Camera dilemma - Canon vs Minolta

[emmmmuh]

Hi everyone, I'm new to this forum and I could really do with some help. I'm relatively new to film and I have some questions about my gear....

I bought a Canon AE-1 before Christmas but the light meter is pretty much dead - idk if something's just been knocked out through travel or if it's dead altogether, it did work for a few minutes after I first opened it. I really needed a film camera for a photo project so I later picked up a Minolta X300. I've been happy with this camera for the last few months, but now I want to branch out and I'm struggling to find lenses etc. in my price range. I am still in ownership of the AE-1 but it is still broken!

So, my options are:
1. see now much it would cost to fix the Canon. Nowhere local will do it so I'll have to send it away/find somewhere next time I'm in London.
2. buy a new Canon body, keeping the lens from the broken one
3. stick with the X300 and accept that accessories are going to cost a little more. I've no idea how these cameras compare against each other. The Canon is often compared to the X700, which is basically the far more complex version of the X300 - so theoretically it should be better, even if only marginally.
4. use the Canon with an external light meter - which seems a little overkill at this price point.

I just hate having this beautiful AE-1 sitting on my shelf and not knowing what to do with it.

 

[colin wells]

Hi did you pay much for the AE1

 

[emmmmuh]

Hi did you pay much for the AE1

More than I probably should have. Around £100 I think?

 

[colin wells]

Thats about £70 to much unless it was mint .Is it just the meter that isnt working or is it totally dead ie battery check

 

[wiltw]

Understand this point first: that meters in the camera are a convenience item...you can use cameras with handheld meters, even as a pure beginner.
While handheld meters are indeed capable of doing things an in-camera meter cannot, you should NOT be thinking about them as 'overkill'...the first decades of photography had no in-camera meters, and the handheld meter was the only game in town.

The Canon AE-1 was a very successful camera for Canon, it was Canon's mass-market TV advertising campaign with famous tennis pros that helped in the success of the AE-1. But the AE-1 was at the BOTTOM of the Canon line of products, in terms of sophistication of capabilities In comparison to the AE-1, read this Wikipedia description of the X700 from Minolta:

"The X-700 used the basic body of the XG-M with electronically controlled stepless speeds, but added full program autoexposure in addition to the XG-M's aperture priority and metered manual modes. It also introduced through-the-lens (TTL) flash metering, and added exposure lock and interchangeable focusing screens to the XG-M's features. Based on the X-700 chassis, Minolta later launched the cheaper models X-300 and X-500. The X-500 lacked the X-700's program exposure mode, but featured a fill-in flash mode. The X-300 was the basic model of the late X-series. It lacked TTL flash metering and program exposure mode, it did not show the f-stop-setting of the lens in the viewfinder and it did not have a depth-of-field control button. Basic parts of all three cameras, such as the shutter, viewfinder, mirror system, and light metering system, were identical.[citation needed]

"Motivated by the huge success of the low-priced Canon AE-1 and other consumer-level cameras, Minolta followed suit in the new camera's design by offering more external camera features. This had the effect of lowering the budget for the camera's internal mechanism. In a step backwards, the new X-700 was not equipped with the fast vertical metal shutter of previous XE and XD cameras, and was instead fitted with a less expensive horizontal traverse silk shutter, enabling maximum sync speed of 1/60 second, and operated by an electromagnetic shutter release.[1] No mechanical shutter speed was provided, even in bulb mode. The resultant battery drain and inability to meter at light levels below EV-1 made the camera a poor choice for long exposures, as often needed for astrophotography. Minolta further lowered the price of the camera by fabricating certain parts in the film advance and rewind mechanism of less expensive materials, and by the use of less expensive electronic components. Even the rewind lever of the camera is made of plastic."
​

Not to belittle the AE-1, as it is a very respectable camera, just understand where it falls in the relative photographic pecking order.

 

[emmmmuh]

Yeah, I get that now... It is in pristine condition other than the meter and came with some nice accessories - I still wouldn't buy it again at that price though. The needle is moving but it just falls to the bottom (flashing the underexposure warning). It moves when the battery check button is pressed, but not where it should with a full battery according to the manual.

 

[colin wells]

Have you tried changing the battery .

 

[emmmmuh]

Understand this point first: that meters in the camera are a convenience item...you can use cameras with handheld meters, even as a pure beginner.
While handheld meters are indeed capable of doing things an in-camera meter cannot, you should NOT be thinking about them as 'overkill'...the first decades of photography had no in-camera meters, and the handheld meter was the only game in town.

