Minolta XE/XE-1/XE-7 - best manual focus Minolta?

[CMoore]

CMoore, hey, it's all in what you know and what you're comfortable with. I started out shooting Canon FD -- my first 35mm camera was an AE-1. Then I "graduated" to an A-1, but wasn't feeling the joy anymore. I finally discovered the art and craft of photography when I took a step back in time and bought a clean used FTb. What a revelation. About a year later, I bought my first (original) F-1, and I've been something of a hardcore F-1 nut ever since. But! This hasn't kept me from discovering and appreciating other fine cameras. In addition to a large Canon FD outfit, which includes bot old and new F-1s, I also have large Nikon and Pentax outfits, with a couple of AF examples in each. And in addition to the couple of Minoltas, I also own several M42 cameras and a few Canon M39 (Leica Screw Mount) rangefinders. To me, these days, it's all good. Whatever works for you is what you should use.

Absolutely.....i do not take "better" pictures with Minolta, i just mesh better with those cameras. I actually owned A LOT of A-Series Canon. But in the end, i decided to sell the AE-1P and A-1 and keep my AT-1.
I bought a F-1New a year ago and really dig that camera as well. It will probably be a few years, still, before i shoot as many frames with any one camera as i did my A-1. It works fine, i bonded better with something else is all. However.....I WOULD like to go back in time and confront my friends that were misguided Canon Snobs .......

 

[cooltouch]

Yeah, Paul, you're right. I had a 9000 for a while. Should have written "last metal-bodied large-frame manual focus cameras."

 

[cooltouch]

However.....I WOULD like to go back in time and confront my friends that were misguided Canon Snobs .......

I could say the same thing about a lot of Nikon shooters I knew back in the day when I was a hardcore Canon shooter. Whenever I was out freelancing, typically at Motorsports events, if I ran across the occasional Canon shooter -- and it did happen -- we'd just nod at each other and smile knowingly.

 

[CMoore]

I could say the same thing about a lot of Nikon shooters I knew back in the day when I was a hardcore Canon shooter. Whenever I was out freelancing, typically at Motorsports events, if I ran across the occasional Canon shooter -- and it did happen -- we'd just nod at each other and smile knowingly.

I hope the saying has not gone out...or become bad taste, but......."It's Not The Arrow, It's The Indian".

 

[cooltouch]

Well if you're worried about being PC (I'm not!), you could substitute "indian" with "archer."

But I agree with the substance of your comment. Absolutely.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

My Nikon FE-2 started to get a flaky shutter where it would occasionally lock open. One of my Nikkormat FT2s started to get a jumpy meter needle. My Nikon F2AS needed Sover Wong to repair the meter as it had the notorious ring failure. My Nikon EM's shutter would not correspond to the meter reading. My Nikon F4 would not meter correctly in shutter priority.
Sold off the FE-2, the EM, F4, repaired the others.

Stuff gets old...

 

[unwantedfocus]

This post is one hell of a cliffhanger @Huss what happened did you get a new one did you get it fixed? How was the camera overall?

 

[Huss]

This post is one hell of a cliffhanger @Huss what happened did you get a new one did you get it fixed? How was the camera overall?

Hah. Ok, a couple of years ago I gifted it to a co-worker's son who was getting into photography, and was using a Minolta SRT101. I figured he already had the lenses for it. It was a surprise gift to him when he came to one of my shows. I checked back with him a little while ago and he said it was working great. That kid got lucky, another co-worker found a box of old cameras and sent it to me. One of the old cameras was a perfect condition like new X700 w 50 f2 MD. I had too many cameras and gifted that one to him to - he flipped out!
It's nice when stuff is appreciated.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have a Minolta XM, the European equivalent of the XK and yes I will agree that it is a bit ungainly when compared to others of the same era. Against the Nikon F2 which it was designed to compete with the F2 is a much easier camera to operate.
I also have a Minolta XE1 and that is a delight to use but not of the same quality as the XM. The shutter speed is not as wide as the XM. The film wind is smoother with no question but the shutter is noisier.
Using the XM, the shutter on that camera is so very quiet, I would say not a great deal more than a Leica rangefinder. The meters are about the same, although even with the same lenses fitted there can be up to a full stop different with the exposure reading but oddly I have yet to have a poor exposure from either camera

Don't ask me to choose between them because I like them both

 

[BMbikerider]

In MC/MD mount, the A9000 was all metal, large, manual wind, odd for an AF, or optional winder and drives. The Minolta 9 was also all metal, stainless steel.

I have had 2 Minolta 9's and I wish I still had them. Easily better than the Nikon F6 that replaced them. It was such a well designed camera it was a sad day when they were discontinued. Very few were made in comparison with other 'pro' class cameras and they only very rarely come up for sale today.

 

[Huss]

I have had 2 Minolta 9's and I wish I still had them. Easily better than the Nikon F6 that replaced them. It was such a well designed camera it was a sad day when they were discontinued. Very few were made in comparison with other 'pro' class cameras and they only very rarely come up for sale today.

How were they easily better than the F6?

