Minolta xk value

Photographerfromsud · Dec 4, 2017

Hi, for a while i was dreaming to add a Minolta XK to my collection, i recently found one in ebay auction but i dont know how much does it really worth or the maximum i should to bid on it?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-XK...546540?hash=item2ccb12792c:g:pA4AAOSw-wJaG4Vj
Thanks in advance for your help

Chan Tran · Dec 4, 2017

I don't know but I think I would let mine goes for $500 with the 58mm f/1.2 MC .

BrianVS · Dec 4, 2017

XK with the 58/1.2 is a good price at $500, looking at completed listings for the XK, $300 (50/1.7) and up for one in good working condition.

Photographerfromsud · Dec 4, 2017

Thanks, yes but this one is 1.7 and other options on ebay are 740 $ and up with no lens, i will try for up to 490 $ for the moment and see.

BrianVS · Dec 5, 2017

I'd ask more about the XK with 58/1.2 that the member here would sell for $500. The 58/1.2 goes for more than half that price.

Like most uncommon cameras like this, price is highly affected by condition. An EX+ camera is likely to sell for double an EX- camera. A Mint condition camera, probably 4x what a user grade camera will sell for. I've bought a Nikon F3HP for $80, and two in the box for more than 10x that.

cooltouch · Dec 5, 2017

$425 as an opening bid amount seems a bit stiff to me, but then again that XK is an exceptionally clean camera. They're not often found in such nice condition.

I've owned one XK (I bought it to resell it also). It was in average shape, but everything worked. When I owned mine (some 27 years ago), the XK was sort of a strange oddball that few people knew anything about. I can recall pricing it at the same level I priced original Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s. It was a hard sell at that price point. I ended up taking substantially less for it. My how times have changed.

They're rugged cameras, well suited for pro work. Minolta's biggest error with the XK, IMHO, was not having a model to which a motor drive could be added. If you wanted a motor-drive XK, you had to buy the XK Motor. It was (and still is) expensive, and the motor was a non-separable part of the camera.

Photographerfromsud · Dec 8, 2017

BrianVS said:
XK with the 58/1.2 is a good price at $500, looking at completed listings for the XK, $300 (50/1.7) and up for one in good working condition.

Thanks for all of your answers, i am still waiting but i couldnt find anything in completed or sold listing for 300$ there is some sold ones for parts but in working condition it is 500$ and up.

blockend · Dec 8, 2017

When I was looking about five years ago, an XK in good (not mint) condition with lens was sub-£300. Cameras go up and down in value depending on a variety of factors, including the eulogies of internet gurus. Someone will describe camera X as the best thing ever, and for the next three months bidding will be crazy, before settling down to an equilibrium. If I notice a sudden spike I assume that's the case. Perhaps someone on the blogosphere is selling the XK hard?

Chan Tran · Dec 8, 2017

I decided against the XK in its days. I bought the Nikon F2AS instead. Now I have the XK and it confirmed that the Nikon is better for me. Since my F2AS was stolen many years ago I hope to get enough money from the XK to get me a nice F2AS.

Huss · Dec 8, 2017

That ebay one seems very expensive given that it comes with a $50 lens (albeit these are excellent lenses).
I think I paid about $200 for mine with a 50mm lens a few years back. There really isn't much demand for this camera because it is so under the radar.

Minoltafan2904 · Dec 10, 2017

So very underrated.
This was Minolta's shot at the Pro market but it never catched on that much.
Still they are beauriful rare cameras, not very many were sold, the owners of XKs/XMs cherish them.

BMbikerider · Dec 10, 2017

I recently bought a Minolta XM which is the European version of the XK. I paid £125 with no lens and add to that another £65 for a complete service. They are rare beasts and that will usually attract a higher price, but as I bought it to use and not stare at it like a museum exhibit and spares are now very hard to come by I would not have liked to pay any more. Some versions of the XK/XM did not have the meter sensor switch which is just to the right of the lens mount and I believe these were cheaper to buy when new. Fo me they are awkward to use so only use the on/off switch on the prism.

