Hexar RF Wikipedia entry

[mfunnell]

Back when I did this I noticed there was no Wikipedia entry for one of my favourite cameras, the Hexar RF. So I wrote one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexar_RF

That was much harder work than I thought it would be, mostly because I found it hard to not unintentionally plagiarise the sources I was checking...

Would someone like to sanity-check what I've written? (You know who can fix my mistakes, don't you? :angel: 'cause I think I'm done with this.)

I know many disapprove of Wikipedia, and I know why, too. But it does allow things that a "proper" encyclopedia couldn't cover (like this) even if it suffers from flaws that they wouldn't. I say "it has value, but use with caution".

...Mike

 

[Finder]

Can you give a link to the Wiki article?

 

[darkkavenger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexar_RF

congrats on the article, I find it great, and it always nice to read about a great RF I knew nothing about. 🙂

 

[Finder]

Konica Minolta retained all rights to its technology/patents and is simply leasing the technology rights to Sony. So there was no transfer to RF technology to Sony. I seriously doubt the Hexar will be revived by Sony.

 

[mfunnell]

Can you give a link to the Wiki article?

Shows how fried my brain (??) was: I completely stuffed that up, but have corrected it now, above, but here it is again, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexar_RF

...Mike

 

[Krosya]

If only we could get a separate section for Hexar RF here on RFF now.... 😉 😉 😉
We all know it deserves one.

 

[Bobfrance]

It reads well to me - Nice and concise.

Good work Mike!

 

[Chris Lynch]

GREAT wiki article, i'll be bookmarking it for sure!

now if we could just get our own little island here on RFF... haha

 

[mfunnell]

If only we could get a separate section for Hexar RF here on RFF now.... 😉 😉 😉
We all know it deserves one.

Perhaps if we keep posting our messy Konica stuff on this nice, clean, Leica forum they'll put us in our own little room, just to keep the place looking tidy...

...Mike (then we win😀 )

 

[rpsawin]

Mike,

Nice work! I found the article to be excellent.

Bob

 

[Mazurka]

A better entry is needed here: http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_Hexar_RF

Is it possible to duplicate the Wikipedia entry in Camerapedia?

 

[pvdhaar]

Back when I did this I noticed there was no Wikipedia entry for one of my favourite cameras, the Hexar RF. So I wrote one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexar_RF

That was much harder work than I thought it would be, mostly because I found it hard to not unintentionally plagiarise the sources I was checking...

Would someone like to sanity-check what I've written? (You know who can fix my mistakes, don't you? :angel: 'cause I think I'm done with this.)

I know many disapprove of Wikipedia, and I know why, too. But it does allow things that a "proper" encyclopedia couldn't cover (like this) even if it suffers from flaws that they wouldn't. I say "it has value, but use with caution".

...Mike

I think it's an excellent write-up!

 

[rxmd]

A better entry is needed here: http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_Hexar_RF

Is it possible to duplicate the Wikipedia entry in Camerapedia?

Of course. Technically it's possible anyway, and legally it's possible too because by posting on Wikipedia you agree to publish your article under a very liberal copyright license.

Philipp

 

[mfunnell]

Thanks, all, for the kind words.

A better entry is needed here: http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_Hexar_RF

Is it possible to duplicate the Wikipedia entry in Camerapedia?

I'm sure its possible, but I'm not sure how much utility there would be in a simple duplication when one can link to the other. I'm not that familiar with Camerapedia and its rules and philosophy on what should be in articles. I imagine (but don't know) that maybe more details and "how to" stuff might belong there. I kind've had the idea of looking into that, and may yet do so. But as I said earlier, this was more work than I thought it would be, and I have another Wikipedia article on the Hexar (AF) that I want to finish off. At which point I may be done (see what a whim can get you into?) or I might look into Camerapedia.

Of course. Technically it's possible anyway, and legally it's possible too because by posting on Wikipedia you agree to publish your article under a very liberal copyright license.

Philipp

Quite so. I think the GFDL (Gnu Free Documentation License), which is what Wikipedia uses, allows for fairly liberal copying and spreading around. There are some restrictions, though, and I'd be wanting to check that Camerapedia's licensing etc. (whatever that may be) doesn't run athwart some provision of the GFDL. I've no reason to think it would, but I'd want to check first.

Again, I doubt I'd, personally, simply duplicate from one to the other (since there seems little utility in doing so) but if someone else wants to and thinks its a good idea then they're more than entitled to.

...Mike

 

[mfunnell]

Konica Minolta retained all rights to its technology/patents and is simply leasing the technology rights to Sony. So there was no transfer to RF technology to Sony. I seriously doubt the Hexar will be revived by Sony.

The phrasing I used was rather specific: "Sony acquired photographic assets from Konica Minolta".

From the press release on the topic:

Since July 2005, Sony Corporation (Sony) and Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. (Konica Minolta PI) have been working on the joint development of digital single lens reflex (SLR) cameras. Sony, Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc. and Konica Minolta PI are pleased to announce that they have decided to transfer a certain portion of Konica Minolta PI 's assets related to digital SLR cameras to Sony, and at the same time, that Konica Minolta PI will consign its customer service operation for Konica Minolta cameras and related products* to Sony.

quoting from the press release here:

http://www.konicaminolta.com/about/releases/2006/0119_02_01.html

...Mike

 

[Finder]

The phrasing I used was rather specific: "Sony acquired photographic assets from Konica Minolta".

From the press release on the topic:
quoting from the press release here:

http://www.konicaminolta.com/about/releases/2006/0119_02_01.html

...Mike

I felt you were implying all technology rights. That is not an asset transfered except by lease/usage. Employees were transfered and some equipment. You also questioned if Sony had taken the RF technology - the press release only focuses on SLR technology. Apart from service concerns, there was no transfer of that. There is not going to be a Sony Hexar RF.

- An ex-Konica Minolta Photo Imaging employee based at the Sakai plant in Osaka were the action happened.

 

[rxmd]

Hi Finder,

if the RF technology wasn't transferred to Sony, who was it transferred to?

Philipp

 

[Finder]

Hi Finder,

if the RF technology wasn't transferred to Sony, who was it transferred to?

Philipp

As far as I know, it was not transferred to anyone. Konica Minolta still exist. Why give away its technology?

 

[mfunnell]

I felt you were implying all technology rights. That is not an asset transfered except by lease/usage. Employees were transfered and some equipment. You also questioned if Sony had taken the RF technology - the press release only focuses on SLR technology. Apart from service concerns, there was no transfer of that. There is not going to be a Sony Hexar RF.

- An ex-Konica Minolta Photo Imaging employee based at the Sakai plant in Osaka were the action happened.

I understand you're somewhat sensitive about this but you're also reading things I simply didn't write. Sony acquired some rights. I have no knowledge of whether KM did or did not retain any rights (from publicly obtainable sources, which is what needs to be used here) so said nothing about that. As to non-SLR assets the press release is unclear: maintenance went to Sony for some things (what is unspecified but all cameras is at least implied) but any or no disposition of non-SLR rights just wasn't mentioned - so I said its unclear. And I don't expect any RF from any of 'em so said: "Whatever the case, none of the involved companies has expressed any interest in renewed production of rangefinder cameras or lenses."

What would you have me say? That things are clear when they're not? Or speculate beyond sources I can cite? If you don't like it, change it 😀 But you'd have to stick within Wikipedia policy about sources and "original research" too...

...Mike