My favourite Minolta kit may well be my CLE
Minolta Bodies
-
A
- Thread starter CMoore
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI compensating timer
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale NIKON L35 AD ISO 1000
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale German made magnetic stirrer
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Imacon flextight film holder: 6x9 + 6x6
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Black Compur 0 shutter
- Started by Guivd
Forum statistics
These are really some great looking cameras. Like the OP, I have many wonderful cameras in 35mm and medium format that I don't shoot much simply because I have too many to choose from (I have no idea how that happened).
This past Sunday, I went to a camera show in Anaheim, CA. It really felt good to see more cameras than I have somewhere. (yes, it's almost that bad).
I saw a Horizon Pana camera with an iffy shutter very cheap; a beautiful Contaflex for $35; and an Olympus OM-4. All of them affordable and 'missing' from my collection.
After going back to the Contaflex for the third time, I finally said, "no..I have enough cameras already", and walked out the door.
This past Sunday, I went to a camera show in Anaheim, CA. It really felt good to see more cameras than I have somewhere. (yes, it's almost that bad).
I saw a Horizon Pana camera with an iffy shutter very cheap; a beautiful Contaflex for $35; and an Olympus OM-4. All of them affordable and 'missing' from my collection.
After going back to the Contaflex for the third time, I finally said, "no..I have enough cameras already", and walked out the door.
Yeah...its hard, isn't it.?
Somebody mentioned trying to "buy my way into being a better photographer"...and it has Nothing To Do with that.
It is mostly two things:
1. A general Love/Appreciation/Affinity for (35mm) cameras.
2. A desire to "save" these old masters that are no longer made...a matter of pride almost.
I am sure many share my situation.....cameras we could never afford as younger Men/Women are now affordable, like we could never have imagined. Some of you probably poured over photo mags in the 70's and 80's, dreaming about these same cameras.
I may yet break-down and invest in a Minolta system some day. I just hate to see these old these old tools get tossed and/or fall into decay.
At this point, they just about qualify as Mechanical Works Of Art in my book.
Somebody mentioned trying to "buy my way into being a better photographer"...and it has Nothing To Do with that.
It is mostly two things:
1. A general Love/Appreciation/Affinity for (35mm) cameras.
2. A desire to "save" these old masters that are no longer made...a matter of pride almost.
I am sure many share my situation.....cameras we could never afford as younger Men/Women are now affordable, like we could never have imagined. Some of you probably poured over photo mags in the 70's and 80's, dreaming about these same cameras.
I may yet break-down and invest in a Minolta system some day. I just hate to see these old these old tools get tossed and/or fall into decay.
At this point, they just about qualify as Mechanical Works Of Art in my book.
Tengentially related - I bought a Minolta HiMatic 7s Rangefinder because I thought it looked cool. My favorite travel camera. That lens? Sweet jeebus, it's just sharp as hell. I just leave it on auto and get great negs. Just a sexy little retro brick. Someday I'll recover it in something sexy, like green suede.
My first SLR was an X370 with a 50mm MD f1.7 lens, bought in 1986 after using only a Konica Auto S2 rangefinder since 1970. I always liked my Minolta so when everyone was dumping perfectly good film cameras and lenses around 2008-2009 to go digital I bought a bunch of Minolta bodies and lenses, mainly from local Craigslist ads. I have an SRT201, X700, and XD11, in addition to my original X370, and many lenses. The 35-70mm f3.5 and 70-210mm f4 lenses are outstanding (developed with Leica). A near-mint condition Hi-matic 7S I have is also a great camera.
Minolta never had a pro line like Nikon and Canon, they just made great cameras for everyone and I liked that. I think their switch in lens mount with the autofocus Maxxums really hurt them and they were behind in digital. But their 40-50 year old cameras manual focus gear is still going strong in many cases.
A great site for the details:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070312081005/members.aol.com/manualminolta/index.htm
Minolta never had a pro line like Nikon and Canon, they just made great cameras for everyone and I liked that. I think their switch in lens mount with the autofocus Maxxums really hurt them and they were behind in digital. But their 40-50 year old cameras manual focus gear is still going strong in many cases.
A great site for the details:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070312081005/members.aol.com/manualminolta/index.htm
Minolta made some very desirable bodies and one of them was the XE/XE-1/XE-7.
It was a result of the Leica/Minolta collaboration and incorporated the first vertical metal blade shutter (in a Minolta SLR) developed by Copal. It has the smoothest film advance of all the manual cameras I have. This really has to be experienced firsthand.
It was a result of the Leica/Minolta collaboration and incorporated the first vertical metal blade shutter (in a Minolta SLR) developed by Copal. It has the smoothest film advance of all the manual cameras I have. This really has to be experienced firsthand.
Last edited:
I used the SRT-101 on the yearbook staff in high school. When I graduated I went looking for a camera. I distinctly remember to this day trying out several cameras in a very well appointed camera store in downtown Minneapolis. I walked out with a layaway receipt for a Minolta SRT-102 and a nice Rokkor MC 55/1.7.
It was the magical smoothness of everything on that camera that sold me over all the rest of the cameras I tried. It was the most amazing thing and I can still remember it. The camera and lens were stolen long ago while I was doing my duty for Uncle Sam but I have since accumulated a small collection of Minolta equipment from that era. Most of it was pretty inexpensive but there is one SRT-102 that I paid way more than I should have. Couldn't help it, because that camera's operation was just as smooth and wonderful as I remembered from the one I bought thirty-five years before.
It was the magical smoothness of everything on that camera that sold me over all the rest of the cameras I tried. It was the most amazing thing and I can still remember it. The camera and lens were stolen long ago while I was doing my duty for Uncle Sam but I have since accumulated a small collection of Minolta equipment from that era. Most of it was pretty inexpensive but there is one SRT-102 that I paid way more than I should have. Couldn't help it, because that camera's operation was just as smooth and wonderful as I remembered from the one I bought thirty-five years before.
The XK/XM/X1 was their pro line.
I just started shooting film this summer again. Haven't really done it since high school classes. First pickup was a really minty SRT-101/55mm 1.7 at Salvation Army for $15 and that got me going. I held onto that camera as my main camera for most this summer but constantly battled on switching to the X-700 as I kept buying and selling those. I just couldn't get past the fact that I couldn't see my shutter speed in the viewfinder on the X-700 so now my main 35mm body is an X-570. I decided I didn't like the SRT-101 focus screen as much as the newer models. 101 feels like you are holding a gun though, it's so solid.
Pretty sure I'm going to stick with Minolta for 35mm forever. I'm using the 50mm 1.4 Rokkor-X and 28mm 2.8 right now mostly.
We'll see how long I go before I find something I like more than the X-570, seems like where I live everyone was buying Minoltas over other brands so they are all over the place thrifting.
Pretty sure I'm going to stick with Minolta for 35mm forever. I'm using the 50mm 1.4 Rokkor-X and 28mm 2.8 right now mostly.
We'll see how long I go before I find something I like more than the X-570, seems like where I live everyone was buying Minoltas over other brands so they are all over the place thrifting.
The XK/XM/X1 models were neer great sellers here in UK and consequently as rare as hens teeth. Whilst Nikon is my main system, I have an XE1 and a SRT100b. The XE1 is almost unmarked and silky smooth to operate despite being around 40 years old. The lever wind is the smoothest of any camera I have ever used. The simple exposure metering has never let me down and all I have to do is to remember to focus. (Too many AF camera years!)
The SRT100 is a basic match needle all metal camera and as tough as old boots. You are supposed to have a 1.35V cell for the meter but a common 1.5v appears to work just as well and like the XE1 the exposure is pretty well dead on. I have had worse from my Nikons with multi pattern metering.
I have two of the saught after MD lenses which cover most of my work, a 24/35 F3.5 constant apperture zoom and a 28/85 F3.5/4.5 which is outstanding! I am on the lookout for a 20mm F2.8 which are also very rare but one will turn up - eventually.
The demise of Minolta was a sad day for photography. (They were good enough for Leitz to use and copy some of their products)
The SRT100 is a basic match needle all metal camera and as tough as old boots. You are supposed to have a 1.35V cell for the meter but a common 1.5v appears to work just as well and like the XE1 the exposure is pretty well dead on. I have had worse from my Nikons with multi pattern metering.
I have two of the saught after MD lenses which cover most of my work, a 24/35 F3.5 constant apperture zoom and a 28/85 F3.5/4.5 which is outstanding! I am on the lookout for a 20mm F2.8 which are also very rare but one will turn up - eventually.
The demise of Minolta was a sad day for photography. (They were good enough for Leitz to use and copy some of their products)
Whilst on the subject of Minolta, but not 35mm. If you are in the market for a twin lens reflex you could do a lot worse than the Minolta Autocord version The taking lens is beyond reproach and the build quality is almost up to that of a Rollieflex with the excepton of the lever focussing which can bend and break off. get a well used one and it will work almost for ever.
FYI I just compared my ancient Minolta 35-70 3.5 zoom to my brand spankin' new gee whiz Nikon 24-120 VRII IS AF etc lens. And the Minolta blows it into the weeds. Yeah it is a shorter zoom range, but it is much much older tech etc. And waaaay cheaper. The Minolta lens is sharp like a fixed focal length, the Nikkor disappoints like zooms tend to do.
Shot both on film - one with the XK, the other with an F6.
Shot both on film - one with the XK, the other with an F6.
I just got a Minolta CLE with the 40mm Rokkor and I agree with Huss -- probably my favorite kit. Also have an X-700 with a few lenses, but I haven't shot anything except the CLE since it arrived in the mail. Such a pleasure to use.
Interesting that you've observed this. When I got a Maxxum 7, it came with an AF 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 lens which at the time I considered a "kit" lens usually sold with the camera. Well, when I first used it I was astonished at the sharpness. I've mentioned this before, but I was so impressed I took the negatives to work and looked at them with a Leica microscope; they were flawlessly sharp. I am convinced this lens can match anyone's prime lens for sharpness. That you see it also tells me I don't have a unique example.
Last edited:
Minolta never had a pro line like Nikon and Canon, they just made great cameras for everyone and I liked that. I think their switch in lens mount with the autofocus Maxxums really hurt them and they were behind in digital. But their 40-50 year old cameras manual focus gear is still going strong in many cases.
What killed Minolta was not design, it lost lost a 100 million dollar patient suit to Honeywell over AF and just did not have the resources to compete with Canon and Nikon, the merger with Konica keep Minolta Konica in business but could not save the camera end.
Minolta was first out of the box with a pro level AF body the 9000, the mid level 7000 is still a classic design, early Minolta AF glass was as good as it got, the 70 to 200 F 4 beer can lens, 35 to 70 3.5 still hold there own as does Minolta A mount primes, the G lens were every bit as good as Canon L and live on today with Sony. Although Sony versions are very expensive and have not been updated. The Minolta 7 and 9 were every bit as good a F100 or F5 or EOS 1Ns. In terms of digital the 5D and 7D were very strong and got excellent review, but were too expensive, the 7D based was on the film Minolta 7 body, got very good reviews, again both lived on as Sony A100 and 200.
What killed Minolta was not design, it lost lost a 100 million dollar patient suit to Honeywell over AF and just did not have the resources to compete with Canon and Nikon, the merger with Konica keep Minolta Konica in business but could not save the camera end.
Minolta was first out of the box with a pro level AF body the 9000, the mid level 7000 is still a classic design, early Minolta AF glass was as good as it got, the 70 to 200 F 4 beer can lens, 35 to 70 3.5 still hold there own as does Minolta A mount primes, the G lens were every bit as good as Canon L and live on today with Sony. Although Sony versions are very expensive and have not been updated. The Minolta 7 and 9 were every bit as good a F100 or F5 or EOS 1Ns. In terms of digital the 5D and 7D were very strong and got excellent review, but were too expensive, the 7D based was on the film Minolta 7 body, got very good reviews, again both lived on as Sony A100 and 200.
Back in the 60s and 70s it was 'known' that Nikon had the sharpest lenses, then Canon. Minolta's lenses were not up to 'professional' standards. That was all hogwash and I would compare most Minolta lenses favorably with any other manufacturer's. It is astounding how 'truisms' can falsely implicate the truth. Minolta was a brand that never, never disappointed.
Celtic? Just as good, optically. Maybe not quite as robust mechanically. Minolta made NO bad lenses. - David Lyga
Celtic? Just as good, optically. Maybe not quite as robust mechanically. Minolta made NO bad lenses. - David Lyga
Their bodies are desirable but the lenses are even more so as Minolta lenses don't play second fiddle to any. After all, Minolta is one of only two camera companies in Japan and one of a very few in the world that make their own optical glass and lenses.
Oh yeah, I found a 250mm 5.6 mirror lens this summer. Anybody really like it back in the day? I sold it for $950. I guess mirror-less users love it.
Yes, micro-4/3 format photographers like it for bird photos; it becomes a 500mm equivalent on their crop sensor.
Yeah I feel like I should have shot a roll with it but I never did, was too money hungry/scared to fuck it up.
| 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:  |