Minolta SRT102/SRT Super - First camera to display shutter speed & aperture in viewfinder?

[Chan Tran]

I prefer Minolta myself. The lens program and the bodies.

But I have an ME F that is fun to take for swing once in a while. The M lenses are super small and great. I like the 50 1.8, the 28 2.8 the 135 3.5 (thr 2.8 version seems quite rare) and oddly enough the 24mm 2.8 everyone seems to think is a stepchild. It’s seems almost or as good as the Minolta equivalent.

I prefer the KX to the Minolta SR-t series. But of course I would take any SR-t over the K1000.

 

[crowtalks]

I have an SRT101 and they are fun cameras.

There may have been pro cameras that displayed shooting info in the viewfinder earlier, but the comparison is like apples and oranges...

A Nikon F2 photomic sold new for about $650 in the early 70s, while the SRT101 cost about $180 new.

As far as consumer cameras go I still believe this little Minolta was in the lead (but I just saw in another reply that Konica may have done it earlier).

I know that once one manufacturer came out with something awesome, the others rushed to copy it.

 

[Paul Howell]

Butkus does have a manual for both - T1 and T2. T1 doesn't appear to have full readout (it only seems to have the aperture scale), while T2 already has aperture + shutter indicator.

I have T, T2, which is not labeled as T2, T3 and T4, the T, T2. T3 show the aperture scale on the right, on the bottom is the shutter speed readout. The T4 does not have a shutter speed readout. Not sure about the later electronic versions or the TC. The A, A3 do not have a shutter speed readout.

 

[xkaes]

I prefer the KX to the Minolta SR-t series. But of course I would take any SR-t over the K1000.

The Minolta SRT200 models (there were EIGHT of them -- http://www.subclub.org/minman/srt200.htm) were almost exactly the same as the Pentax K1000 -- size, weight, features, etc.

The main difference is that you can find a Minolta SRT200 model for about 1/10th the price of the K1000.

 

[Chan Tran]

The Minolta SRT200 models (there were EIGHT of them -- http://www.subclub.org/minman/srt200.htm) were almost exactly the same as the Pentax K1000 -- size, weight, features, etc.

The main difference is that you can find a Minolta SRT200 model for about 1/10th the price of the K1000.

The main thing about the SR-t is that their meter isn't accurate. Even when I used the correct battery it still has problem because the response isn't linear. Oh yeah the K1000 is selling used for more than the KX. That's the reason I hate the K1000. I do have a few of them for free but I would never use them. Being the same as the K1000 isn't something good. It's the cheapest SLR Pentax made.

 

[Helge]

The main thing about the SR-t is that their meter isn't accurate. Even when I used the correct battery it still has problem because the response isn't linear. Oh yeah the K1000 is selling used for more than the KX. That's the reason I hate the K1000. I do have a few of them for free but I would never use them. Being the same as the K1000 isn't something good. It's the cheapest SLR Pentax made.

And you know this how? Never noticed anything off with any of mine.
As long as the cement holding the cells to the prism has not yellowed or has been properly cleaned off and replaced, it’s as good as any CdS meter.

 

[Les Sarile]

But LX is larger than Super, MX, Program and A Super.
KX size is probably why they pulled it after only two years.

The LX is very small even by small camera standards . . .

Size Lineup by Les DMess, on Flickr

Compared to it's peers - interchangeable viewfinder types . . .

MInolta XK, Canon New F-1, Nikon F3 & Pentax LX by Les DMess, on Flickr


And it has more viewfinders with the largest and smallest magnification . . .

LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Chan Tran]

And you know this how? Never noticed anything off with any of mine.
As long as the cement holding the cells to the prism has not yellowed or has been properly cleaned off and replaced, it’s as good as any CdS meter.

By testing several of them with correct battery voltage. And yes I used Minolta meters to check.

 

[xkaes]

Being the same as the K1000 isn't something good. It's the cheapest SLR Pentax made.

The K1000 might have been the least expensive SLR that Pentax ever made -- adjusting for inflation (we'll forget about the Pentax 110 SLR for now) -- but it's certainly not the least expensive 35mm SLR to buy today. That's what really matters.

 

[xkaes]

And you know this how? Never noticed anything off with any of mine.
As long as the cement holding the cells to the prism has not yellowed or has been properly cleaned off and replaced, it’s as good as any CdS meter.

I agree. I've never had any problems with my SRT meters. Some people don't use them correctly because of the CLC bottom-weighted system, but I think they are more accurate for most people and subjects when compared to a center-weighted method.

 

[GRHazelton]

The LX is very small even by small camera standards . . .

Size Lineup by Les DMess, on Flickr

Compared to it's peers - interchangeable viewfinder types . . .

MInolta XK, Canon New F-1, Nikon F3 & Pentax LX by Les DMess, on Flickr


And it has more viewfinders with the largest and smallest magnification . . .

LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr

Les, thanks for setting the record straight on the relative sizes of high end 35mm system cameras.

 

[xkaes]

By testing several of them with correct battery voltage. And yes I used Minolta meters to check.

I use Minolta meters too -- usually in incident mode. But with my SRT meters, I only needed to use my Minolta Autometer II in difficult situations. Some of my best exposures were with the SRT meters and Kodachrome 25. If your meter isn't dead-on accurate, Kodachrome 25 will let you know!

 

[Chan Tran]

The K1000 might have been the least expensive SLR that Pentax ever made -- adjusting for inflation (we'll forget about the Pentax 110 SLR for now) -- but it's certainly not the least expensive 35mm SLR to buy today. That's what really matters.

The K1000 is way overpriced today.

 

[Helge]

By testing several of them with correct battery voltage. And yes I used Minolta meters to check.

Did you test incident with a diffuser or on a blank wall? Remember CLC.

 

[Helge]

The K1000 is way overpriced today.

Same could be said for Mju II or F3 or most medium format gear.

 

[Chan Tran]

Did you test incident with a diffuser or on a blank wall? Remember CLC.

The meter in the camera is reflected so the meter I use to compare with is also reflected. I used a dichroic enlarger so that I can dial in the intensity of the light which is a 6" circle. I checked the eveness of the surface and it's better than 0.1 stop using the Minolta spot meter. The camera would be put close to it and have that surface cover the entire frame. The light intensity is changed from EV9 to EV15 to check meter response when in a dark place as well as bright place. It's over expose in the bright and under in the dark. So you can't even compensate for it by using a different ASA than your film.
If I were to use an incident meter then the lighted surface must be 18% gray and also since it a flat surface the flat diffuser must be used. Also it's difficult to light a surface evenly when the camera is blocking the light.

 

[xkaes]

Seems like a rather unusual "meter comparison" method, but comparing a TTL averaging meter to a spot meter is asking for "significant differences" -- proving nothing.

 

[Helge]

The meter in the camera is reflected so the meter I use to compare with is also reflected. I used a dichroic enlarger so that I can dial in the intensity of the light which is a 6" circle. I checked the eveness of the surface and it's better than 0.1 stop using the Minolta spot meter. The camera would be put close to it and have that surface cover the entire frame. The light intensity is changed from EV9 to EV15 to check meter response when in a dark place as well as bright place. It's over expose in the bright and under in the dark. So you can't even compensate for it by using a different ASA than your film.
If I were to use an incident meter then the lighted surface must be 18% gray and also since it a flat surface the flat diffuser must be used. Also it's difficult to light a surface evenly when the camera is blocking the light.

CdS cells has a different spectral response. Warmer light might account for the difference.

Not a big deal at the time of Sr-t introduction, due to the slowness of film making it outdoors strictly and flash indoors, or tungsten rated and sensitized film.

 

[Chan Tran]

CdS cells has a different spectral response. Warmer light might account for the difference.

Not a big deal at the time of Sr-t introduction, due to the slowness of film making it outdoors stricktly and flash indoors, or tungsten rated and sensitized film.

Meter is supposed to have a spectral response of about 4700K. I use a color meter and dial in the dichroic filter to get it about that.

 

[skorpiius]

Olympus 35RC is a good (and rather tiny) example of that. However, the best definition of its release year I have is "1970-something" Some sources claim that it's from 1970 specifically, but I'm not sure.

Very cool, I had no idea such a thing existed

Olympus 35RC rangefinder: A pint-sized powerhouse – Daniel J. Schneider

 

[skorpiius]

The LX is very small even by small camera standards . . .

Size Lineup by Les DMess, on Flickr

Compared to it's peers - interchangeable viewfinder types . . .

MInolta XK, Canon New F-1, Nikon F3 & Pentax LX by Les DMess, on Flickr


And it has more viewfinders with the largest and smallest magnification . . .

LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr

I love these comparison posts, super helpful.

 

[benjiboy]

View attachment 338279

I'm curious if this 1973 camera was the first one or if there were earlier examples, SLR or otherwise.

This example only has the shutter speed in the display, and an indication of under or over exposure, but no indication of lens aperture set on the lens
The Canon E F that came out also in 1973 had both the shutter speed in use and the lens aperture set in the viewfinder.

 

[Chan Tran]

This example only has the shutter speed in the display, and an indication of under or over exposure, but no indication of lens aperture set on the lens
The Canon E F that came out also in 1973 had both the shutter speed in use and the lens aperture in the viewfinder.

Yes I have 2 EF's but it only display automatically set aperture or recommended aperture. Not manually set aperture.

 

[xkaes]

Very cool, I had no idea such a thing existed

Olympus 35RC rangefinder: A pint-sized powerhouse – Daniel J. Schneider

View attachment 338451

The 35RC (1970) -- and it's better brother, the 35RD (1975) -- show the set shutter speed and the automatically-set f-stop in the viewfinder. There were MANY similar cameras in that era -- most available very inexpensively:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/leanmean.pdf

 

[Les Sarile]

Les, thanks for setting the record straight on the relative sizes of high end 35mm system cameras.

I love these comparison posts, super helpful.

I enjoy taking pics of them as well as with them!

Regarding the original topic, I suppose that leaves out all M42 as well as Olympus OM cameras.