Minolta XK AE vs AE-S heads - my take.

[Huss]

There seems to be a general tendency to homogenize the product especially once a "successful formula" is discovered. I for one appreciate the many ways I can appreciate taking a photo. One thing these do seem to have in common, they are all good light tight boxes . . .

What a cool lineup! To me the New F1 looks like it could still be a 'modern' film camera currently in production.

 

[blockend]

Not sure if the unmetered F or F2 are the prettiest SLRs ever made. The early Nikon type face is exquisitely understated upper and lower case, no silly bold or worse, italicised lettering - that nonsense came later. The square edges of the F give it a monumental quality, but the F2 is slightly more practical as a user. Both are gorgeous.

 

[Les Sarile]

...but the F2 is slightly more practical as a user.

The plain prism F2 is still unmetered.

 

[blockend]

The plain prism F2 is still unmetered.

Indeed. If metering is essential, a Nikkormat is about the same size as an F, and has none of the top heavy accretions.

 

[Huss]

Indeed. If metering is essential, a Nikkormat is about the same size as an F, and has none of the top heavy accretions.

But how big would the head be if it was made detachable? Does the Nikkormat show 100% view of the image like the F?
If metering is essential, an FM2 or FE2 is smaller, lighter, has a more sensitive meter etc etc. But of course that is not the same era camera, even though the FM immediately replaced the FT3

 

[blockend]

But how big would the head be if it was made detachable? Does the Nikkormat show 100% view of the image like the F?
If metering is essential, an FM2 or FE2 is smaller, lighter, has a more sensitive meter etc etc. But of course that is not the same era camera, even though the FM immediately replaced the FT3

As all manufacturer's professional models with interchangeable heads were pretty massive in their early iterations (1960's, early 1970s), one can only conclude the technology demanded such voluminous prisms. They shrunk by the late 1970s and early 80s, and were more modestly proportioned thereafter. In my opinion, the early Photomics were sufficiently large to make a separate light meter a serious consideration, though not everyone will agree. I've never been concerned about 100% viewfinders and I have owned a few. If it's a worry give a little slack on the edges.

After selling my plain prism F I acquired an F2AS, and found it handled poorly with the top swivelling downwards continually, and quickly sold it. I suspect most similar cameras would behave the same way. The FM and FE weren't built to the same quality as Nikkormats IMO, though they were very good.

 

[Les Sarile]

Of course not everyone wants/needs the full system capability of interchangeable viewfinder SLRs and fortunately enough there are some fine alternatives.

As you can see, not all interchangeable viewfinder cameras are massive.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Very attractive...

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Given the creativity and variety of cameras in the 1960's and 1970's, I wonder which has the most outrageous-appearing meter head for a 35mm SLR...

Probably the original Photomic finder for the F with the flag switch.

I always thought the original AE finder for the XK to look like a hard hat. Either that or a walnut shell.

The F2 did have shutter priority automatic, if one of the DS series servo units was attached to the corresponding finder. Rather cumbersome compared to the XK with its aperture-priority automatic. Both the F2S and the XK were from '72, IIRC. The ES was a few months earlier, but wouldn't be considered a pro body, unlike the Pentax LX. It also seems to have had some issues, reliability-wise. Both the ES and the ES II also didn't have the ability of being used in manual mode below 1/60, except for B. Its contemporary would be the Nikkormat EL. With respect to the F2AS feeling top heavy, it doesn't really. That said, the overall camera feels heavier, even without a finder attached.

Interchangeable viewfinder cameras being large - the Nikon F3 happens to be the same size and weight as a Nikkormat FTn. An F3P is the same weight as a Nikkormat FT2, but is taller due to the hot shoe sticking up over the DE-5 HP prism.

-J

 

[blockend]

As you can see, not all interchangeable viewfinder cameras are massive.

Are they interchangeable head cameras?

 

[blockend]

The ES was a few months earlier, but wouldn't be considered a pro body, unlike the Pentax LX. It also seems to have had some issues, reliability-wise. Both the ES and the ES II also didn't have the ability of being used in manual mode below 1/60, except for B. Its contemporary would be the Nikkormat EL. With respect to the F2AS feeling top heavy, it doesn't really. That said, the overall camera feels heavier, even without a finder attached.

The Pentax ES, Nikkormat EL/FT3, Canon EF, were excellent cameras. None had the pro accessories/clutter or designation, but each had most of the things photographers were looking for and build quality to do the job.

My test of top heaviness is to hang the camera from a neck strap without a lens and see which way it swivels!

 

[Les Sarile]

Are they interchangeable head cameras?

You can't tell from that lineup that the LX has an interchangeable viewfinder system as it is practically the same size as the other non-interchangeable VF types.

 

[Les Sarile]

Probably the original Photomic finder for the F with the flag switch.

I always thought the original AE finder for the XK to look like a hard hat. Either that or a walnut shell.

