Konica Minolta cameras

[Dave Parker]

Dave, the Maxxum bodies are all AF, though, aren't they? I'm just wondering (I could be wrong, though) Minolta's 'best' manual focus was the X-700, wasn't it? In other words, without going AF, what is the 'most advanced' body one can go with?

Cheers,
Kent

I don't know Max,

I don't remember the 700 offering any more than the XD-11 offered, I shot a couple of X700 and did not find it to be better than the XD-11 I shot for years, and yes the Maxxum bodies are all AF, and many of them are also Manual Focus, Manual Exposure, or 100% manual if you want them to be, I have not found my Maxxum bodies to be any better than my older Minolta's, just a change of cloths in my opinion, although I do like my 600, auto foucs, when shooting wildlife, the auto focus is a nice feature.

Dave

 

[Max Power]

Cheers for the info Dave!

Kent

 

[anyte]

More or less, does it fill the need you have, at least were I live, we only paid about $150.00 for a Maxxum 50.

Dave

Sorry, not trying to be an arse, as one individual already called me in this thread, but $150.00 is a pretty fair price, perhaps you need to read your manual some more, the Maxxum bodies offer far more than any of the Manual bodies ever offered.

That last comment is really insulting. Not only have I read my camera manual but I fully understand how to operate my camera. Understanding how my camera works has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I now believe would have been a better choice for me. While $150.00 is a relatively low price for a camera BODY with the features of the 50, it's not necessarily a drop in the bucket for a person with a limited budget. I am not so stupid that I think there are really great cameras for an even lower price. The price of the body is NOT even an issue. I never said it was, though I suppose I can how that might be assumed. It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want. Ebay is not an option - and being that I am not on trial here I don't see that it's necessary for me to explain why.

Being that I don't use the features on my 50 and have no desire to do so, being that I NEVER use auto-focus and NEVER will, it would seem that buying a used manual body and used manual lenses would have better fit my very restricted budget. As I said before, $150.00 is not a drop in the bucket for me. I have to save for every piece of equipment I buy. I shouldn't have to justify my choices though.

I'm no great photographer but I have been praised for how well my photos come out considering I do not use a flash or other accessories, I don't use auto-focus, I often ignore the built in metering (which is the only meter I have), and I don't always use a tripod. I'll upload a couple images just to back up my words, but I might not get to it until tomorrow as I'm supposed to be studying for a test in the morning.

 

[anyte]

Anyte,

I am sorry, I was not trying to insult you in any way...

If your not using the features on your 50, you would not be using the features on the newer manual focus models either, what exactly is it your trying to do that your 50 won't do for you?

In the world of cameras, your always going to be buying more that what you may be using, the camera companies always put more in than most of of can take out of a camera.

I am not and no one else is putting you on trial, you were the one that brought up the point, it may be better to talk about what you have and some of us that shoot this brand of camera can help you along to achieve the goals you have for it.

Your images are not the point, and to be honest with you I have no reason to see them, you have taken this the wrong way, of course I am arrogant, as another has pointed out, but if you can get over that, I might be able to help you achieve your goal with this camera.

sorry if that sounds smug, but you were the one that posted the orginal answer about buying more than you thought you needed.

Dave

Do you always selectively read or is this a special treat you reserve for people you've had little contact with?

"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."

Instead of reading what I wrote you continue to insult me. You obviously are too arrogant to read the words of someone that you, for inexplicable reasons, deem beneath you.

"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."

The camera does everything it needs to do but piss out a couple grand for the lens I want. Can you make my camera start pissing out money so I can buy the very expensive lens I want? If you can do that then you can be of help to me. I understand how to operate the camera. I can also program telephone and voicemail systems. I can operate and repair copiers. I can sew, knit, and crochet. I built my computer myself - I picked and assembled all the parts. I installed all the software. I can operate and repair small bindery equipment. I can even work my DVD player without assistance. And to think I didn't have a manual or training for most of the above. Perhaps now you can stop pretending my problem is that I'm an idiot.

"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."



