Biggest Bang for the Buck

[Pioneer]

I was out and about this morning with my Minolta SRT 201 equipped with the very nice MC 28mm/2.8 lens and it crossed my mind that these cameras (Minolta SRT series and lenses) may be the biggest bang for the buck available right now. Anyone interested in shooting 35mm but not blessed with all the money in the world would almost certainly be well served by one of these cameras and a couple of lenses.

I am normally a Pentax fan but I have enjoyed using the Minolta SRT cameras for many, many years (including on my high school yearbook staff) and have been quite happy with the results and the experience.

I know everyone has a brand of camera they enjoy using but I think the Minolta ranks very highly today as a very inexpensive entry into 35mm while still providing very high quality results.

Any thoughts?

 

[mawz]

Right brand, wrong mount ;-)

I'd have to say that at the moment, Minolta A mount is probably the biggest bang for the buck out there. You get advanced film body options, a compatible set of digital bodies and glass is if anything cheaper than MC/MD mount. Hard to beat getting a Maxxum 7 for $200 and a 28-75/2.8 D for the same money.

 

[Lukas Meekers]

I own an SRT 101 and a couple of lenses (50mm 1.7, 28mm 2.8 and a Tokina 135mm) and I must say I'm very happy using it almost every single day. Good examples of a 101 go for about 100 euros in my country. I got mine for free (from my father in law) but had it CLA'd which was about 100 euros as well. Should be working perfectly for several years if not decades to come. I think a lot of what people are looking for in Nikon FM(2)s etc is to be found in SRT's for a fraction of the price. Best not to tell everyone though!

 

[waynecrider]

My film carry now days is my MInolta XGM with a 50mm F1.4.. Just a nice carry and a hell of a lens.
Hung on to a Minolta mount Miida 35mm lens forever cause it needed a CLA, and glad I got it fixed. It was a freebe..
In the best deal category one has to be the N80. Cheap and with good glass it's a winner.
Don't forget the Nikon FE's. It really is a hell of a camera if their in good condition. Auto shutter can go up to an hour +. Who else has that?

 

[Helge]

The SRt series is wonderful and very underrated, true.
But they are also heavy and basic.
Mirror up (on most) and the for once useful and tactile stop down button is the only standout features.

I’d say the Minolta lenses are hands down the greatest of the big ones after Nikons.
They are just superbly weighted in their optics, and feel great.

Strangely exactly the 28mm 2.8 is not all that, considering how well regarded their Leica mount lenses are of the same basic spec.

 

[Paul Howell]

Canon FD, Minolta MD, MC, Konica AR, with standard lens, 28 2.8, 50 1.7 (or so) 135 2.8 200 3.5 or 4.0 are all excellent user camera with great lens, and a bang for your buck, the faster glass 100 or 105, long tele and very wide still fetch a good price. Pentax and Nikon less so as Digital user have been gobbling these up for years. I also agree that Minolta Sony A mount remains a very good bargain. early 35 to 70, 70 to 200 100 to 300 are very inexpensive, sharp, decent coating and contrast ( for the day).

 

[Down Under]

Let us not forget Nikkormats. Built from cast iron and held together with ocean liner rivets.

These days in Australia they can be picked up for less than A$100, sometimes with a 50/2.0 lens attached.

In time the wheel of fate and fortune will turn and they will be worth much, much more. So says the gentleman who bought three from me last year to add to his collection of several dozens. A clever cookie. I reckon he will clean up big in time.

I have kept my two FT2s and a few F lenses and still use them now and then. The goodest (best) part is most early 'mats do not need batteries as they are fully manual, the EL being the notable exception.

I have never been into Canons but I did own a Minolta SRT 101 in the '70s. A wonderful camera which gave me super good results. I sold it when I went to Nikkormats. Also a Pentax K1000 which I used when traveling around Asia with a macro Takumar 50 and Hanimex wide angle and tele lenses, which is another story entirely. For another time.

All from that long ago era when men were men and cameras were built to last. Sadly vanished. The camera part, anyway.

 

[Horatio]

Glad someone mentioned the Nikkormats. I paid $15 for my FTn. And the meter still works. Guess I need to buy some more if they’re appreciating in value. One day they may achieve Leica status!