The F2 did have shutter priority automatic, if one of the DS series servo units was attached to the corresponding finder. Rather cumbersome compared to the XK with its aperture-priority automatic.

The Canon F-1 also had a servo EE finder that was similarly cumbersome -> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/html/eeservo/index.htm

 

[Nokton48]

At the time the XK was introduced, there were SR-M's around. I have the XK, all the heads, screens, and accessories. I also have two of the SR-M's. I was lucky to get XK overhauled by Essex right before Hurricane Sandy hit the Jersey shore. I really enjoy using all of the cameras.

2016-02-17 20.37.30 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[blockend]

You can't tell from that lineup that the LX has an interchangeable viewfinder system as it is practically the same size as the other non-interchangeable VF types.

Yes, I'm aware the LX had an interchangeable head, but it was a later camera (1980?). The F3 also had a fairly small prism as I noted above. There is no size comparison between 1980s metered heads and 60s and 70s interchangeable prisms. Some people will enjoy the look and the feel of those old cameras, I think they're too big and heavy for regular use today. None of the cameras in your example shots look like they have much use, though I could be wrong!

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes, I'm aware the LX had an interchangeable head, but it was a later camera (1980?). The F3 also had a fairly small prism as I noted above. There is no size comparison between 1980s metered heads and 60s and 70s interchangeable prisms. Some people will enjoy the look and the feel of those old cameras, I think they're too big and heavy for regular use today. None of the cameras in your example shots look like they have much use, though I could be wrong!

My lineup above shows the dates and size comparisons. Even though the XK is the oldest, it still has the fastest sync speed among these horizontal shutter types at 1/100.

That my cameras look unused - as well as fully functional and accurate, in these web size posts is a testament to their design and manufacture. And contrary to the popular "you can hammer a nail with this thing sentiment" I prefer to use the right tool for the job - I use my cameras to take pictures . . .

 

[Les Sarile]

Just to bring the focus back to the Minolta XK, here are some product shots I took of it.

Using Agfa Ultra 100 film

Using Agfa Ultra 100 film

Using Fuji 100 film

Using Fuji 100 film

 

[Huss]

Very nice images of your XK. Curious as to what you used to take them.

 

[Les Sarile]

Very nice images of your XK. Curious as to what you used to take them.

Since all of these beauties are fully functional and accurate, it could have been any of them really.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Minolta badly miscalculated by not offering an optional motor drive or the integrated version at the same time. The motor drive version came out several years after the original XK, and by then it was too late. The lack of any motor drive for what was intended as a professional camera doomed the XK. Also, Minolta never had the resources and expertise to compete with Nikon Professional Services. Like sending a rabbit against a bear--the rabbit may be fast, but the bear is eventually going to eat it for lunch.

Old thread, but as I am about to add an XK/XM to my Minolta collection, I'll add something here.

I really don't think Minolta miscalculated anything, with one sole exception. They had something nobody had at the time. Would it have ever made a difference in pro-world had they introduced a MD for XK? Given the whole history of Minolta trying to convince pros, one thing they never realized was what kind of snobs they were up against. That is probably the only thing Minolta ever miscalculated, yet they hardly gave up on pro world and again never gained any ground to their last day.

So sadly, Minolta never stood a chance against Nikkon/Canon for reasons that the world will have never known. The pros (which more fittingly should be called "pros" on this one) just never looked at Minolta as an alternative. There was nothing Minolta could do to sway things away from this silliness. Always at least on par with the other two in engineering and quality, at times superior in design and especially in ingenuity. Minolta glass was top, all gear, just like X-1/XK/XM, ahead of everyone, and frequently by a mile while at it. No matter which part of Minolta system one considered, it was at least competitive to the N/C offerings. And still virtually far far behind with any so-called pros choosing it. I suppose if one was making a living with photography, he was not a pro if doing it with a Minolta.

 

[Huss]

I think Annie Leibovitz used Minolta SRTs early on.

 

[MattKing]

The cameras themselves weren't the deciding factor for most pros.
The service and support network dedicated to professional needs was the deciding factor.
In western Canada in the 1970s and 1980s, that network was there for Nikon users, and was coming into existence for Canon users, but was non-existent for Minolta.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The cameras themselves weren't the deciding factor for most pros.
The service and support network dedicated to professional needs was the deciding factor.
In western Canada in the 1970s and 1980s, that network was there for Nikon users, and was coming into existence for Canon users, but was non-existent for Minolta.

No quibbles there, except it was always perplexing to me that neither individual pros at large, nor networks ever bought into an equal system. Was it because of sales tactics alone where Minolta was not as aggressive, or was it just plain history of nay saying? Easy to find out how Coca Cola has been at it against Pepsi (or vice versa), not much how this field played out at times when it actually might have made a difference in establishing Minolta as a contender.

 

[Nokton48]

HugoStudios Tan Morocco XK (2) by Nokton48, on Flickr

I have all the XK finders screens etc and they are all useful.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

Like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

.
Did you ever get the heel replaced ?