They are all great cameras, Nikon will allow you to add a lot of toys to the camera, some say it is a creative advantage, others say more choice is not always better. If you have GAS, get the Nikon.
In the 70s, 80s, in analog Mf cameras, which one was better Nikon, Canon or Minolta?
-
A
- Thread starter Vsanzbajo
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon Fe10
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale M-Mount Lenses (Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander)
- Started by Steinberg2010
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale NEW UNUSED FIDELITY 13x18cm boxed, 4 pieces.
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF 4x5 to 13x18cm POLAROID 54 adapter
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Format
- 35mm
You won't go wrong with SRTs or XD series cameras. You are right, Minolta equipment is at its most affordable level right now and readily available.
I started with Minolta in the mid 70s and still use them, but along the way I added Nikon to the line up. So I'm familiar with both brands, I also used to own a couple of Canons (A-1 and AE-1 program)
Rokkor -X lenses deliver high quality images on par with any thing else in 35mm.They also have a nice feel while focusing and focus fast. Use a Rokkor-X a couple times and you'll never use aftermarket lenses again.(I know I won't use anything else on a Minolta body except a Minolta lens, the Celtics are good too)
The XD-11 titanium shutter and multi mode in a metal chassis makes it one of my favorites.Its shutter priority mode does work in a somewhat of a program mode.
With eye piece shutter,depth of field preview,multi exposure ability,safe load signal, and full view finder info,back up mechanical shutter speed.Its not lacking for features.
The XD 5 has the same specs as the 11 except lacks safe load signal,the extra view finder info and view finder shutter.I didn't need another XD series body but didn't turn up a XD-5 in real nice condition that was attached to a 75-200 rokkor zoom for 20 bucks.
The SRT 101 or 102 with mirror lock up makes it a useful body for tele work in low light.I have a 101 and 102, besides being solid performers that will outlast most of us they are fun to use. If flash is something high on your priority list look for a 102 as it has a hot shoe where the 101 doesn't.
While you are considering Minoltas look for a decent condition XE-7, you may like them too. I have 2 of them.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 96
- Format
- 35mm
'nuff said.
Does it really matter which system is better?
Show us that you can out-shoot your equipment then come back.
Show us that you can out-shoot your equipment then come back.
It is not a matter of out shooting your equipment. It is about being able to find lenses, parts if camera breaks at a reasonable price. If you do not have anything nice or constructive to say, just do not say anything. Keep it to yourself.
D'OH!
I meant to say the F, not the F and F2.
The older I get, the more frequent the brainfarts.
Good morning;
This will discuss mainly Nikon and Minolta. I do not have enough Canon to be able to provide any substantive commentary.
First, Minolta. I started with them when they were still Chiyodo Kogaku Seiki K. K. The origninal style SR cameras from the 1960s are very good mechanical cameras. Yes, I do like them. The Minolta ROKKOR lenses are also very good, and I think they are quite competitive with the Nikon NIKKOR lenses. The Minolta X-700 System is one of the most versatile and comprehensive in the photographic industry. And, as a comment about my own preferences, the Minolta X-700 with the MD-1 Motor Drive does just fit my large hands, and everything is where my fingers expect to find them. Then there is the Minolta Maxxum 9. This camera is a technological marvel. Anyone familiar with a modern DSLR camera will feel right at home with a Minolta Maxxum 9 or the European designated Dynax 9. A marvelous camera, but (yes, there is a "but") the shutter release button reminds me of the original Nikon F with the shutter release toward the back of the camera top. Like the Nikon F, the Minolta Maxxum 9 requires me to make a deliberate effort to get my finger back to where the shutter release is located to then depress it to take a photograph.
The Nikon F series is also a very good system. There were many accessories available that would allow the camera to do almost anything you could conceive. It was not until the Minolta X-700 System that we have had anything similar. The NIKKOR lenses are very well known and respected. The real strength of the Nikon F and F2 is in their body construction. Nikon chose to use small ball bearings where other cameras just have a bushing for the shaft to spin inside. Yes, there is a difference. The accuracy and consistency of the Nikon focal plane shutter will not be fully appreciated until you actually sit down and run a collection of different cameras through a good camera testing facility. It has been just in the last few years when I acquired a Kyoritsu EF-511NK1 Camera Tester that I was able to see this difference. The consistency of the Nikon shutter is clearly a result of the care in the design of their shutter mechanism to reduce friction to a minimum. This also reduces the variation in the shutter speeds with the Nikon, that you see so much more of when you test other camera makers' shutters. Yes, there is a difference with the mechanical cameras.
I do need to say something about the Copal Square Vertical Travel Metal Focal Plane Mechanical Shutter that was used so successfully with the Nikon Nikkormat/Nikomat cameras, and with a few other makers' cameras as well: The Copal Square Shutter is another noteworthy mechanism. It is a remarkably accurate and consistent shutter. One quirk of that shutter is the marketing claim from back in the 1960s that this was the first shutter to provide an "X" flash synchronization of 1/125 second. However, when you test the shutter speeds of the Copal Square, you will notice that it always seems to be "slightly slow" at 1/125 second, and it is very consistent in this way across a collection of samples and there is very little variation from that measured speed of 1/100 of a second, which is only a 20 percent variance from the specification, so "officially" it is considered to be "accurate." I think that they found that it really was more difficult to get a good X sync at 1/125 second than they had hoped, so they settled for the 1/100 second, which was within specification, and it is better than the 1/50 or 1/60 second X sync of all of the other 35mm focal plane shutters at the time.
With the development (sorry about that) of electronically timed focal plane shutters, almost all of the camera makers were making very accurate shutters. If the electronics are still functional, the battery is good, there are no real problems with the shutter mechanisms, they really are very good.
Were there any real differences among the major 35mm camera makers back in the 1960s and 1970s? Yes, there were, but the real determinator of a good photograph was the person holding the camera.
This will discuss mainly Nikon and Minolta. I do not have enough Canon to be able to provide any substantive commentary.
First, Minolta. I started with them when they were still Chiyodo Kogaku Seiki K. K. The origninal style SR cameras from the 1960s are very good mechanical cameras. Yes, I do like them. The Minolta ROKKOR lenses are also very good, and I think they are quite competitive with the Nikon NIKKOR lenses. The Minolta X-700 System is one of the most versatile and comprehensive in the photographic industry. And, as a comment about my own preferences, the Minolta X-700 with the MD-1 Motor Drive does just fit my large hands, and everything is where my fingers expect to find them. Then there is the Minolta Maxxum 9. This camera is a technological marvel. Anyone familiar with a modern DSLR camera will feel right at home with a Minolta Maxxum 9 or the European designated Dynax 9. A marvelous camera, but (yes, there is a "but") the shutter release button reminds me of the original Nikon F with the shutter release toward the back of the camera top. Like the Nikon F, the Minolta Maxxum 9 requires me to make a deliberate effort to get my finger back to where the shutter release is located to then depress it to take a photograph.
The Nikon F series is also a very good system. There were many accessories available that would allow the camera to do almost anything you could conceive. It was not until the Minolta X-700 System that we have had anything similar. The NIKKOR lenses are very well known and respected. The real strength of the Nikon F and F2 is in their body construction. Nikon chose to use small ball bearings where other cameras just have a bushing for the shaft to spin inside. Yes, there is a difference. The accuracy and consistency of the Nikon focal plane shutter will not be fully appreciated until you actually sit down and run a collection of different cameras through a good camera testing facility. It has been just in the last few years when I acquired a Kyoritsu EF-511NK1 Camera Tester that I was able to see this difference. The consistency of the Nikon shutter is clearly a result of the care in the design of their shutter mechanism to reduce friction to a minimum. This also reduces the variation in the shutter speeds with the Nikon, that you see so much more of when you test other camera makers' shutters. Yes, there is a difference with the mechanical cameras.
I do need to say something about the Copal Square Vertical Travel Metal Focal Plane Mechanical Shutter that was used so successfully with the Nikon Nikkormat/Nikomat cameras, and with a few other makers' cameras as well: The Copal Square Shutter is another noteworthy mechanism. It is a remarkably accurate and consistent shutter. One quirk of that shutter is the marketing claim from back in the 1960s that this was the first shutter to provide an "X" flash synchronization of 1/125 second. However, when you test the shutter speeds of the Copal Square, you will notice that it always seems to be "slightly slow" at 1/125 second, and it is very consistent in this way across a collection of samples and there is very little variation from that measured speed of 1/100 of a second, which is only a 20 percent variance from the specification, so "officially" it is considered to be "accurate." I think that they found that it really was more difficult to get a good X sync at 1/125 second than they had hoped, so they settled for the 1/100 second, which was within specification, and it is better than the 1/50 or 1/60 second X sync of all of the other 35mm focal plane shutters at the time.
With the development (sorry about that) of electronically timed focal plane shutters, almost all of the camera makers were making very accurate shutters. If the electronics are still functional, the battery is good, there are no real problems with the shutter mechanisms, they really are very good.
Were there any real differences among the major 35mm camera makers back in the 1960s and 1970s? Yes, there were, but the real determinator of a good photograph was the person holding the camera.
Last edited by a moderator:
I gave a rather verbose reply early today. To be more succinct, the camera to go for is the one that takes the three or four lenses you need and can afford. I have a Nikon F2 that weighs as much as a small child and almost always carries a 50mm f2. The fact the body can be used for astronomy and microscopy is completely irrelevant for my use.
Sorry for a short answer, but in my defence the question was not very detailed.
What was better, most popular by professionals? (between nikon, canon, minolta)
The answer is nikon easily, though that does not mean they are better. Just more popular. ..but that is not what you were really asking!
What you really wanted to know was what camera to buy. And the real answer to that question is it is not important what you buy.
Listen, so you get a working camera, whether you paid $10 or $300, they all do basically the same thing. The shutter opens and exposes the film, then it closes.
Of course every camera has different features and specifications. Some are heavy and built like a brick. But if you are traveling or hiking you may not want a heavy camera. Some have advanced metering. But most here will tell you to use a handheld meter. Some have high shutter speeds. But if you are shooting astro-photography you may only want a bulb setting that requires no batteries.
So we are at a loss to find you the best camera for you because you have not told us what you will be using it for. Unless you have a specific goal in mind, there is no 'best' camera. Most of the SLR's from nikon, canon, and minolta will be more than sufficiant for you.
Honestly I am not trying to be discouraging though I know I sound like it. I am trying you encourage you to not worry about the equipment you have and just get out and shoot some film. Learn more about how to take a photo rather than what you use.
note: Buying a vintage camera you are taking a chance. Even with a top-of the line camera there is no guarantee that it will be working correctly after 30-40 years. Are you budgeting for a service?
For one reason or another Minolta was never able to fully crack into the pro territory, even with its XK, which looks to be an awesome camera.
After a while, it seemed that pros either took to Nikon or Canon and occasionally Olympus, while the rest of the brands were relegated to the consumer "amateur" market.
Even today, it's primarily Nikon vs. Canon. That doesn't mean other cameras aren't capable.
I think one thing that has helped Nikon, for example, is that they have people who deal exclusively with pro shooters. We're a Nikon shop at work, and twice a year a rep comes in, shows off different gear and lenses, provides on-site maintenance (as needed) and for the most part is there to cater to the needs of the pro photographer. Now take that and multiply that by, say, 100 newspapers, and you're really talking about an outlay of cash just to serve the pro market.
I don't know if the second-tier makers ever did that.
After a while, it seemed that pros either took to Nikon or Canon and occasionally Olympus, while the rest of the brands were relegated to the consumer "amateur" market.
Even today, it's primarily Nikon vs. Canon. That doesn't mean other cameras aren't capable.
I think one thing that has helped Nikon, for example, is that they have people who deal exclusively with pro shooters. We're a Nikon shop at work, and twice a year a rep comes in, shows off different gear and lenses, provides on-site maintenance (as needed) and for the most part is there to cater to the needs of the pro photographer. Now take that and multiply that by, say, 100 newspapers, and you're really talking about an outlay of cash just to serve the pro market.
I don't know if the second-tier makers ever did that.
I figure it's Canon -- because I bought an A-1 in 1981! 
Actually, as I remember it, Nikon was considered the top of the heap, but for my modest amateur photographer needs, Canon seemed to offer more bang for the buck. I think I got my money's worth out of it. And I suspect I could have done pretty well with many of the various brands out there. The A-1 replaced a Konica FP (circa 1963 vintage) that began acting up.
Actually, as I remember it, Nikon was considered the top of the heap, but for my modest amateur photographer needs, Canon seemed to offer more bang for the buck. I think I got my money's worth out of it. And I suspect I could have done pretty well with many of the various brands out there. The A-1 replaced a Konica FP (circa 1963 vintage) that began acting up.Thank you for a really nice answer to my questions. I will be using the camera for everything, Hikes, beach, portraits. Like an everyday, all-around camera. I am almost convinced on A Minolta XD-11. And I plan to get it serviced.