 

[Horatio]

I also have a SRT101, thanks to a Photrio member. I used one in high school. They are quite rugged.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Pentax, Minolta. What is this?
I recently sold F2, waist finder and 28 3.5. Those were astonishingly good for next to nothing. And it will outlast any Penolta.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Glad someone mentioned the Nikkormats. I paid $15 for my FTn. And the meter still works. Guess I need to buy some more if they’re appreciating in value. One day they may achieve Leica status!

Leica status has nothing to do with robust and long lasting gear. Use your Leica gear as Nikon and you will learn it in no time.

 

[Jim Jones]

Let us not forget Nikkormats. Built from cast iron and held together with ocean liner rivets.

These days in Australia they can be picked up for less than A$100, sometimes with a 50/2.0 lens attached.

In time the wheel of fate and fortune will turn and they will be worth much, much more. So says the gentleman who bought three from me last year to add to his collection of several dozens. A clever cookie. I reckon he will clean up big in time.

I have kept my two FT2s and a few F lenses and still use them now and then. The goodest (best) part is most early 'mats do not need batteries as they are fully manual, the EL being the notable exception.

I have never been into Canons but I did own a Minolta SRT 101 in the '70s. A wonderful camera which gave me super good results. I sold it when I went to Nikkormats. Also a Pentax K1000 which I used when traveling around Asia with a macro Takumar 50 and Hanimex wide angle and tele lenses, which is another story entirely. For another time.

All from that long ago era when men were men and cameras were built to last. Sadly vanished. The camera part, anyway.

I agree that the funky little Nikkormat is a durable camera. Under hard use over several decades mine held up as well as Nikon Fs. Nikon erred in a few attempts to introduce less expensive cameras to cash in on Nikon's reputation: Nikkorrex and Nikon FM-10 for example. However, the Nikkormat compares well in reliability if not versatility with its big brothers.

 

[Pioneer]

Very interesting observations so far.

I know that we have a lot of Nikon fanboys on this site. I am glad that many of you enjoy your Nikon cameras but I do not consider them the best bang for the buck. As a rule they are more expensive to buy, and almost always more expensive to service, than some of the other cameras mentioned here.

I seriously doubt that any one of you could reliably pick a print made by a Nikon vs a Canon vs a Minolta vs an Olympus vs a Pentax. My point is that most beginning film photographers who have very little extra cash to spend will get very reliable and very inexpensive equipment by looking at Minolta. And their results will be as high quality as their skills allow. In other words, their equipment will not be the limiting factor.

 

[AnselMortensen]

A lot of this has to do with brand loyalty, and ergonomics.
My first camera was a used Nikon F Photomic...I saw it in the camera store, and it was pure camera p0rn for me. I could have bought a new OM-1, as it had just come out, and competitively priced.
I have used other brand SLR's over the years, notably Pentax Spotmatic F's, to use as "disposable" cameras in risky environments.
Switching between brands with unfamiliar controls is doable, but is counter-intuitive.
Clockwise vs. Counterclockwise focusing, for example. Match-needle metering, less of a problem....automatic exposure, even less.

 

[alanrockwood]

Canon Rebel 2000 or T2 is a lot of bang for the buck. There's a buy-it-now T2 with a 28-90mm zoom listed right now on ebay for about $50 (that's the price of the camera plus shipping.)

 

[Autonerd]

I think Minolta is the best bang-for-the-buck in autofocus/autowind cameras. In 2020 I bought a working 400Si for US$12 and a Maxum 5 with kit lens for $17 (both are prices with shipping). M5 is the most sophisticated camera I own. You can buy Minolta 3/300 and 4/400-series cameras, with lenses, for <$25 all day long.

For manual-focus, manual-wind, I think the best bang-for-the-buck is the Sears K-series, which are rebadged Ricohs (which are the second-best bang-for-the-buck). I paid $27 for my KSX Super (KR-10 Super) with two lenses (including a 50/1.7) and a bag, Paid $15 for my KS Auto (XR-2) with a 50/1.7 and a case. My most recent purchase was a Ricoh XR-1 -- all mechanical, DOF preview, match-needle meter, ap preview in viewfinder. I paid $37 shipped because I didn't want to wait -- probably could have gotten the Sears equivalent (KS1000) for $10-$20 less. All of the above work beautifully with my Pentax K lenses. And to think people are paying $300 for an FM2...

