Huss
Allowing Ads
What a cool lineup! To me the New F1 looks like it could still be a 'modern' film camera currently in production.
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 . . .
...but the F2 is slightly more practical as a user.
Indeed. If metering is essential, a Nikkormat is about the same size as an F, and has none of the top heavy accretions.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.
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.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
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...
Are they interchangeable head cameras?As you can see, not all interchangeable viewfinder cameras are massive.
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.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.
Are they interchangeable head cameras?
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.
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!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!
Very nice images of your XK. Curious as to what you used to take them.
Old thread, but as I am about to add an XK/XM to my Minolta collection, I'll add something here.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.
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.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.
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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?