, and all three names are clearly given at the top of the article. Fourohfour 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Does "Minolta AF" refer to the whole system, or the lens mount? I thought this article was about the whole system. Fourohfour 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Minolta AF" is generally used worldwide to refer to the whole system. For example, 3rd party lens makers Tamron and Sigma each use "for Minolta AF" to refer to their lenses that are built for the mount. The difficulty spans in that the the camera bodies were branded differently in the various geographic regions (Maxxum, Dynax, Alpha), but the lenses (with a few expectations, ie the STF lens, since it is a manual focus only lens) are all branded as "AF xx". The technical name for the Lens Mount is "Minolta A-type bayonet mount". The reason for emphasis on the Minolta AF name is that the Minolta AF system was the first camera system to feature complete Autofocus. From a branding point of view, it succeeded the Minolta MC and MD mounts, and competes with the Nikon F, Canon EF, and Pentax K. Additionally, a simple googling of "Minolta AF" (in quotes) should alleviate the doubt of the use of the term. ChristopherBorcsok 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My early Minolta Autofocus camera is titled as a Minolta 5000 AF - so that is Minolta and AF used in the same product description...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs).
Sure, but was 'AF' the name of the system, or was '5000AF' simply the name of the camera? Anyway, although I don't accept that as the best argument for moving the article, I'll raise no objections if it's moved to Minolta AF now. As I said, you'll have to get an admin to remove the existing Minolta AF article first though. Fourohfour 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The whole problem with the Maxxum/alpha/Dynax branding stems from the fact that Minolta were not decided on a name of the whole system. Thus, Minolta dubbed the mount 'A' and the flashes were marketed as Maxxum/alpha flashes in America/Japan respecitvely.
When Minolta released the 7000i in 1989, they finally decided on a name of the system, 'Dynax,' under which it was to be marketed worldwide, but since names such as 'Minolta Maxxum Dynax 7000i' or "Minolta Dynax a-7000i' would have been unwieldy, they decided otherwise and marketed the system under three different names (Dynax, Maxxum and alpha).
As a result, the system did not receive a name. Unlike Canon, which started branding their cameras as 'EOS' right from the start, but not unlike Nikon or Pentax, which were simply continuations of manual focus systems.
As for the differences between the bodies in various regions, it goes much deeper. For example, IIRC, most companies did not include (or disabled) AF confirmation beep in the bodies released in USA because of patent issues. Some models were differently specified and were not directly comparable, and were available in different versions (colour being the most obvious) depending on region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)