Aaron

 

[Autonerd]

I know that we have a lot of Nikon fanboys on this site. I am glad that many of you enjoy your Nikon cameras but I do not consider them the best bang for the buck. As a rule they are more expensive to buy, and almost always more expensive to service, than some of the other cameras mentioned here.

Hear, hear. I haven't shot with an FM2, but I do own an FE and I think it's highly overrated. (I also have an FG, N8008, and FT2.) For the price of a Nikon FM, I can get a couple of Sears/Ricoh bodies (one with a mechanical shutter, one electronic) and a set of Pentax-M primes (28, 50, 135).

 

[mawz]

Very interesting observations so far.

I know that we have a lot of Nikon fanboys on this site. I am glad that many of you enjoy your Nikon cameras but I do not consider them the best bang for the buck. As a rule they are more expensive to buy, and almost always more expensive to service, than some of the other cameras mentioned here.

I seriously doubt that any one of you could reliably pick a print made by a Nikon vs a Canon vs a Minolta vs an Olympus vs a Pentax. My point is that most beginning film photographers who have very little extra cash to spend will get very reliable and very inexpensive equipment by looking at Minolta. And their results will be as high quality as their skills allow. In other words, their equipment will not be the limiting factor.

While the later Nikons are definitely more costly than most other common options, a Nikkormat FT, Fun or even FT2 generally costs on par with similar era bodies with full aperture metering such as the SRT's. You can buy Nikkormats all day long in working condition for under $100 and pre-AI glass tends to be cheap as well if it's not been AI converted.

 

[baachitraka]

My personal best bang for the buck is OM-1n black edition which I got for €25 with all working shutter speeds.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I agree with you, Pioneer. I love my SRT 201. Glad you posted this as I forgot it's sitting on the shelf with a roll of HP5 in it.

 

[Helge]

If I had to choose between common Nikkormats and an SRt, I’d take the latter over the former any day.
The Nikon has a slight edge in feel and construction. The mechanics and finish just feels better.
Apart from that. The interface and operations is just plain better in the SRt. And I’m not talking about the shutter dial.

The Minolta lenses are also far more common, lighter and cheaper. And only a hair behind the Nikkors at times, sometimes not at all and in the case of certain lenses just about the bests.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree with you, Pioneer. I love my SRT 201. Glad you posted this as I forgot it's sitting on the shelf with a roll of HP5 in it.

Thanks Andrew. I am really, really enjoying myself. I don't think I've had this much fun in quite some time. I just loaded up another roll of AEU400 and hooked up my "little" Vivitar Series 1 28mm f1.9.

I really don't dislike Nikon cameras. They have a well earned reputation for reliability. I have owned some really nice ones over the years, my F6 was an absolutely awesome camera.

But it can be tough to find an older example any more that hasn't been hammered half to death over its lifetime. I'm pretty sure that journalists were not too kind to their cameras, which is a great testament to how tough these cameras really were. But I have picked up 3 different Nikon F cameras in the last couple of years and had bad luck with all three. At least I was able to get the shutter running on the last one without sending it out for service. The best estimate I could get for an overhaul was $280 and I was told they were not even sure they could get it running again. I still have an F4 body in a box that I finally gave up on and parted out on fleabay.

 

[Pioneer]

My personal best bang for the buck is OM-1n black edition which I got for €25 with all working shutter speeds.

I think your choice is definitely a truly awesome camera and another one that I haven't taken out and about for at least a year. Maybe when the Minolta fun wears off I'll have to take the old girl out for a spin.

You certainly got yours at a steal. Unfortunately these have been tough to find at prices below $100 lately. Most are going for $150 or more with a lens. The Minolta SRT 201 is easily found equipped with a lens for less than $50. But, still a terrific camera even though it may not be the best bang for the buck.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I need to find a 28mm lens for mine!

 

[benjiboy]

I'm not a Minolta or Nikon user but I think the best "bang for your buck" is the latest Nikkormat you can find, with the 50mm f2 HSc lens.