 

[BMbikerider]

How were they easily better than the F6?

Faster focus, more accurate meter, less expensive, and gave the impression of being very very well thought out and more intuitive to operate.
I have had an F6 as well so I'm in a position to compare over several months. The only downside (in my opinion) was the inclusion of the built in flash which the F6 didn't have.

 

[Huss]

Faster focus, more accurate meter, less expensive, and gave the impression of being very very well thought out and more intuitive to operate.
I have had an F6 as well so I'm in a position to compare over several months. The only downside (in my opinion) was the inclusion of the built in flash which the F6 didn't have.

Was the Minolta able to use the manual focus only lenses?

 

[Huss]

I hope the saying has not gone out...or become bad taste, but......."It's Not The Arrow, It's The Indian".

I thought i t was “It’s not the dog in the fight. it’s what the dog had for dinner”

 

[BMbikerider]

Was the Minolta able to use the manual focus only lenses?

I never tried that but there are/were adapters available. But that is not then point. I just found it a better camera to use. Have you used a Dynax 9 or an F6/ If not, perhaps I am in a better position to make a decision Please don't nit pick it is not good manners.

 

[Huss]

I never tried that but there are/were adapters available. But that is not then point. I just found it a better camera to use. Have you used a Dynax 9 or an F6/ If not, perhaps I am in a better position to make a decision Please don't nit pick it is not good manners.

Actually I do use the F6 and one attraction of it is that it is fully compatible with a huge range of manual lenses as well as chipped lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

That is not nit picking, that is a real use scenario so please don’t suggest that is not good manners when I demonstrate real value in the F6.

 

[Helge]

Never tried any of XE series, but have generally abysmal experience with Minos. X-570 with sloppy meter which loves to jump around never giving correct exposure, X-700 which turns off randomly and refuses to turn back on, another X-700 which won't stop down the aperture (again, occasionally), third X-700 and Maxxum 9000 with busted shutter magnets which cause the cameras to "fire" with closed curtains. All of the above made me renounce Minolta once and for all, even though my pal has a perfextly working X-700.

It was quite a popular brand, giving more bang for the buck, while not skimping on build quality, so there is consequently a lot of lemons out there. And they tend to travel in packs. It's simply Greshams Law all over again.

A good X-700 is hard to beat. I love the XD-7/11, but it has a few reoccurring problems. Bouncing shutter curtain, falling off judas mirror, flaky follower arms for the lens, etc.
It is very smooth feeling, but somehow the smoothness feels a bit gimmicky. The mirror damper is a pneumatic tube that can get clogged and it doesn't really feel like it's doing much to avoid the initial jolt.

The X-700 is the last big message Minolta had to its SR mount customers and it was produced for so long.
It has the capacitor problem, but that's checkable and repairable.
The P mode, the TTL flash and the exposure lock is all stuff I'm missing when shooting the XD.

XE series is just large and flaky in my experience. Nice if it works, but I'd rather have a SR-t 202.

The SR-t series has the squeaky wind problem on many bodies and that needs to be fixed. Both for aesthetic and technical reasons. The metering is slow and not very precise in low light. But when it works, it works very well and is a pleasure to use.

Minoltas build and mechanical quality is very much on par with anyone but sixties/seventies Nikon, which is in a league of its own.
I'd even put it a tad above Olympus and Pentax.
Olympus feels very reassuring, but is IMO deceitful, I've had more off meters, flaky electronics, internally mechanically broken lenses and foamed up prisms from Olympus than any other brand.
Pentax has some real stinkers too, with too much soft plastic and bad electronics. MX is great, but the focus screen, which is the number one important component of a good SLR, doesn't hold a candle to the Acute Matte screen of Minolta.

 

[BMbikerider]

Actually I do use the F6 and one attraction of it is that it is fully compatible with a huge range of manual lenses as well as chipped lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

That is not nit picking, that is a real use scenario so please don’t suggest that is not good manners when I demonstrate real value in the F6.

But not a Dynax 9?

 

[Huss]

But not a Dynax 9?

No. Which is why I asked you the very simple and very polite question "was the Minolta able to use the manual focus only lenses?"
A question that if asked is obvious that I do not have experience with the camera.

Then you react by saying I am being rude by nit-picking. Which I find very strange, when all I did was ask a question about a camera that I had not used.

For my uses the Nikon is superior because I use a combination of manual focus and AF lenses and it works seamlessly between them. If you have no need for manual focus lenses, and your AF lens catalogue is sufficient, then I can understand the preference for the Minolta.

 

[M-88]

It was quite a popular brand, giving more bang for the buck, while not skimping on build quality, so there is consequently a lot of lemons out there. And they tend to travel in packs. It's simply Greshams Law all over again.

A good X-700 is hard to beat. I love the XD-7/11, but it has a few reoccurring problems. Bouncing shutter curtain, falling off judas mirror, flaky follower arms for the lens, etc.
It is very smooth feeling, but somehow the smoothness feels a bit gimmicky. The mirror damper is a pneumatic tube that can get clogged and it doesn't really feel like it's doing much to avoid the initial jolt.

The X-700 is the last big message Minolta had to its SR mount customers and it was produced for so long.
It has the capacitor problem, but that's checkable and repairable.
The P mode, the TTL flash and the exposure lock is all stuff I'm missing when shooting the XD.

XE series is just large and flaky in my experience. Nice if it works, but I'd rather have a SR-t 202.

The SR-t series has the squeaky wind problem on many bodies and that needs to be fixed. Both for aesthetic and technical reasons. The metering is slow and not very precise in low light. But when it works, it works very well and is a pleasure to use.

Minoltas build and mechanical quality is very much on par with anyone but sixties/seventies Nikon, which is in a league of its own.
I'd even put it a tad above Olympus and Pentax.
Olympus feels very reassuring, but is IMO deceitful, I've had more off meters, flaky electronics, internally mechanically broken lenses and foamed up prisms from Olympus than any other brand.
Pentax has some real stinkers too, with too much soft plastic and bad electronics. MX is great, but the focus screen, which is the number one important component of a good SLR, doesn't hold a candle to the Acute Matte screen of Minolta.

I look at my post from four years ago and at your response as well. You have a point, OMs die too. Any hardware will inevitably break down after decades of use. But I was pretty biased, because I can easily repair OM-1, OM-2 and OM20/40 and at the same time, I'm just not proficient enough when it comes to Minolta. Some models (like early Maxxums) aren't among most easily serviceable cameras either. Probably they weren't meant to be. Good thing I can at least replace the dead capacitor on X series bodies.

Still, a fanfare X-700 is receiving is a bit too much in my opinion. XD7/XD11 feels like a better camera.

 

[BMbikerider]

But when you come down to it why does anyone want to buy masses and masses of lenses both manual focus and AF. When they are not in use it is money that to all intents and purposes 'dead'. I would rather spend it on film. There are only so many at any time that you can carry or indeed need. I still use NIkon as my secondary system and can get by very well with 4 lenses (17/35, 24/120, 70/300 and a 90mm macro) I don't need anything else. Even carrying the 17/35 and the 24/120 is all I can carry comfortably for an extended time when out walking. Add in a decent tripod, film, filters it all adds up. I have grown up from the stage of wanting to buy the latest and probably most expensive piece of kit. Simply I don't need it. The Macro (Not Nikon) only rarely leaves the house because that is where it is used the most.

Any of the 4 lenses for the Nikon will be able to print up to 12x16 which is the largest I can handle so I don't need any more.

If I really want to enjoy taking pictures I revert to my MInolta MF system which is more limited in scope than the Nikon. All prime lenses (MC and MD) from 24 through to 200 but only rarely do I take more than three. Again I usually don't need them all every time, it all depends on where and what I am going to photograph.

 

[Huss]

But when you come down to it why does anyone want to buy masses and masses of lenses both manual focus and AF. ..

One doesn't need to buy masses. Just the ones they need. Some may be manual lenses - I particularly like the Zeiss 50 Makro Planar. Some may be AF - I love the Sigma Art lenses and the Nikon 18-35G. The F6 gives you that option. If you don't want that option, that's fine. But don't go and claim that I am being rude.

My F6 with one of my favourite lenses:

 

[Helge]

Still, a fanfare X-700 is receiving is a bit too much in my opinion. XD7/XD11 feels like a better camera.

XD is always trumpeted when compared.
That’s a pitty I think. Because at best they are about equal.
XD doesn’t really do anything better, while X-700 does a few things better.
I know which camera I’m reaching for and have packed in a go-bag with my most used lenses.

 

[unwantedfocus]

XD is always trumpeted when compared.
That’s a pitty I think. Because at best they are about equal.
XD doesn’t really do anything better, while X-700 does a few things better.
I know which camera I’m reaching for and have packed in a go-bag with my most used lenses.

It seems like the x700 has fewer problems compared to the xd7, the infamous shutter lag made possibly one of the greatest Minolta cameras unreliable. A year or so I shipped one to a friend I hadn't had much experience with the xd7 and was wondering why there was a delay when I fired it, up on reading about the problem I figured this is a common problem, sad. X700 seems more reliable overall and the better choice longterm.

 

[Helge]

It seems like the x700 has fewer problems compared to the xd7, the infamous shutter lag made possibly one of the greatest Minolta cameras unreliable. A year or so I shipped one to a friend I hadn't had much experience with the xd7 and was wondering why there was a delay when I fired it, up on reading about the problem I figured this is a common problem, sad. X700 seems more reliable overall and the better choice longterm.

If you see an XD, by all means grab it, it’s a superb camera.
Just don’t lust after it if you have an X-700. Or put off going into Minolta until you find the perfect XD.
They are a bit rarer than other Minoltas, for a lot of reasons. One of them being the original price.

This is coming from someone who practically lives in shutter priority when I have the option, because I shoot a lot of long lenses.
P mode in the X-700 leans nicely into getting a fast shutter while not just cranking for max hole all the time, which any long lens shooter will tell you is not a good idea 99% of the time.