Mine isn't pristine by any standard, but is an honest working camera that has already proved that it can deliver the goods with an accurate shutter and exposure meter.

Whilst on the subject has anyone any idea how much these cameras cost for body alone when they were new. I can find no information in the UK or on the web except a very vague mention from a magazine dated march 1976. Going by the serial number I think mine is earlier than that by about 2-3 years.

CMoore · Dec 10, 2017

I have Way More 35mm cameras than i need, so i am not criticizing....i am just curious.
How much difference is there between the Minolta XK and one of the Nikon F2 variants.?
Thank You

Les Sarile · Dec 10, 2017

CMoore said:
I have Way More 35mm cameras than i need, so i am not criticizing....i am just curious.
How much difference is there between the Minolta XK and one of the Nikon F2 variants.?
Thank You

The XK was a technological marvel of the time. This ad was in response to the existing Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 which of course did not have aperture priority.

The XK was released in 1972. Canon and Nikon didn't incorporate aperture priority into their pro line until the release of the Nikon F3 (1980) and Canon New F1 (1981). Even then the XK still had the fastest sync speed of all the horizontal traveling titanium shutters.

Les Sarile · Dec 10, 2017

BMbikerider said:
Whilst on the subject has anyone any idea how much these cameras cost for body alone when they were new. I can find no information in the UK or on the web except a very vague mention from a magazine dated march 1976. Going by the serial number I think mine is earlier than that by about 2-3 years.

Here is a US magazine ad from 12/75 listing the XK body only at $389.95.

Les Sarile · Dec 10, 2017

Huss said:
That ebay one seems very expensive given that it comes with a $50 lens (albeit these are excellent lenses).
I think I paid about $200 for mine with a 50mm lens a few years back. There really isn't much demand for this camera because it is so under the radar.

I believe I paid just over $100 for my XK since it had some wear. But I really scored on some finders (AES, WL & Magnifier) that I found on a local CL as a "box of stuff unknown" for real cheap as the owner had no idea what they were for. So I ended up with a prettier - and still fully functional, system.

BMbikerider · Dec 11, 2017

That advert is quite informative and at $389 in 1975, allowing for the change in the value of the £ to $ in the last 42 years and the rate of inflation in UK over those years, means the price in UK at today's prices would be around £2500. (thank goodness for information about the values of money on the web). It would not have been a cheap camera even today! It would have cost more than my Nikon F6.

That said it is quite a quirky camera and takes some getting used to but once that is sorted it is a delight to use and very quiet when the shutter fires. (Less than my F6).

As far as I can tell the main difference between the XK/XM was the auto exposure facility. The flash sychro speed was 1/100th of a second but the slowest manual speed on the F2 was if I remember correctly 16 seconds. Oh yes there was no motor drive except on the ones with the fixed motor. I certainly don't need one of those - landscapes don't often move very quickly

Les Sarile · Dec 11, 2017

BMbikerider said:
That advert is quite informative and at $389 in 1975, allowing for the change in the value of the £ to $ in the last 42 years and the rate of inflation in UK over those years, means the price in UK at today's prices would be around £2500. (thank goodness for information about the values of money on the web). It would not have been a cheap camera even today! It would have cost more than my Nikon F6.

That said it is quite a quirky camera and takes some getting used to but once that is sorted it is a delight to use and very quiet when the shutter fires. (Less than my F6).

As far as I can tell the main difference between the XK/XM was the auto exposure facility. The flash sychro speed was 1/100th of a second but the slowest manual speed on the F2 was if I remember correctly 16 seconds. Oh yes there was no motor drive except on the ones with the fixed motor. I certainly don't need one of those - landscapes don't often move very quickly

What do you find quirky about the XK/XM?

