Minolta slr's

[Sirius Glass]

I really do like the lens, mine is everything I would expect in terms of performance.
I also have the 21mm F2.8 MC Rokkor, but the 21mm F4 feels a lot like a rangefinder lens in operation.
Really I am glad I have both of them, but I would recommend the 21mm F4
The 20mm F4.5 Pentax Takumar hood on mine has been replaced by the hood for the 20mm F2.8 MD Rokkor
Here it is on one of my Minolta SRM's

001 by Nokton48, on Flickr

I had the f/2.8 21mm since the early 1970's and enjoyed it. It was a great lens. the f/4 lens if I remember correctly required the mirror be locked up. I much perferred the f/2.8 because I could see what I was going to get.

 

[Nokton48]

I think it's nice to have both. The 21mm F4 gives me a sort of rangefinder-like shooting buzz.
And the 21mm has floating elements, is faster and has reflex viewing. But it's quite large with the hood on it

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think it's nice to have both. The 21mm F4 gives me a sort of rangefinder-like shooting buzz.
And the 21mm has floating elements, is faster and has reflex viewing. But it's quite large with the hood on it

When I used it, I felt like I was carrying a large automobile head light on my chest. i had to be careful not to bump or bang it.

 

[beegee675]

Cameras are almost as cheap to try as just the film was once, but now is more expensive with processing and CD... One can easily buy a good under-$20 camera and spend the same amount with t he first two rolls...

 

[skorpiius]

Cameras are almost as cheap to try as just the film was once, but now is more expensive with processing and CD... One can easily buy a good under-$20 camera and spend the same amount with t he first two rolls...

I have to admit I'm tempted to pick up one of the late model Minoltas just to try, even though I have zero accessories and would have to buy a lens with the body.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have to admit I'm tempted to pick up one of the late model Minoltas just to try, even though I have zero accessories and would have to buy a lens with the body.

Enough with the excuses, give in to your GAS! This is APUG you are posting on, the gateway more equipment GAS, the gateway to larger formats and the gateway to turning you living space into dark rooms!

 

[skorpiius]

10 minute long Maxxum/Dynax 9 ad

[video=youtube;6ictEV3aBiU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ictEV3aBiU[/video]

1:45 to 3:45 is just photos.

 

[skorpiius]

I'm impressed that the exposure data recording was just text on a smart media card, no expensive adaptors required.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Here is my Holy Grail at last: a Minolta SRT-101 (silver dial) with MC Rokkor 58/1.2 -- I lusted over this in 1971 but there was no way I could afford it. I bought a Pentax SP500 instead (I deliberately did not by an SRT-100 because it would always remind me of the "big sister" SRT-101 I didn't have). With great symbolism, this photo shows the SP500 as well.

The black Minolta AF lenses are for the Maxxum 7, barely visible in the top right.

 

[Les Sarile]

The XD-11 is a very nice camera but built like a tank? I definitely don't think so. You do need to treat it with tender loving care.

You may not be familiar with tanks but they came in wide range of configurations - from light and fast to super heavy and slow.

The Modern and Popular Photography reviews of the XD-11 indicated they were well designed and used good materials - saving weight without sacrificing durability. May not be a main battle tank but it certainly has a feel of quality.

 

[georg16nik]

Is this to say that Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) and Tokyo Kogaku (Topcon) weren't? Interesting.

My first SLR was my SRT-101. I shot 56 rolls in it 1995-2001, before I crossed over to Pentax to get both AF capability and access to cheap MF lenses.

This summer, when a Stereo Colorist died mid-roll, I finished the roll by taking my SRT down Memory Lane.

By 1970's, most lens players in Japan used OEM's for the bulk of their products and likely used their in-house glass for only top models.

IMHO, the interesting ones are Minolta and Yashica (since they acquired Zunow, Tomioka in the 1960's).

 

[kivis]

The X-570 was my first Minolta, arriving right after my Pentax ME Super died. It remains my favorite Minolta body. I have 3 X-700's (1 for parts) and an X-370 that I have come to like a lot. Last week I picked up a pristine SRT-201 that will go in for conversion to modern battery and a CLA and I should then have enough bodies that there will always be one loaded with every kind of film I shoot. They are wonderful cameras with fantastic lenses and extremely accurate light meters.

Got this at a garage sale (I hate these things but, alas, my wife loves them). Cost me $35 including a 50/1.7 lens. Everything works at it has a few things other film cameras don't have. Can anyone guess what that might be? Anyway a nice rig.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_X-570

 

[chassis]

Minolta was an SLR brand that I never connected with well.

(Canon was another, with the AE1 which just felt wrong to me, but at least they had the EF and F1n winners.)

Was the XD11 the last decent Minolta model before the awkward dynax era with creative expansion cards? Did anyone like that?

(Sorry, this post is a negative one. It's not my usual type of post. Don't we deserve one of those every now and then?)

@frank The Dynax 9 is an outstanding "pro level" camera. Give it a look. Built to last, no creative expansion cards that I am aware of, fast autofocus, Zeiss glass available. Not much to not like. Strong recommend.

 

[Kino]

Walking Dead Alert!

Just a gentle reminder; Frank hasn't been on this site since 2019 and this is a resurrected thread; not that these threads don't have value, but be aware of it.

Frank probably won't reply!

 

[mklw1954]

The XD11 was sold from 1977-1984. It was considered better than than the SRTs (late '60s - late '70s) because of the vertical metal shutter; more compact body; both shutter and aperture priority (and manual metering), a big deal 45 years ago; electronic shutter control, LCD metering display, and 1.5 volt non-mercury battery. It was jointly developed with Leica. The manual focus X-series (X700, X570, etc.) came out in the early '80s and the Dynax auto-focus series came out around the same time. As far as what's decent, that's individual taste - I still use and like my SRTs, XD11, and X-series bodies and excellent Rokkor lenses. Never owned a Dynax.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a 101, very rough condition but works, a X700 that needs the shutter serviced, hangs up in hot weather, and a 7000, a couple of 9000s with motor drives, 600si, 800si, 900si, a 7 and 9. Of the AF bodies I seem to grab the 800si more than the others. The 600si or cCassic is really easy to use, dials as opposed to menu driven, both 700 and 900 are menu driven, uses those stupid cards for advanced features like multiple exposure or bracketing, heavy cameras with fast and accurate focusing. The 7 is the most advanced and will work with new Sony lens, the 9 came before the 7 had to factory modified to work SSM lens. Stainless steel construction, there was a Titiumum version as well which are somewhat collectable. The 9 has one, only one flaw a dim viewfinder readout, hard to see in dim light. As I live in the desert Southwest, I use the A600 or 800 more often. I have never taken the 7. The 9000 was the first pro level AF camera, and is itself odd. The Minolta pro level XK came in a nonmotorized version and an integrated motor drive version. Pros were unhappy at the thought of buying 2 bodies as with Nikon, Canon, and Pentax you could take the drive off when not needed for a lighter and quitter body. Well the 9000 is the only pro level AF body with an optional drive or winder. The Nikon F4 and Canon EOS 1 of course has integrated motor drives. The drive for the 9000 uses 12 AA batteries, the camera body takes 2 and full flash set with all three flashes another 12 AA batteries.

 

[RLangham]

I bought a broken European-market SRT 101b with a bunch of lenses for 11 bucks one time. Since then I've bought a SRT 200 for 6 bucks at a thrift store, which worked perfectly and which I used for a long time (at times my main SLR, due to having all those lenses), then upgraded to an original SRT 101.

The two working SRT's I've had have been very great, if a little eccentric. In the end I do get a little tired of the two-needle system, but it sure beats stopped-down metering. Right now my 101 isn't in my active rotation, but with all these lenses I don't doubt it will be again.

Honestly, I get why people don't like these. They're really odd in some ways, owing to the fact that they hit on a good design QUITE early, by adding really ingeniously-engineered open-aperture metering to their earlier SR series, and then kept making incremental updates of it for what, twenty years? They show their roots in early 60's SLR design.

 

[Zathras]

I bought a broken European-market SRT 101b with a bunch of lenses for 11 bucks one time. Since then I've bought a SRT 200 for 6 bucks at a thrift store, which worked perfectly and which I used for a long time (at times my main SLR, due to having all those lenses), then upgraded to an original SRT 101.

The two working SRT's I've had have been very great, if a little eccentric. In the end I do get a little tired of the two-needle system, but it sure beats stopped-down metering. Right now my 101 isn't in my active rotation, but with all these lenses I don't doubt it will be again.

Honestly, I get why people don't like these. They're really odd in some ways, owing to the fact that they hit on a good design QUITE early, by adding really ingeniously-engineered open-aperture metering to their earlier SR series, and then kept making incremental updates of it for what, twenty years? They show their roots in early 60's SLR design.

I don't know why Minoltas were/are looked down on. When I was in high school, our local weekly newspaper used Minolta SRT-101s
and they were great cameras that could take a beating and keep going. Since I filled in for the paper's darkroom tech when he went on
vacation, I was also allowed to use one of the cameras from time to time. That's where learned how good Minolta Rokkor lenses are.
Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X enlarging lenses are also top quality lenses.

 

[Kino]

I don't know why Minoltas were/are looked down on. When I was in high school, our local weekly newspaper used Minolta SRT-101s
and they were great cameras that could take a beating and keep going. Since I filled in for the paper's darkroom tech when he went on
vacation, I was also allowed to use one of the cameras from time to time. That's where learned how good Minolta Rokkor lenses are.
Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X enlarging lenses are also top quality lenses.

Agreed. The SRT series is hard to beat at any price; they are pure, unadulterated functionality, have superb optics and are rugged to boot. I think people like to dislike them because there are no bells and whistles to distract them...

 

[Paul Howell]

Minolta was well respected by commercial photographers who liked the lens and lens line up. Unless you needed the additional features of an Nikon, Canon F1, or Topcon SuperDM, Minolta was very functional. Minolta made their own glass, even today Konica Minolta makes lens for Sony and industrial lens.

 

[Zathras]

Agreed. The SRT series is hard to beat at any price; they are pure, unadulterated functionality, have superb optics and are rugged to boot. I think people like to dislike them because there are no bells and whistles to distract them...

Exactly. Thanks to the ignorance of those people, I have been able to build up a real nice setup based on my SRT-101 where nearly all
of my lenses are Rokkor lenses. The only exception is my first version 70-210mm ƒ3.5 Vivitar Series-1 zoom. That is a lens I would want
to have for ANY 35mm SLR I happened to use.

 

[Chan Tran]

You may not be familiar with tanks but they came in wide range of configurations - from light and fast to super heavy and slow.

The Modern and Popular Photography reviews of the XD-11 indicated they were well designed and used good materials - saving weight without sacrificing durability. May not be a main battle tank but it certainly has a feel of quality.

I didn't say it wasn't of quality. In fact built like a tank isn't a quality I want from a camera. I treat all my cameras with tender loving care. The better ones deserve it even more.

 

[Les Sarile]

I didn't say it wasn't of quality. In fact built like a tank isn't a quality I want from a camera. I treat all my cameras with tender loving care. The better ones deserve it even more.

I clearly misunderstood you as I too don't use any of my cameras as a hammer - not even for thumb tacks!

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'm a convert to the Minolta Gang. Found an XK with 3 Minolta lenses at a used bin for $20! That does tend to elevate my mood, but this camera on its own is just fantastic...so much so that I sold off a black body Spotmatic and 3 minty lenses that I quite liked, just because I knew it would be sitting around idle after I picked up the Minolta.

It just 'feels' right, and the lenses really are top-shelf. Fantastically sharp and contrasty...not for nothing did they team up with Leica for a while.

Now looking for a black body XE-7 to have as a 2nd, and I'll be happy. For now.

 

[Paul Howell]

XK with lens, now thats a find.