Thanks
Thanks
The best was the camera you happened to have at the time,or the one you hankered after because it was better than what you had,
Richard
Richard
In the 70s and 80s I worked with a guy who was an optical engineer and before coming to the US he worked for Nikon. At that time Nikon was the only Japanese camera manufacturer to make their own glass. Everyone else used glass made by Hoya. Theirs was a very excellent formula and a highly guarded secret. I think their lenses were the best of the Japanese lenses and their cameras were very dependable and less likely to break down. I still have two of my Nikon film cameras and they're still going strong. But I wholeheartedly agree with R gould above!
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Format
- 35mm
Canon and Minolta made their own glass.
Part of my decision to buy a Minolta in the mid 70s was the fact they made their own glass.
from Minolta lens brochure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Minolta Did Make Glass
Thank you, fstop.
Your comment and illustration have corrected a misconception. If I recall correctly, the major Japanese suppliers of optical glass back in the 1960s were Chiyoda K. S. K. K./Minolta, Nippon Kogaku K. K./Nikon, and Kyoto Ceramics/Kyocera. Hoya joined in later. I am not sure when Canon started.
Thank you, fstop.
Your comment and illustration have corrected a misconception. If I recall correctly, the major Japanese suppliers of optical glass back in the 1960s were Chiyoda K. S. K. K./Minolta, Nippon Kogaku K. K./Nikon, and Kyoto Ceramics/Kyocera. Hoya joined in later. I am not sure when Canon started.
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 78
- Format
- 35mm RF
When I got interested in photography in the late 1960s I went with what pros were using...Nikon...so I could share if needed...so I got a meterless Nikkormat FS and a 50mm F2 lens...a perfect starter kit...
One point to know is that a lot of Nikon's rotations (lens mounting, and barrel rotations) are OPPOSITE all other popular OEMs lenses and bodies....AND THIRD PARTY manufacturered lenses, while they mount in the correct rotational direction, (of course), they still focus in the opposite direction......
...making it a bit of an issue if you wanted to use lenses other than Nikon on your Nikon body...consistant focusing is very helpful with MF in fast moving situations...
Now with AF lenses, focusing is not such an issue....but I still have to remember which way to turn the lens when I mount Nikkors on my Canon....
One point to know is that a lot of Nikon's rotations (lens mounting, and barrel rotations) are OPPOSITE all other popular OEMs lenses and bodies....AND THIRD PARTY manufacturered lenses, while they mount in the correct rotational direction, (of course), they still focus in the opposite direction......
...making it a bit of an issue if you wanted to use lenses other than Nikon on your Nikon body...consistant focusing is very helpful with MF in fast moving situations...
Now with AF lenses, focusing is not such an issue....but I still have to remember which way to turn the lens when I mount Nikkors on my Canon....
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Format
- 35mm
A lot of that misconception started with the camera dealers. I recall competition was fierce in the 70s between dealers to sell brands. I know when I started looking to purchase my own SLR I did my own research before talking with dealers. The ones spreading rumors or bad information didn't get any of my business.
I have always been happy with my Minolta equipment, I lost all of what I had almost 25 years ago in a house fire. I bought a used cream puff XD-5 (price was too good to hold out for an XD-11) afterwards and I'm still using it to this day.
Its on my desk right now next to my XD-11,F3 and FA.
I have always been happy with my Minolta equipment, I lost all of what I had almost 25 years ago in a house fire. I bought a used cream puff XD-5 (price was too good to hold out for an XD-11) afterwards and I'm still using it to this day.
Its on my desk right now next to my XD-11,F3 and FA.
I love my Minoltas. Particularly the XE7. Rokkor glass is cheap nowadays and some of the lenses are legendary...
Minoltas are great, but...I already have Canon FD, Nikon F, and Pentax screwmount stuff, so I unloaded my Minolta things. I used to pick up bodies for cheap just to have around in case a good deal on some good glass came along. Got rid of them all, but couldn't bear to send the Spotmatic away. (I primarily shoot the Nikons and Canons.) But when a friend wanted a camera, I suggested Minolta. For $350 invested so far in purchases and refoaming and batteries, there is an SRT-201, an XE-7, an X-700 (a gift from a friend), and five Minolta brand lenses (three duplicates of 50mm 1.7, 28mm 2.8,and 135mm 2.8) in the kit. You cannot beat that. I like the XE-7 a lot too. It feels good.
Minolta was fairly well known for making their own glass. As I recall, Canon made some of their own glass. Nikon made their own, and advertised it frequently. Fuji also made their own glass.
A company making their own glass was used as a selling point by a lot by salespeople. It wasn't a factor for me, though I did use Fujica and then Nikon. I mean, Pentax's lenses were very highly regarded, though they bought their glass.
Actually, Olympus introduced the OM-2 at Photokina in 1974 (about a year and a half before Canon brought out the AE-1). The AE-1 was Canon's effort to follow Olympus' lead with the electronically controlled OM-2.
The OP already has a Minolta investment and was asking whether to continue investing in that system or maybe change boat.
I say continue with your Minolta system. The Rokkor SR (MC/MD) lenses are second to none in quality and they are very cheap on the second-hand market due to the difficulty of adaptation to other camera makes. If one day you want to practice microphotography or astrophotography, reproduction etc. you can buy a Minolta XM (variously denominated in different markets) which will give you mirror lock-up, user-changeable focusing screens, removable pentaprism.
When you want to venture into macrophotography, an X-700 (with TTL flash) will be very nice to use.
If one day you want to practice sport or fashion photography, and supposing you really wanted to do this with film, you can buy a motor for the X-700 which goes to 3,5 frames per second (fast enough). That's supposing you don't need a Minolta XM-Motor (5 frames per second IIRC) with high-capacity back (you are going to need it at that speed).
Modern Minoltas (X-700 and the like) had a clear advantage in the quality of the focusing screen, which is very bright yet very easy to focus. The viewfinder of my Nikon FE2 is not as good as the one of the Minolta X-700 (the FE-2 has got its own advantages of course, and is a reliable and capable camera, I'm not saying it is inferior to the X-700).
So my advice is to stick with the Minolta system. I hoarded lenses and bellows, which I never used so far, but that I will use one day. This stuff is too cheap on the market now not to buy it.
Fabrizio
I say continue with your Minolta system. The Rokkor SR (MC/MD) lenses are second to none in quality and they are very cheap on the second-hand market due to the difficulty of adaptation to other camera makes. If one day you want to practice microphotography or astrophotography, reproduction etc. you can buy a Minolta XM (variously denominated in different markets) which will give you mirror lock-up, user-changeable focusing screens, removable pentaprism.
When you want to venture into macrophotography, an X-700 (with TTL flash) will be very nice to use.
If one day you want to practice sport or fashion photography, and supposing you really wanted to do this with film, you can buy a motor for the X-700 which goes to 3,5 frames per second (fast enough). That's supposing you don't need a Minolta XM-Motor (5 frames per second IIRC) with high-capacity back (you are going to need it at that speed).
Modern Minoltas (X-700 and the like) had a clear advantage in the quality of the focusing screen, which is very bright yet very easy to focus. The viewfinder of my Nikon FE2 is not as good as the one of the Minolta X-700 (the FE-2 has got its own advantages of course, and is a reliable and capable camera, I'm not saying it is inferior to the X-700).
So my advice is to stick with the Minolta system. I hoarded lenses and bellows, which I never used so far, but that I will use one day. This stuff is too cheap on the market now not to buy it.
Fabrizio
Ralph,
Cameras and Canon go back a long way, principally to the first being the Kwanon in September 1930, then the 'Original' the Hansa Canon and followed rapidly by S, J, JS and NS models. Admist the turmoil of WWII, the pace from 1940 was still dizzying. Optics improved very considerably when Canon developed the first computer software in 1969 to analyse optical characteristics of lenses (a process that much later would lead to artifical crystalline fluorite [CaF2] being developed for use in a lot of its L-series lenses).
In terms of lenses, Canon's first lens was the Serenar 50mm f3.5-I released not too long after the end of World War II. It is extremely rare to find this now.
I spent a long while over many years settling on a system. I have been through all camera systems, starting with Olympus, then Pentax, Nikon, back to Olympus, Canon, back to Nikon and finally Canon. Most were bought second hand, but some also new. The Olympus OM4 was a mini-marvel for its time. The Nikon F3 with MD4 a cruncher and Nikon's FA a giant killer. Canon's T90 fired me up over 3 or 4 years in the 1980s before getting rid of that and using a Nikon FE2 and finally, Canon's EOS 5 and now to the EOS 1N. I'm happy!
| 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:  |