As I understand it, Minolta didn't provide a motor because the CDS cels in the meter was not fast enough to respond in aperture priority mode. The motorized version was released with the newer AES finder which incorporated the SPD cels in 1977.

BTW, the XK/XM is the only manual focus Minolta body with 1/2000 shutter speed.

cooltouch · Dec 11, 2017

The XK Motors are also frightfully expensive when they do appear on the used market. I have a friend who owns one and I've handled it. I must say that Minolta spent some time with developing the ergonomics of that machine. It was very comfortable to hold.

The above price list doesn't contain any Nikon prices, but I note that the Canon F-1 was selling for $95 cheaper than the XK. Kinda surprising, I suppose. And that means that the Nikon F2 was probably cheaper too.

The XK and XM were the same camera, so there shouldn't have been any difference between them. The slowest manual speed on the F2's shutter speed dial is 1 second. But the self-timer can be brought into the picture such that the F2 can have a shutter speed as low as 10 seconds. But not 16.

As is typical, the MIR site has a rather thorough discussion of the XK/XM:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/index.htm

I note that he does have a call out for more XK/XM/XD-11/XD-7 pics, especially of the XK Motor. So if any of y'all have some pics you'd like to share with him, I reckon he'd be appreciative.

Huss · Dec 12, 2017

CMoore said:
I have Way More 35mm cameras than i need, so i am not criticizing....i am just curious.
How much difference is there between the Minolta XK and one of the Nikon F2 variants.?
Thank You

XK is AE and manual exposure, the F2 is only manual exposure. The biggest difference.

XK only works with batteries, F2 does not need batteries.

CMoore · Dec 12, 2017

OK...I See.
Thank You

Les Sarile · Dec 13, 2017

cooltouch said:
The XK and XM were the same camera, so there shouldn't have been any difference between them. The slowest manual speed on the F2's shutter speed dial is 1 second. But the self-timer can be brought into the picture such that the F2 can have a shutter speed as low as 10 seconds. But not 16.

The XK has slow shutter speeds down to 16 seconds selectable via the bulb mode and collar on the base of the shutter speed dial.

Huss said:
XK is AE and manual exposure, the F2 is only manual exposure. The biggest difference.

XK only works with batteries, F2 does not need batteries.

The Nikon F3 is more comparable to the XK in that Nikon finally incorporated aperture priority to it's pro body. Both have mechanical shutters available when batteries die - XK has sync and B while the F3 has the mechanical release and T mode. However, the XK has a mechanical timer release that works without batteries while the F3's timer is electronic.

BMbikerider · Dec 13, 2017

Les Sarile said:
What do you find quirky about the XK/XM?

As I understand it, Minolta didn't provide a motor because the CDS cels in the meter was not fast enough to respond in aperture priority mode. The motorized version was released with the newer AES finder which incorporated the SPD cels in 1977.

BTW, the XK/XM is the only manual focus Minolta body with 1/2000 shutter speed.

And for the time a very high flash shutter speed!
Quirky? Well the setting for extended shutter speeds for starters (The lever around the front of the speed dial) A bit awkward to use I find
As for CDS not responding quickly enough......they were used on the Nikon F Photomic and they worked with a motor drive and that came out before the XK/XM. But to be honest I prefer the Minolta over the Nikon F/F2. The F2 used the later cell (I forget the name) was it a silicon photodiode?

blockend · Dec 13, 2017

The price list above shows a few surprises, in hindsight. The price of a Pentax SP1000, $139.99 with 55mm f2, compared to Canon FTb at $214.99 and Olympus OM1 $249.99 with standard lenses. How about process paid GAF (Agfa I think) 36 exp slide film for $3.29. Hard to imagine today.

bernard_L · Dec 13, 2017

To get a decent price on ebay: be patient. Watch completed auctions; determine for yourself a maximum price in the low range; bid at the lmast moment.

Minolta xk value

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency