Yes...well said.
This should be archived, as the first answer, for All/Future Nikon Vs Canon types of threads.
Yes...well said.Minolta often had the upper hand when it came to developing and using technology but they just as often had terrible timing where the market was concerned and also made some flat-out marketing blunders.
The result was a very, very good system that never got accepted by the press corps. Photographers look at what other photographers are using and all the press corps photogs were using Nikon and (to a lesser degree) Canon so, even though the stores were selling tons of Minolta gear to amateurs, the serious amateurs wanted what the pros were using. Thus Nikon and Canon were "real" cameras and Minolta, Pentax, Olympus and the rest were "consumer" cameras, despite the fact that the quality was, for the most part, comparable. Peoples' perceptions can go a long way. Yes, Nikons are excellent, but most of the cameras coming from Japan at that time were built to very high standards as well. Any of the working pros during that period could have used any of the Japanese camera systems of the day and gotten equal results. They used Nikon because that was the industry standard and they got to be the standard because of excellent designs AND excellent marketing.
It's no different than Bicyclists who need to own the same model of bike that won the Tour De France even though they don't race and the winner could have won on any quality bike.
They also cannot get the bike that participated in TDF, highly customized every one of them at top team. But form of augmentation remains the key to "success" even today. One science follows the other, when the other catches up, the former takes on a different approach.They don't know that it wasn't the bike but the right form of enhancements used. . .
In generally I fully agree, but the timing I'm not so sure. Many of Minoltas where pioneering in the field and how do you do that without being the first? And they had several first, or close enough. They also had some strange feature decisions, especially between X500/570 and the X600/700 where arguably the 500 is far more serious tool than the 700, given manual metering differences. if you care for program mode, then you had no choice, but for manual metering 500 is ahead. The question I always had: WHY? The 700 was touted for its program mode and was pushed a lot more in ads then 500 ever was. Strange to say the least.Minolta often had the upper hand when it came to developing and using technology but they just as often had terrible timing where the market was concerned and also made some flat-out marketing blunders.
The result was a very, very good system that never got accepted by the press corps. Photographers look at what other photographers are using and all the press corps photogs were using Nikon and (to a lesser degree) Canon so, even though the stores were selling tons of Minolta gear to amateurs, the serious amateurs wanted what the pros were using. Thus Nikon and Canon were "real" cameras and Minolta, Pentax, Olympus and the rest were "consumer" cameras, despite the fact that the quality was, for the most part, comparable. Peoples' perceptions can go a long way. Yes, Nikons are excellent, but most of the cameras coming from Japan at that time were built to very high standards as well. Any of the working pros during that period could have used any of the Japanese camera systems of the day and gotten equal results. They used Nikon because that was the industry standard and they got to be the standard because of excellent designs AND excellent marketing.
It's no different than Bicyclists who need to own the same model of bike that won the Tour De France even though they don't race and the winner could have won on any quality bike.
My 500 does everything I could want,and Minolta glass seems to be up there with the best of them..In generally I fully agree, but the timing I'm not so sure. Many of Minoltas where pioneering in the field and how do you do that without being the first? And they had several first, or close enough. They also had some strange feature decisions, especially between X500/570 and the X600/700 where arguably the 500 is far more serious tool than the 700, given manual metering differences. if you care for program mode, then you had no choice, but for manual metering 500 is ahead. The question I always had: WHY? The 700 was touted for its program mode and was pushed a lot more in ads then 500 ever was. Strange to say the least.
The thing is that 500 shows SET shutter speed in the finder, 700 does not. Big Big difference.I’ve never used a 500 but my 700 worked just fine as a fully manual camera. It’s the only way I ever used it.
It can be compensated via ND filters. However, a flash sync at 1/60 can not.Main drawback of all manual 35 mm Minolta cameras is that shutter's curtains are textile. That means that you do not have faster shutter speeds than 1/2000. Please correct me if I wrong. If it's no problem to you, nice choice then. Google rokkor files, a lot of info.
It can be compensated via ND filters. However, a flash sync at 1/60 can not.
F280 is proprietary and can do the magic only with OM-4, collector-only OM-3 and forgotten by almost everyone OM-77/707, so it's more of an exception from the rules, than something standard.The Olympus OM4 has cloth curtains but can sync flash up to max shutter speed using it's own F280 flash.
Also, with the newer superbright LEDs, you can use continuous lighting and not worry about sync speed. I setup some 100watt LEDs but have seen more powerful and better light quality - but much more expensive, 500watt LEDs.
I believe it also has severe limitations in output. Been meaning to try it but haven't gotten around to it . . .F280 is proprietary and can do the magic only with OM-4, collector-only OM-3 and forgotten by almost everyone OM-77/707, so it's more of an exception from the rules, than something standard.
I've read about it when I was thinking to buy a flash for my OM-4 and the article covered several tradeoffs, none of which I remember, unfortunately. Of course guide number of 28 can't be counted as a downside - T32 had GN of 32 and there's not much difference there.I believe it also has severe limitations in output. Been meaning to try it but haven't gotten around to it . . .
9000 is rugged as well, even though there's a lot of plastic used in it. But of course they are pricy and autofocus.My wife has an SR-1 and an autofocus body (I don't remember which one, perhaps 700si). She prefers the SR-1 because to say it is built like a tank is to overstate the ruggedness and reliability of tanks. You could build a house using one as a hammer and take a picture of that house with it when you were done (using sunny 16 of course, because it has no meter).
Sadly, my SR-1 needs a trip to the tank mechanic. I love the ergonomics of it, though, so I’ll get it repaired.She prefers the SR-1 because to say it is built like a tank is to overstate the ruggedness and reliability of tanks.
In today's words: a gimmick that works but a lot of times is useless.When used at shutter speeds faster than the normal synch speed (Super FP mode), the F280 does what it does in by emitting what is essentially continuous output throughout the time that the shutter curtains in the camera travel. Its power during that time is much lower than its "Guide Number 28" power when used more normally.
If you look at the manual, you will see that as you increase the camera's shutter speed, you decrease the maximum workable subject to camera distance.
For example, if you are using the flash in Super FP mode with an OM-4T at 1/1000 second the "Guide Number" is reduced from a maximum of 14.7 to 3.7 (meters).
If you are using the flash in normal OTF mode with an OM-4T at 1/60 second the "Guide Number" is its standard of 28 (meters).
When used at shutter speeds faster than the normal synch speed (Super FP mode), the F280 does what it does in by emitting what is essentially continuous output throughout the time that the shutter curtains in the camera travel. Its power during that time is much lower than its "Guide Number 28" power when used more normally.
If you look at the manual, you will see that as you increase the camera's shutter speed, you decrease the maximum workable subject to camera distance.
For example, if you are using the flash in Super FP mode with an OM-4T at 1/1000 second the "Guide Number" is reduced from a maximum of 14.7 to 3.7 (meters).
If you are using the flash in normal OTF mode with an OM-4T at 1/60 second the "Guide Number" is its standard of 28 (meters).
Or more accurately, a feature that provides an advantage, but only in limited circumstances.In today's words: a gimmick that works but a lot of times is useless.
Agreed. However, it often leads to comments made here earlier that it will sync at ALL speeds, which is pretty much incorrect as some take this at face value without looking into the devil detail. Reason I called it a gimmick far short of purported value.Or more accurately, a feature that provides an advantage, but only in limited circumstances.
In my mind, fill flash would be the biggest reason to use it.
9000 is rugged as well, even though there's a lot of plastic used in it. But of course they are pricy and autofocus.
LCD bleed is natural to those, because layers of LCD material tend to separate with aging. However I think no one has ever seen LCD bleeding so much that it would make reading impossible. The bigger problem with 9000 is its shutter magnets, which, when they fail, make the shutter curtains travel together, not opening and not exposing anything. It's irreparable in most cases, because the level of sophistication of that camera and necessity to tear it down completely to reach for the magnets. That makes it a bit of a gamble to buy a 9000 - you never know will it work or not even if the seller says "the camera winds and clicks". No film tested - no deal! I've had two in my life, both with bleeding LCD and one with faulty shutter. It's truly a terrific camera full of bells and whistles, the only camera with autofocus and manual film advance/rewind as far as I know, but it is mostly redundant and more of a collector's item than a daily shooter.'The 9000 models are getting very rare these days. I have only seen 2 advertised for sale in the last year. They almost without exception seem to have a fault with a 'bleed' in the small LCD and that does not repair itself. I don't think they are that pricey the ones I saw were around the £60 mark and one even had the motordrive attached. Even rarer is the Dynax 9 which in my estimation is as well built as the 9000 but with very advance electronics. I have owned 2 and now regret selling them to go back to Nikon.
9000 is rugged as well, even though there's a lot of plastic used in it. But of course they are pricy and autofocus.
You probably found them in thrift shop or somewhere. Wish there were any over here.I have 3 9000s, price less than $20 each. I found the winder and a couple of motor drives along with the complete flash set up, not much money, the bulk film back was a little on the pricey side about $9.00. It's a rugged camera, the AF is first generation, not as good a last generation 9 or 7, but works well enough. Uses AA batteries, with the motor drive that takes 12 batteries and the flash set up another 12 is it quite heavy. All of the 9000 and most of the 7000 have some level of LED bleed, the read out in the viewfinder is good but not great. All of my bodies still work, no issue with the shutters or other other issue which is the aperture does not open up during exposure. I tend to use the Minolta 9, 7, or 800, this weekend will load up a 9000 and take it for walk.
The XE-1 had CLs, a Copal Leitz shutter, and Minolta was proud of that.There is a post already that advises that not all Minoltas have cloth shutter curtains. Not that there is anything wrong with them - Leitz used them for their rangefinder cameras for decades! And who was partnered up with Minolta - yes - Leitz!
The XM (XK in US) has a titanium foil shutter and mine is soldiering one after a first class check/service by a specialist. The XE1 & XE7 also have a Seikosha vertical travel shutter and I have one of them too and it is a proper workhorse and thoroughly reliable. Funny that - The XE1 was the camera of choice for Leitz on which to base their first electronic SLR the R3. They must have been doing something properly. It is also well known that the Leitz 35/70 F3.5 (constant) zoom was also a clone of the Minolta version - but at around 5 times the price.
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?