The Canon AE-1 was a very successful camera for Canon, it was Canon's mass-market TV advertising campaign with famous tennis pros that helped in the success of the AE-1. But the AE-1 was at the BOTTOM of the Canon line of products, in terms of sophistication of capabilities In comparison to the AE-1, read this Wikipedia description of the X700 from Minolta:

"The X-700 used the basic body of the XG-M with electronically controlled stepless speeds, but added full program autoexposure in addition to the XG-M's aperture priority and metered manual modes. It also introduced through-the-lens (TTL) flash metering, and added exposure lock and interchangeable focusing screens to the XG-M's features. Based on the X-700 chassis, Minolta later launched the cheaper models X-300 and X-500. The X-500 lacked the X-700's program exposure mode, but featured a fill-in flash mode. The X-300 was the basic model of the late X-series. It lacked TTL flash metering and program exposure mode, it did not show the f-stop-setting of the lens in the viewfinder and it did not have a depth-of-field control button. Basic parts of all three cameras, such as the shutter, viewfinder, mirror system, and light metering system, were identical.[citation needed]

"Motivated by the huge success of the low-priced Canon AE-1 and other consumer-level cameras, Minolta followed suit in the new camera's design by offering more external camera features. This had the effect of lowering the budget for the camera's internal mechanism. In a step backwards, the new X-700 was not equipped with the fast vertical metal shutter of previous XE and XD cameras, and was instead fitted with a less expensive horizontal traverse silk shutter, enabling maximum sync speed of 1/60 second, and operated by an electromagnetic shutter release.[1] No mechanical shutter speed was provided, even in bulb mode. The resultant battery drain and inability to meter at light levels below EV-1 made the camera a poor choice for long exposures, as often needed for astrophotography. Minolta further lowered the price of the camera by fabricating certain parts in the film advance and rewind mechanism of less expensive materials, and by the use of less expensive electronic components. Even the rewind lever of the camera is made of plastic."
​

Not to belittle the AE-1, as it is a very respectable camera, just understand where it falls in the relative photographic pecking order.

I do understand where the AE-1's status, but the X300 falls in around the same place and appears to be lesser thought of nowadays. I'd love to upgrade at some point.

 

[emmmmuh]

Have you tried changing the battery .

Yes, same result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Canons, Nikons, and Minoltas at each level are comparable. I used Minoltas for decades and was quite happy with them. So then I would tell you without prejudice that Minolta was the best 35mm cameras. Now the I have two Nikons so I can tell you without prejudice that Nikons are the best 35mm cameras.

 

[colin wells]

Myself i wouldn't pay to fix the AE-1 time to move on

 

[Tim Stapp]

Having had three different Canon AE1-Ps, I gave up on the bass ackwards film winding that two out of three times didn't pick up the film and wind it on. I basically gave them away and went to NIKON. The film winds on the "correct" way, and the manual focus lenses work on my auto focus cameras; unlike Canon.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
My two cents. If you already own FD lenses stick with a Canon. I've used both brands and always been partial to Minolta, but I like the older XD-11 and older bodies with MC/MD lenses. I never liked the plastic bodies like the X-700 or the newer more compact and plastic MD lenses. With exception to Canon "L" glass I felt the Minolta lenses were better. Many of the older lenses are Leica designs, some are identical. But both brands are obsolete systems, their lenses can only be used on Mirrorless digital cameras while the basic Nikon mount never changed. If you owned nothing and were starting from scratch I'd steer you towards Nikon, there is plenty of fine glass available at low prices and they can be used on a film SLR or a newer DSLR.
Buy what you like and enjoy them.
Rick

 

[trythis]

Lots of times people ask these questions but rarely do they mention their budget. Lets have it, how much are you willing to spend?
Do you have digital SLR lenses? If you do, and there are film bodies that match, buy a film camera that uses them.

Otherwise, at least as an exercise, treat the Canon FD stuff as a red herring and start from scratch. Do you want Auto Focus? Do you want light weight? Wanna shoot primes or zoom lenses?

You can always sell the FD lens or lenses if they aren't the right kit four your needs. You dont want to keep heading down a path that isnt the right one for your needs just cause you have a lens or two of that pathway.

 

[Tim Stapp]

If you owned nothing and were starting from scratch I'd steer you towards Nikon, there is plenty of fine glass available at low prices and they can be used on a film SLR or a newer DSLR.
Buy what you like and enjoy them.

I will have to admit, that is the Biggest reason that I when I went d*g*t*l (for most paying gigs), I went Nikon.

 

[RichardJack]

Tim,
Me too. Then I learned that the Canon EOS body has a shallower register and can accept Nikon F, Olympus OM, Pentax M42, Leciaflex-R , Rollieflex, and all of those other cameras that used a M42 mount...so I bought a Canon body as well to play with my old MF lenses. The Canon won't except Canon FD or Minolta lenses unless you use a adapter that incorporates optics to allow it to focus at infinity (but the image quality sux). It was fun comparing about 40 50mm lenses that I owned from various cameras. But I'm still partial to Nikon MF & digital bodies.
regards,
Rick

 

[flavio81]

The Minolta X300 is a good camera, similar to the X700 which is a very very good camera , although ugly as hell...

Since Minolta manual focus lenses are inexpensive, perhaps you should stay with the Minolta and find some lenses you like. Then, later, you can upgrade to other Minolta bodies. Minolta made *very* good cameras in general, sometimes better than the Canon and Nikon offerings.

That being said, i'm partial to the Canon FD system because I like the lens line very much. The AE-1 is a nice camera, a good one, but it is not the best Canon. So if it's broken perhaps it's not worth fixing.

My bit of advice is, think of which lenses do you want, and buy the camera according to the lenses you're interested in. For example, perhaps you score a really good extreme wideangle in Canon FD mount at a bargain price, then get a camera for that system. All in all, usually film cameras are cheaper than lenses!! Don't limit yourself to Canon and Minolta -- there are great cameras by Nikon and Pentax at really affordable prices and the lenses are really good!

 

[Alan Gales]

Canons, Nikons, and Minoltas at each level are comparable. I used Minoltas for decades and was quite happy with them. So then I would tell you without prejudice that Minolta was the best 35mm cameras. Now the I have two Nikons so I can tell you without prejudice that Nikons are the best 35mm cameras.

Forget Nikon. You ought to try a Hasselblad!

 

[flavio81]

Canons, Nikons, and Minoltas at each level are comparable. I used Minoltas for decades and was quite happy with them. So then I would tell you without prejudice that Minolta was the best 35mm cameras. Now the I have two Nikons so I can tell you without prejudice that Nikons are the best 35mm cameras.

Sounds fair, really!

 

[Alan Gales]

I don't know what it's like in the UK but used Minolta lenses are pretty cheap here.

Back in the day Canon, Minolta, Olympus and Pentax lenses were said to be pretty close. Nikkor were said to be a bit better and Zeiss and Leitz were said to be the best. I use to shoot a Contax with the prestigious Zeiss lenses. I could do just as well with a Minolta.

Buy what you can afford. They all made good lenses.

 

[Wallendo]

I'm partial to Minolta/Sony cameras just because that is what I have mostly used. A few of the Rokkor lens are fairly expensive, probably from Sony NEX users driving up the price, but affordable lens are widely available. M42 lenses also work well with a simple adapter.

Is there a particular lens you need that is unaffordable?

 

[Mastrianni]

You might want to try looking for a Canon AV-1,...I think they were pretty common in the UK. They go for pretty cheap. (at least here in the states)

The Canon AV-1 is a 35mm single-lens reflex camera with an FD lens mount, introduced by Canon Inc. in 1979. The AV-1 was very similar to the 1976 AE-1 but provided aperture priority autoexposure rather than the AE-1's shutter speed priority AE.

Good Luck

 

[gary in nj]

The answer is always Minolta.

It really comes down to where your equipment investment lies. I own SRT201, SRT202, XD-11 and X-570. There is something there for every type of need from completely manual to autoexposure. It's nice to have interchangeable lens and flashes between bodies.

35mm cameras are so inexpensive now that it doesn't make any sense to have one repaired, unless you have a personal connection to the camera (I've had the same 201 since I was 13 in 1975 - that would get fixed).

The AE's are good cameras. If you are well outfitted with Cannon lens and accessories, then find a replacement. If you don't have a personal or financial reason to stick to the brand, then Minolta is an inexpensive brand to build upon. The XD is a flat out great camera.

 

[fstop]

You can get XD-5 real cheap, they function the same as the XD-11 with the exception of 3 features, eye piece shutter,aperture window in the view finder and safe load
signal.

Metal shutter that Leica used... the XD-5 is a sleeper. You can live without the extras.

I'm biased on the XDs I have about a dozen of the XD variants.I have an XD-5 I've been shooting since the early 90s, its never been without film.

 

[TheRook]

Having had three different Canon AE1-Ps, I gave up on the bass ackwards film winding that two out of three times didn't pick up the film and wind it on. I basically gave them away and went to NIKON. The film winds on the "correct" way, and the manual focus lenses work on my auto focus cameras; unlike Canon.

You must have been doing something wrong. I've been using my AE1-P regularly for the last six years, and don't recall ever having issues with film slipping off the sprockets or improperly winding onto the spool. When loading film, I follow the instructions in the camera's manual very precisely.