This really can't be that hard to understand unless you are some stuck up arrogant snob that thinks money grows on trees and only the very newest of equipment has any value.

I would suggest you re-read ALL my posts and ask a host of friends to interpret their meaning before you deem to insult me further.

"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."
"It is the cost of the lenses that is beyond my reach. I cannot afford the lenses and accessories that I want."

 

[fotch]

Now now children, count to ten before posting. Or at least carry on your war with private messages and save the rest of us from this computer rage.

 

[gnashings]

I have a 7000 and an HTsi Plus. As far as the comments about the 7000, how can you think it's ugly? Maybe you mean the 7000i? I think the grip on it (the 7000) is great and it has a solid feel about it too. The HTsi Plus is a very underrated camera. It is very light and has a lot of plastic on it, but it has HSS for the flash system, wireless flash, and it does spot meter plus a bunch of other stuff. Everybody's kit lenses suck. They are meant to be manufactured in bulk and packaged with the consumer cameras. I find that Minolta shot itself in the foot too many times and the other two camera companies simply had better marketing and support for the pros.

Paul

It must be the 7000 i - the square, tiny chrome button ridden one. And it was simply meant as a humorous comment. For example, I love old SAABs ( to use a car analogy), I think they're great... but most people think they may actually cause hysterical blindness with their appearance, hehehehe. Same goes for that minolta, except I am one of those people that didn't find a soft spot for whatIfound to be a square (pun fully intended!) peg trying to fit into my round... never mind - that just sound TOO WRONG. I'll stop now.

As far as the lense goes... well... I know what kit lenses are, what they are meant to do. I am fully aware of their inherent short comings, and that they span across the board, sparing no manufacturer (or rather, no manufacturer sparing us). But this thing was just too much: I hope someone has had the displeasure of trying to use this thing so they could chime in and perhaps explain what I am obviously failing to get across... Its not just a cse of flimsy built (although its there too) or questionable optical performance (again, present!) - but the added insult to the kit lense injury of providing a switch for manual mode only to let you learn that no, in fact you cannot focus with your hand, you have to turn a flimsy little ring left or right making the slooooow servos move the actual focusing elements of the lense at a constant speed, which is too slow to catch anything, and yet impossible to modulate so that even a still subject cannot be brought to focus as the on-off switch controlling the focusing mechanism movement will either go too far or stop short of where you want it to be...
My point baout kit lenses is that many people in this hobby, or profession to many, assume that every person has their knowledge of what is, to them, obvious. Well, most newcomers do not. They may, later down the line (perhaps quite soon), but not when they go to their mall camera outfit and take the salesman's word for what is a good camera for them.
So no, I beg to differ, not EVERYONE knows about the "curse of the kit lense", unfortunately those are the people most likely to buy one - and this particular 28-80mm lense went above and beyond in the "useless" dept.

Which I think is a perfect illustration for the point you yourself have made, Paul:

"I find that Minolta shot itself in the foot too many times..."

My point exactly, and this particular camera, or rather lense, was just one of those bullets firmly wedged in Minoltas big toe.

 

[titrisol]

WOHOOOO!!!!
Came to school this AM and a SRT200 was on my desk with a note from a professor. He doesn;t use it anymore and wonders if I can use it
The battery compartment was empty, it is thus clean. The shutter seems to be accurate and the camera is in very clean condition.
The lenses are not Rokkors though... Accura Formula V 28/2.8 and Hanimex 135/2.8

 

[Max Power]

Being that I don't use the features on my 50 and have no desire to do so, being that I NEVER use auto-focus and NEVER will, it would seem that buying a used manual body and used manual lenses would have better fit my very restricted budget. As I said before, $150.00 is not a drop in the bucket for me. I have to save for every piece of equipment I buy. I shouldn't have to justify my choices though.

Hey anyte,
If you're not too heavily invested in the AF bodies (of which, to be honest, I know very little), might I suggest switching to one of the X-series bodies? I have an X-700, which was supposedly 'the best' of the Minolta manual bodies before Minolta went AF. It has a full programme mode, full TTL flash capability and it does all sorts of other neat tricks, as well as being useable fully manual and in AE mode (my favourite). The best thing, however IHHO is that there is some really excellent MC and MD glass out there going for a song. The X-series bodies are dirt cheap and suffer from only one real issue which is easy and cheap to fix if it happens. You can build up an excellent system which will probably do you for the rest of your life, for peanuts. Besides, although I've never had AF glass, I'm willing to bet that there is less to go wrong with manual lenses. FWIW, apparently AF lenses don't focus as well as manual lenses, even when used in manual mode. Even the prices from KEH are low. Antony Hand's site: Dead Link Removed is a brilliant source of information on most of the bodies and lenses.

Cheers,
Kent

 

[David Brown]

... Minolta's 'best' manual focus was the X-700, wasn't it? In other words, without going AF, what is the 'most advanced' body one can go with?

Cheers,
Kent

I've had an X700 for years, and it's a great camera. However, recently, I added an XD-11, since it does all that the X700 does, plus it has shutter priority, which the X700 does not. You can find stuff on the internet that will tell you that the XD-11 is the "best" Minolta. Ditto for the X700. YMMV

The x700 was the last manual camera Minolta sold, and it just went out of production a few years ago. The XD-11 is older. Both nice cameras.

 

[Paul_Baker]

I'd have to agree that the 28-80 is the stinker of the lot. As far as the manual focus/auto focus button, alot of people have started doing that and I don't see why. I guess it's to make it faster to switch over from one to the other. I find that I don't use the AF function much when I'm trying to take a picture of anything moving or for portrait pictures. It just hunts around.

Paul

 

[Max Power]

I've had an X700 for years, and it's a great camera. However, recently, I added an XD-11, since it does all that the X700 does, plus it has shutter priority, which the X700 does not. You can find stuff on the internet that will tell you that the XD-11 is the "best" Minolta. Ditto for the X700. YMMV

Aw Geez David, ya just had to say that, didn't you I went to Antony Hands' site to check out the XD-11...And now I'm gonna have to get one.

I'll just tell my wife that it's all your fault! Yeah, sure that's the ticket...

Kent

 

[ian_greant]

I'm no great photographer but I have been praised for how well my photos come out considering I do not use a flash or other accessories, I don't use auto-focus, I often ignore the built in metering (which is the only meter I have), and I don't always use a tripod. I'll upload a couple images just to back up my words, but I might not get to it until tomorrow as I'm supposed to be studying for a test in the morning.

So... have I missed something? Do you win points by having stuff/tools/accessories and not using them?

e.g. Do I get a hero biscuit if I leave my meter in the bag and expose my 4x5 using sunny 16? Do I get more points if throw away my lenses and make a pinhole using a rusty nail and a beer can?

Just trying to understand what it takes to be successful at this. I don't want to hang out with other photographers or exhibit my photos and find out I've done it all wrong and have to burn all my negs and start all over again..

That would SUCK!

someone please share the secrets with me!

 

[unohuu]

David, you are almost right about the last manual focus Minolta. It was actually the X-370s that was the last. The X-700 was the flagship of the modern manual focus, just before Minolta launched the first Autofocus with the 7000. I, too, am searching for an XD11 to add to the working bodies. Should complement the X570 and X700 nicely.

Luke

 

[Max Power]

David, you are almost right about the last manual focus Minolta. It was actually the X-370s that was the last. The X-700 was the flagship of the modern manual focus, just before Minolta launched the first Autofocus with the 7000. I, too, am searching for an XD11 to add to the working bodies. Should complement the X570 and X700 nicely.

Luke

Luke,
Just out of curiosity, which do you prefer: the X-700 or the X-570?

I ask because everywhere I look Minoltaphiles seem to prefer one over the other, but seeing as you have both, I wonder if you use one more than the other, and why.

Cheers,
Kent

 

[John Koehrer]

Ian,
You'll be lucky to get today's hero biscuit for your demonstration of snotty attitude.
You might want to see if a local community college offers a class in people skills 101.

 

[David Brown]

David, you are almost right about the last manual focus Minolta. It was actually the X-370s that was the last. The X-700 was the flagship of the modern manual focus, just before Minolta launched the first Autofocus with the 7000. I, too, am searching for an XD11 to add to the working bodies. Should complement the X570 and X700 nicely.

Luke

Mea culpa. You're right, Luke, I forgot about the 370. Unfortunately, it didn't outlast the 700 by much.

I'm just glad that lenses are plentiful and affordable. I have a collection of both MC and MD mounts. I just added a Maxxum, but I'm not too sure about it yet ...

Cheers

David

 

[gnashings]

I'd have to agree that the 28-80 is the stinker of the lot. As far as the manual focus/auto focus button, alot of people have started doing that and I don't see why. I guess it's to make it faster to switch over from one to the other. I find that I don't use the AF function much when I'm trying to take a picture of anything moving or for portrait pictures. It just hunts around.

Paul

And this one was actually impossible to focus by hand - even in manual mode, you had to get the motors to move the focus by turning a ring left or right, without adjustment for how fast it would move - you had one speed: waaaay too slow 90% of the time, and 10% of the time too fast to get it exactly right!!! I hope they learned a lesson there! Too bad, because 28-80 is a very useful range of lengths for a walk around lense!

 

[Paul_Baker]

I have the 28-135mm f4-4.5. It is a very nice lens that covers the range well. The only shortfalls are it's poor close-focussing ability and you can't really put a hood on it.

Paul

 

[Eric Rose]

Gee I didn't think Minolta people were so "aggressive"! Always figured they were the layed back, hippy dippy photographic crowd. The ones that would wear 60's glasses and have scarfs around their necks. Just because.

Actually my first camera was a Minolta SRT101. Loved that camera and the 50mm F1.7 lens that came with it. I was very into the first book David Hamilton put out at that time (hey I was a teenager!) and he used a 101 as well. Since I wasn't into hot cars to get the chicks I guess I must have figured get the 101, get the hot naked broads LOL.

This camera served me well until I got into the press thing. Here we used Nikons and I immediately saw the difference in contrast and sharpness. As mentioned before the Minolta glass has a different feel to it, something that I personally like for people pics, but it didn't cut it for press work. The camera wasn't sturdy enough either. Besides the Nikons were free and they had lots of really cool lenses to use.

I eventually sold my beloved Minolta, but as they say you never forget your first.

 

[ian_greant]

Ian,
You'll be lucky to get today's hero biscuit for your demonstration of snotty attitude.
You might want to see if a local community college offers a class in people skills 101.

Snotty attitude?

Actually no - more a demonstration of my obscure sense of humor.
So apologies to those I offended. I wasn't picking on anyone in particular, just some of the concepts presented.

"We now return you to your normal program"

 

[Eric Rose]

Group hug!!

 

[gnashings]

There we go, come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together...

I am going to stop now

 

[jamesdak]

Well, I love my Minolta gear. I started out AF with an old 7000i, moved on to a 7xi and currently use both a Dynax 7 and a Maxxum 7. But I also have stepped into the manual focus. I currently own a SR-7, SRT-101, SRT 101b, XE-7, XD-7,and a X-700. Of them all the XE and XD are my favorites. My son is learning on the X-700. I've also got a Hi-Matic 7SII which just went out for service. If shooting landscapes I prefer the MF gear over my AF in most situations. I also love the fact that so many people snob Minolta because it makes the used gear much easier and cheaper for me to buy, LOL!!

 

[unohuu]

I also love the fact that so many people snob Minolta because it makes the used gear much easier and cheaper for me to buy, LOL!!

Hear, hear....but now I fear you have let the secret out. Expect our gear prices to soar and find those hard to find lenses now impossible like the 135mm f/2.

 

[Flotsam]

I used Minolta for years. The XE's, the 5 and the 7, should IMHO have a place in the photography hall of fame. I think that was the first Leitz/Minolta collaberation. That short throw, smooth as silk film transport still freaks me out. Sadly around the time of the XK, their QC seemed to dip and everything that I bought turned into an instant repair PITA so I switched systems.