Vsanzbajo
Member
I understand that they are different cameras. My question was more about the quality of construction. I was amazed by the quality of the XD 11. I always hear people say that Nikons are made so rugged and well. I do not see many differences between them. I am impressed with the Minolta overall quality.
Comparing the FM3A to the XD-11 doesn't seem to be real fair, considering the difference in age between the two cameras and the difference in price. A quick check of eBay indicates that FM3As are going for somewhere north of $500 to over a thousand bucks, and nice looking XD-11s are around $100. The FM3A is a generation or three newer than the XD - of course there are going to be evolutionary changes in camera design. Heck, why not compare the XD (or the FM3A, for that matter) to an F6?
The XD is a fine camera, with a devoted following. They are of an age where just about any body you pick up is going to need a CLA, which solves most of the problems people have mentioned in this thread, including the shutter-lag issue. (As an aside, the shutter lag issue is caused by an air-damper incorporated into the shutter mechanism, which, when working properly, makes for a very quiet, very low vibration shutter actuation.)
Rokkor lenses are as good (some say better) as any of their contemporaries and, unless you go for the more exotic or cult-favorite ones, are a lot cheaper than comparable Nikkors, due to the cachet (and the F-mount) of the Nikon lenses. The Micro 4/3 crowd are now in the competition for Minolta lenses, so prices have gone up some. You can still get a nice kit of standard Rokkor primes between 28mm and 200mm for remarkably low prices, if you shop around some.
I have an SRT-102, an XE-7 and an XD-11, plus a modest kit of Rokkor primes, which will last me for as long as it matters. All of them are great cameras in their own way, they all are reliable and work great.