Top notch. No reason to doubt the integrity of these cameras. Honestly, they're not Nikons or Canons, but they are MINOLTAS and well worth the investment.
How Good are Minolta MD-series Lenses?
-
A
- Thread starter FilmOnly
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Excellent question, Ben...I realize these are "consumer grade" cameras. I have seriously considered the F1N (with standard prism). The main reason I have not gone in this direction is because an EX+ example from KEH is $429. I would rather have a camera that does not have any brassing, paint loss, or dings. The F1Ns are also fairly pricey on eBay, and with eBay there is no guarantee they will be as described. I have noticed that the "mint" or "minty" camera of eBay is a BGN or perhaps EX grade example at KEH.
Also, I have handled an F1N, and found it a bit bulky for my hand. Honestly, I know that the F1N and the later cameras like it (from Nikon, too) are sealed against weather, but, for the vast majority of situations, I question how much this will matter. In any case, I still would avoid using my cameras in pouring rain. I have yet to have a leakage problem with my very "plastic" Pentax ZX-M. The ZX-M survived strong winds at the beach without a speck of sand inside the film transport area. I was careful with the camera, but I just used my common sense (as I imagine anyone would).
Any other comments, folks? Your suggestions and remarks have helped.
Thanks,
Glen
Also, I have handled an F1N, and found it a bit bulky for my hand. Honestly, I know that the F1N and the later cameras like it (from Nikon, too) are sealed against weather, but, for the vast majority of situations, I question how much this will matter. In any case, I still would avoid using my cameras in pouring rain. I have yet to have a leakage problem with my very "plastic" Pentax ZX-M. The ZX-M survived strong winds at the beach without a speck of sand inside the film transport area. I was careful with the camera, but I just used my common sense (as I imagine anyone would).
Any other comments, folks? Your suggestions and remarks have helped.
Thanks,
Glen
IMO they are perfectly fine, but Minolta had nowhere near the outstanding selection and super fast lenses of the big two. I loved my Minolta MD lenses, even the 70-210 f/4 zoom. (Or was it an 80-210?) I rarely like zooms, but this one was pretty sharp, even with a badly scuffed front element. I had an X-700 and found the goofy light-up meter that tells you what shutter speed to use to be nonsensical and impossible to read in low light. It was obviously designed to be used on aperture priority or program mode 95% of the time. I did love certain things about the camera. Very small, very light, pretty quiet, and no problems with batteries (yet). If I remember right, it could not even be used without batteries, which I find to be about the most idiotic thing you could possibly build a camera to do. What were they thinking? The X series suffers from serious 80s damage. Oh well. They were all doing piles of coke and listening to bad new wave music at the drawing boards, *obviously*. The SRTs have much more sensible meters, are actually very light for their size/type of camera, and are made for people who really have some brains and some chops. If all you need is a few lenses and not much as far as system accessories, I would highly recommend Minoltas over Canons or Nikons, simply because they cost abut as much as dirt. Skip the X series IMO. They are the dumbed down McCamera for the masses in Minoltas line, though they do have their advantages as I listed above. Go for an SRT instead. As an added benefit, you can get about ten of them for what you would pay for a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2. Don't pay more than $50 for one, and you can find them for $25 fairly often. If you need more system though, Canon and Nikon are the way to go IMO. I loved my X-700 and my SRTs when I had just started, but got rid of them all in favor of Canon FD. Minolta just did not have enough lenswise for my liking. All IMHO of course...
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel the Minolta camera design was superior to everyone else's from the same period, the pinacle being the exquisitely-designed X-700 and accompanying MPS. The lenses were on par with the best out there, because they had to be. Look around on eBay for Minolta X-700 kits. If you find one, you'll often find a Minolta 50mm an a collection of non-Minolta glass, simply because the original owner didn't want to pay Minolta prices. I did the same thing. I got my (deceased) X-570 in 1985 along with a Kiron 70-210 zoom and a Minolta 35-70 zoom. I also got a 280px flash and a MD1 motor drive. That motor drive died last year - after 21 years of faithful service. I still have the 280px and 35-70 in perfect working condition. The Kiron never got used much because it was, like most non-manufacturer zooms, somewhat of a stinker, and I sold it.
To me, the Minolta design just makes sense.
To me, the Minolta design just makes sense.
The local camera-repair guy who has repaired every repairable camera in this area for years (a long, long time) always mentioned how the X700's were the 'best made mass-manufactured 35mm camera ever) and that they never needed repairing except for the mentioned capacitor and a 'C', or cleaning. When I asked about the L and the A he said that there is nothing to adjust and nothing to lube.
I've always been a big fan of minolta glass. It's affordable and well-made.
Feels good in the hand. I would second that it's generally as good as Canon and Nikon stuff from the same period. Usually the prices are better.
I've always been a big fan of minolta glass. It's affordable and well-made.
Feels good in the hand. I would second that it's generally as good as Canon and Nikon stuff from the same period. Usually the prices are better.
Eric, I agree with the Bokeh statement completely. I've also heard many times from other people over the years that Minolta glass has a very pleasing look. I think so too.
Yeah, the sr-/ X- series cameras were Minolta's high water mark. But what a HIGH water mark they were.
Hi Glen -
Since I'm new to this Group, i'll start off by greeting Everyone - Greetings All!!!
OK, to your question (hopefully you're still reading along)....
I am admittedly not a scientist, physicist, engineer, or PROFESIONAL photographer. Despite my humble limitations, over the past decade and more of scrutinizing photos from Minolta lenses i've come to believe their image-making focus (ha ha ha!!!) was for *overall* imaging. I realize there can be a lot of re-touching done to boost/minimize aspects of an image, but i am thinking of pictures i have taken or those where i know little or no re-touching was performed.
By this, i mean to say that Minolta lens engineers seemingly chose not to single out one aspect of image making (such as a strict dedication to micro contrast) to the exclusion of other important facets of imaging such as color rendition, saturation, "warmth", etc. I believe, again in my amateur understanding, that Leica had a similar philosophy in the design of their lenses which may have initiated discussions and led to a short-lived partnership back in the day.
Most Rokkor lenses are capable of producing superb images - especially those of the Rokkor-X (MC or MD) vintage. It pays to know which are the "diamonds in the rough" exclusive of sample variation of a specific optical formula, but generally they are amazing - some more so than others.
Without knowing what style of photography you're into, i can't make any specific lens recommendations. I will mention the MD W Rokkor-X 24mm f2.8 lens because it is truly spectacular. For a "normal" lens, the MC Rokkor-X 50mm f1.4 is also superb. There are others that i've found to give me that "something" extra, but i'm not sure what you're in to.
HTH,
frank
Minolta cameras, cameras in general
Another thought or two has crossed my mind as i've read differing opinions about 35mm manual focus cameras and camera brands in general.
I have had three X-700s over the last 18 years and they were technologically "advanced" cameras in their era. However, I had a dilemma. Because i prefer shooting Minolta Rokkor glass, i had to remain in the Minolta line-up and i needed something very different than what the X-700 was giving me. So, about 5 years ago i transitioned to the SRT102's/202's and most recently (and FINALLY!) the XD series (XD-11 and XD-5).
The Minolta SRT series is great all-manual camera line with the 102/202 models being the best in the series. Though the SRT light meter requires a battery, the shutter does not so i can shoot without a battery at all. This is perferct for when i'm climbing in the mountains during the winter - no cold battery to warm up!!!
However, for most of my shooting, i've recently transitioned to the XD series - particularly the XD-11 (preferring the "d" variant). Though i have gained some experience with the XD series, both of my XD-11s are currently on their way back from a thorough CLA before i start to put them into service. The XD series cameras are light, smallish (easy to handle/maneuver), luxuriously smooth, very, very quiet/discreet and best of all they take Rokkor glass!!!
Finally and without meaning to be inciteful/inflammatory, it seems inevitable that someone, somewhere will come along and tell a "new-to-photography" person that their ______ camera is not a "professional" camera. The "seasoned photographer" will then proceed to try to convince the "new-to-photography" person that their camera/brand truly IS professional and why the "new-to-photography" person should transition to that platform - if of course, the "new-to-photography" person really wants a SERIOUS (aka "Professional") camera.
A commonly stated criteria is that a "consumer" camera is not "weather sealed" as are the "professional" cameras. This notion is misleading at the very least. For those who regard weather-sealed cameras as the benchmark for "professional" i'd submit a few questions such as; 1) Are the lenses for that camera mount also weather-sealed? If not, whats the point? 2) Did Cartier-Bresson/Adams/etc have a weather-sealed "professional" camera? 3) What really makes a camera "professional" anyway - is it the user or the output?
Another criteria for "professional" may be the depth (or lack there of) of lens, flash-gun, or accessory selection of a particular brand. Most every major camera manufacturer had a reasonably acceptable range of lenses/accessories available to meet most any photographic NEED. Some brands had/have a broader range of products than others while some brands had a smaller offering, but what they offered was superb.
Either way, it is the photographer that makes the composition and adjusts the camera to get the exposure. Arguably, the lens, film, film-development, and printing have more to do with the image than the light-proof box called the camera.
Sorry if this is "rant-ish" - i'm usually pretty agreeable, but this particular activity "gets my goat".....
frank
Another thought or two has crossed my mind as i've read differing opinions about 35mm manual focus cameras and camera brands in general.
I have had three X-700s over the last 18 years and they were technologically "advanced" cameras in their era. However, I had a dilemma. Because i prefer shooting Minolta Rokkor glass, i had to remain in the Minolta line-up and i needed something very different than what the X-700 was giving me. So, about 5 years ago i transitioned to the SRT102's/202's and most recently (and FINALLY!) the XD series (XD-11 and XD-5).
The Minolta SRT series is great all-manual camera line with the 102/202 models being the best in the series. Though the SRT light meter requires a battery, the shutter does not so i can shoot without a battery at all. This is perferct for when i'm climbing in the mountains during the winter - no cold battery to warm up!!!
However, for most of my shooting, i've recently transitioned to the XD series - particularly the XD-11 (preferring the "d" variant). Though i have gained some experience with the XD series, both of my XD-11s are currently on their way back from a thorough CLA before i start to put them into service. The XD series cameras are light, smallish (easy to handle/maneuver), luxuriously smooth, very, very quiet/discreet and best of all they take Rokkor glass!!!
Finally and without meaning to be inciteful/inflammatory, it seems inevitable that someone, somewhere will come along and tell a "new-to-photography" person that their ______ camera is not a "professional" camera. The "seasoned photographer" will then proceed to try to convince the "new-to-photography" person that their camera/brand truly IS professional and why the "new-to-photography" person should transition to that platform - if of course, the "new-to-photography" person really wants a SERIOUS (aka "Professional") camera.
A commonly stated criteria is that a "consumer" camera is not "weather sealed" as are the "professional" cameras. This notion is misleading at the very least. For those who regard weather-sealed cameras as the benchmark for "professional" i'd submit a few questions such as; 1) Are the lenses for that camera mount also weather-sealed? If not, whats the point? 2) Did Cartier-Bresson/Adams/etc have a weather-sealed "professional" camera? 3) What really makes a camera "professional" anyway - is it the user or the output?
Another criteria for "professional" may be the depth (or lack there of) of lens, flash-gun, or accessory selection of a particular brand. Most every major camera manufacturer had a reasonably acceptable range of lenses/accessories available to meet most any photographic NEED. Some brands had/have a broader range of products than others while some brands had a smaller offering, but what they offered was superb.
Either way, it is the photographer that makes the composition and adjusts the camera to get the exposure. Arguably, the lens, film, film-development, and printing have more to do with the image than the light-proof box called the camera.
Sorry if this is "rant-ish" - i'm usually pretty agreeable, but this particular activity "gets my goat".....
frank
I am a big fan of the Minoltas, though come to think of it I haven't been using them much lately. I'd pretty much echo what the others have said about the cameras and lenses. I especially like the SRT series and the MC and older MD lenses in terms of build quality. And I've taken some lovely pictures with them -- the lenses do indeed have a very special quality.
I've only handled an SRT but it felt great in my hands. Nice and hefty. It was similar to my Yashica TL Super which is a tank. Very satisfying to use, the sound of the shutter and the tactile feel of shutter release. I used to cock the shutter and fire it to release stress. I know, i'm odd.
As someone who also has a few Minolta lenses, in addition to Nikon and Canon, I think I can say something here.
Are Minolta lenses good? I say;"yes." In one European magazine's testing for optical quality, they found the 135 mm f 2.8 MC to be superior to even Nikon. Only one German lens performed better at four times the price. As others pointed out, Leica thought enough of Minolta lenses to form a partnership with them. Minolta and Nikon were the two lens manufacturers in Japan who made their own glass back in the 1960's and 1970's.
Did Minolta have a range of lenses available sufficient to qualify as a "system," and be able to "meet the needs of a photographer?" Again, I say; "Yes." At this time, I have 17 different prime focal lengths in Minolta lenses from 16 mm to 500 mm, and I do not have all of them. They had 7.5 mm to 1600 mm available. How many are truly needed?
There is a curious anomaly I have noticed. We have already mentioned the optical quality of Minolta lenses, which is right in there with Canon, Nikon, Leitz, and others. Why do people pay the price they do for a Zeiss "Softar" to put on the front of their high resolution lenses?
If we look at the work of Michelle Bates using a Holga, we can see what can be done by someone with a dash of creativity. Perhaps there is more to photography than just the equipment we use. By taking the time to look at the subject, to see it in differing light, different seasons, different vantage points, and having a camera with us, we can take photographs that will be a source of enjoyment to us, even if no one else ever sees them.
However, if you do come up with a photograph that really "wows" you, please share it with us also.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
Are Minolta lenses good? I say;"yes." In one European magazine's testing for optical quality, they found the 135 mm f 2.8 MC to be superior to even Nikon. Only one German lens performed better at four times the price. As others pointed out, Leica thought enough of Minolta lenses to form a partnership with them. Minolta and Nikon were the two lens manufacturers in Japan who made their own glass back in the 1960's and 1970's.
Did Minolta have a range of lenses available sufficient to qualify as a "system," and be able to "meet the needs of a photographer?" Again, I say; "Yes." At this time, I have 17 different prime focal lengths in Minolta lenses from 16 mm to 500 mm, and I do not have all of them. They had 7.5 mm to 1600 mm available. How many are truly needed?
There is a curious anomaly I have noticed. We have already mentioned the optical quality of Minolta lenses, which is right in there with Canon, Nikon, Leitz, and others. Why do people pay the price they do for a Zeiss "Softar" to put on the front of their high resolution lenses?
If we look at the work of Michelle Bates using a Holga, we can see what can be done by someone with a dash of creativity. Perhaps there is more to photography than just the equipment we use. By taking the time to look at the subject, to see it in differing light, different seasons, different vantage points, and having a camera with us, we can take photographs that will be a source of enjoyment to us, even if no one else ever sees them.
However, if you do come up with a photograph that really "wows" you, please share it with us also.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 5
- Format
- 35mm
I just got a camera that uses the MD mount lens. What style adapter for filters do i use for this. The only other 35mm cam i had was a pentax p1 which had a filter you screw onto around the lens. not inside the lens cover like the MD series.
Any suggestions? BTW this is for a 50mm rokkor lens
Any suggestions? BTW this is for a 50mm rokkor lens
It's either going to be a 55mm filter (2.17") like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Genuine-Minolta...ryZ30043QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
or a 49mm (1.93") filter like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-49mm-Ci...ryZ15241QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Depends what vintage Minolta lens you have. 50mm MC Rokkor lenses had 55mm filter threads. Older 50mm MD Rokkor lenses also had 55mm filter threads but these all eventually changed to 49mm filter threads. When Minolta dropped the Rokkor name from the later model 50mm MD lenses, all the 50's had a 49mm filter thread.
This page gives you some idea on filter thread sizes on the f1.4 Minolta lenses: http://members.aol.com/xkaes/5014.htm . You didn't indicate which 50mm lens you had, so here are the rest of the 50's:
http://members.aol.com/xkaes/5017.htm
http://members.aol.com/xkaes/502.htm
http://members.aol.com/xkaes/5012.htm
Hope this helps,
Marc
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 5
- Format
- 35mm
FOCAL LENGTH: 50mm
f-STOPS: 1.4-16
PERIOD: 1977-1981
INSCRIPTION:
LATE STYLE: MINOLTA MD ROKKOR-X 50mm 1:1.4 LENS MADE IN JAPAN ø55mm
DESIGN: 7/6
FILTER: 55
DIAPHRAGM: auto
MC: yes
MD: yes
CLOSE FOCUS: 1.5'
SIZE: 2.5"x1.6"
WEIGHT: 7.8oz.
thats the one... So i need a 55mm filter?
f-STOPS: 1.4-16
PERIOD: 1977-1981
INSCRIPTION:
LATE STYLE: MINOLTA MD ROKKOR-X 50mm 1:1.4 LENS MADE IN JAPAN ø55mm
DESIGN: 7/6
FILTER: 55
DIAPHRAGM: auto
MC: yes
MD: yes
CLOSE FOCUS: 1.5'
SIZE: 2.5"x1.6"
WEIGHT: 7.8oz.
thats the one... So i need a 55mm filter?
Yes! You read it correctly. And that's a very nice lens. 55mm filters, new or used, are pretty common.
Marc
Good morning, Trife86.
The simple answer is; "Yes."
Two points indicate this in the information you posted above:
(1.) In the information engraved on the lens ring, at the end there is the "o 55 mm." That little circle with the diagonal slash across refers to the filter ring diameter, and it says that it is 55 millimeters.
(2.) Also a couple of lines down from that one in the information list, it does say; "FILTER: 55" Again this confirms that the filter ring diameter is 55 millimeters.
Now for your choice of filter. If you can find the original Minolta filters, they are nice. They do come with a price tag, but they are nice. If you do not mind stepping out of the brand for your filters, the B & W filters are very good. The Heliopan filters are very similar to the B & W. You will notice both the B & W and Heliopan filter price tags. You can also get filters of different quality from some manufacturers. For example, the Hoya people make some very low cost filters. The Hoya people also make their HMC multicoated filters that are pretty good, and they also come with a more noticeable price tag. I have had very good results with Tiffen filters also, and the Tiffen line is one of the most extensive and broadest of the filter companies. Ira Tiffen has written many articles on filters for Kodak and other companies in the books they publish.
You did not say exactly what film you will be using nor what you want to photograph nor under what conditions might you be trying to take a photograph. With a little more information, specific recommendations for which filter in a 55 mm diameter by 0.75 mm thread pitch screw mount could be made.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
The simple answer is; "Yes."
Two points indicate this in the information you posted above:
(1.) In the information engraved on the lens ring, at the end there is the "o 55 mm." That little circle with the diagonal slash across refers to the filter ring diameter, and it says that it is 55 millimeters.
(2.) Also a couple of lines down from that one in the information list, it does say; "FILTER: 55" Again this confirms that the filter ring diameter is 55 millimeters.
Now for your choice of filter. If you can find the original Minolta filters, they are nice. They do come with a price tag, but they are nice. If you do not mind stepping out of the brand for your filters, the B & W filters are very good. The Heliopan filters are very similar to the B & W. You will notice both the B & W and Heliopan filter price tags. You can also get filters of different quality from some manufacturers. For example, the Hoya people make some very low cost filters. The Hoya people also make their HMC multicoated filters that are pretty good, and they also come with a more noticeable price tag. I have had very good results with Tiffen filters also, and the Tiffen line is one of the most extensive and broadest of the filter companies. Ira Tiffen has written many articles on filters for Kodak and other companies in the books they publish.
You did not say exactly what film you will be using nor what you want to photograph nor under what conditions might you be trying to take a photograph. With a little more information, specific recommendations for which filter in a 55 mm diameter by 0.75 mm thread pitch screw mount could be made.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 5
- Format
- 35mm
Well i live in NYC. mostly outdoor filming. The skyline and parks i wanna get some nice shots of. Early morning sunrise
Any good online retailers for filters and accessories. Like i know ill want to get a zoom lens sometime maybe a 35-80mm around there.
For the most part im new at filming. I been using some cheapo kodak gold 200 for day shots. Any reccomendations?
Any good online retailers for filters and accessories. Like i know ill want to get a zoom lens sometime maybe a 35-80mm around there.
For the most part im new at filming. I been using some cheapo kodak gold 200 for day shots. Any reccomendations?
Hello, Trife86;
This may be drifting "off topic" from the original question about Minolta MD lenses . . .
OK. The Kodak Gold ASA 200 is a color film. For most of the time, a simple UV, Haze, 1A, or similar almost clear filter will help with the ultraviolet light and perhaps protect the front surface of the lens. The plane surface of the filter is easier to clean also. Many people just leave one on the front of their lens.
On the days when you have blue skies with clouds, a polarizing filter that you rotate to darken the sky to an even deeper blue and enhance the contrast between the sky and the clouds is helpful. If you are shooting through a window at a display inside, it also helps remove the reflection on the window so you can see what is inside. The polarizing filter also helps reduce reflections from water surfaces and makes it easier to see that it is water. The "circular polarizing filter" is required only if you have an automatic focusing (AF) system on your camera.
In some cases where you are trying to use a wide lens opening to get a shallow depth of field and isolate your subject from the other things before or behind it, neutral density filters (ND-2, ND-4, et cetera) will help with a faster shutter speed to get to that wide lens opening.
While there are also "color correction" or "color compensating" filters to use around sunrise and sunset to bring the color balance back to "normal," you might also consider taking the shot straight without those filters. One of the things your are looking for is the "mood" of the lighting. Why change it, if that is what you are trying to photograph?
For starting in color photography, those first three (3) filter types listed above are what I can recommend. One additional thing I really strongly suggest is a lens hood or lens shade.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
This may be drifting "off topic" from the original question about Minolta MD lenses . . .
OK. The Kodak Gold ASA 200 is a color film. For most of the time, a simple UV, Haze, 1A, or similar almost clear filter will help with the ultraviolet light and perhaps protect the front surface of the lens. The plane surface of the filter is easier to clean also. Many people just leave one on the front of their lens.
On the days when you have blue skies with clouds, a polarizing filter that you rotate to darken the sky to an even deeper blue and enhance the contrast between the sky and the clouds is helpful. If you are shooting through a window at a display inside, it also helps remove the reflection on the window so you can see what is inside. The polarizing filter also helps reduce reflections from water surfaces and makes it easier to see that it is water. The "circular polarizing filter" is required only if you have an automatic focusing (AF) system on your camera.
In some cases where you are trying to use a wide lens opening to get a shallow depth of field and isolate your subject from the other things before or behind it, neutral density filters (ND-2, ND-4, et cetera) will help with a faster shutter speed to get to that wide lens opening.
While there are also "color correction" or "color compensating" filters to use around sunrise and sunset to bring the color balance back to "normal," you might also consider taking the shot straight without those filters. One of the things your are looking for is the "mood" of the lighting. Why change it, if that is what you are trying to photograph?
For starting in color photography, those first three (3) filter types listed above are what I can recommend. One additional thing I really strongly suggest is a lens hood or lens shade.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
One more time, Trife86;
Almost forgot. You are in New York City. B & H and Adorama are right there. You can use their internet access also, but you can go right down to them. You get to handle and carress and fondle all of the things most of us just get to see images of in pictures.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
Almost forgot. You are in New York City. B & H and Adorama are right there. You can use their internet access also, but you can go right down to them. You get to handle and carress and fondle all of the things most of us just get to see images of in pictures.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
Hey trife86 -
If you're serious about getting a zoom in the 35-80mm range, Minolta made a 35-70mm f3.5 zoom that is reputed to be as sharp as primes lenses (lenses with ONE focal length).
Ralph gave some great advice about B&H (and Adorama). B&H is THE photography source on the net. You are fortunate to be able to visit their brick-n-mortar store too!
HTH,
frank
If you're serious about getting a zoom in the 35-80mm range, Minolta made a 35-70mm f3.5 zoom that is reputed to be as sharp as primes lenses (lenses with ONE focal length).
Ralph gave some great advice about B&H (and Adorama). B&H is THE photography source on the net. You are fortunate to be able to visit their brick-n-mortar store too!
HTH,
frank
I purchased the 35-70 f3.5 for my daughter to take on a trip to England a few months back but she never used it. It is now usually attached to my X570 and it is amazingly sharp.
B&H and Adorama, FIE! eBay.
Good morning, Christopher;
The photography stores in New York City are an institution and social event in themselves. The point is stll that he can actually see and handle the equipment. You will not really appreciate what they feel like, and what it is like to carry them around until you actually lift and hold an RB67 or a GS680. In any case, I am not yet suggesting that he must buy it from them.
However, Chris, on that topic of e-Bay, I hope you are having better results than I have. In the last two months, I have been running about 50 % in getting something that I can use after some minor repair. The others have truned out to be parts cameras. The descriptions offered, in my cases, were not "fully descriptive." I can use them for parts, so they still have some intrinsic value. KEH has been much more fruitful for me. Only one item so far in two years that needs repair to be useable.
Enjoy;
Ralph Javins
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |