Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,206   Online: 958
      
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 107
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    280
    Most of the first generation AF cameras suffered from this. There's a Youtube video showing a Pentax ME F and matched AF 35-70mm lens to demonstrate the AF function. I think most of us would be faster with a manual lens!
    Matt

  2. #82
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    The current value of the Maxxum attests to that fact, TheFlyingCamera. - David Lyga

  3. #83
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,366
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Well, Mr. Lyga, you were the one soliciting cameras for beginners to stay away from...

  4. #84
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,017
    Images
    4
    I agree that the early Minolta AF cameras are not at the top of the heap and probably qualify as a Bad Camera. But interestingly there is even value with those cameras, bad as they may be. I have bought two Minolta Maxxums and given them to my grandchildren to use. As David has noted, they are unbelievably inexpensive. At $5 each it is very tough to do better. Second, though the auto focus is slow, it does work if you understand the principle behind it. The Maxxums are looking for big differences in contrast and the grandchildren have both learned that if you put the center point in the viewfinder across something in your scene with high contrast, the camera will focus pretty quick. That is teaching them to recognize contrast in a scene, and it is also teaching them the technique of focus and re-compose. It is also getting them to recognize the importance of focusing on the area you want to be sharp and clear.

    So, even a bad camera can be useful if you know what you are looking for and what the limitations are. But I do have to say. Those old Maxxums certainly are not great sports cameras!

  5. #85
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Never liked the Contax II. The design of the camera ignores how the human hand operates. The choice of lenses is limited by the design decision to include the focusing helix in the camera body rather than in the lens. A well made but very poorly designed camera.
    I have one and I agree with you Gerald, but in the days when the Zeiss Contax system was designed in the early 1930s it wasn't an issue to most users, even the word ergonomics didn't exist until the 1950's.
    Ben

  6. #86
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    Yeah, maybe the Maxxum IS THE ONE to consider here. They were decent but I hate them because they are autofocus and all the bells and whistles confuse me. But for value...... - David Lyga

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,270
    Images
    2
    I inherited two Maxxum's, a 7000 and a 7000i. Ergonomically the 7000i fit's my hands just great, but it is large, albeit reasonably light, and the camera is really simple overall with a just perfectly placed spot metering button. The focus screen is fantastic. I can manually focus without my glasses. The battery thing sucks tho taking the 2CR5. Slow autofocus as far as I'm concerned is due to a single AF sensor in many bodies in the pre 95 models. My 7000i has 3 lines. In comparison my Maxxum 70 has 8 lines and a cross, but the bodies flash pop's up easily which is annoying.
    W.A. Crider

  8. #88
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    I know I'll take some heat for this but, the very first generation Minolta Maxxum cameras. I know, they were the first effective auto-focus cameras. But the ergonomics suck, and the autofocus is LOUD and not particularly fast or precise. Same with the mirror operation. Eventually it does lock in, but it hunts a lot in anything other than bright sunshine. Today there are much better options for a beginner.
    The cheaper later ones weren't very good, either. I have some fuzzy shots from my first SLR. Heh. It wasn't *all* because I was inexperienced with the camera.
    No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    I have one and I agree with you Gerald, but in the days when the Zeiss Contax system was designed in the early 1930s it wasn't an issue to most users, even the word ergonomics didn't exist until the 1950's.
    Being a Contax IIa/IIIa devotee, I would continue to dispute that it is poorly designed. It is small, easier to load than a Leica III, is designed to keep your hands away from the rangefinder on both sides, because it is a highly accurate and durable range finder. The Nikon S and F series are obvious descendants in design. You are comparing a 1930s design with what??

  10. #90
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,017
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Someonenameddavid View Post
    Being a Contax IIa/IIIa devotee, I would continue to dispute that it is poorly designed. It is small, easier to load than a Leica III, is designed to keep your hands away from the rangefinder on both sides, because it is a highly accurate and durable range finder. The Nikon S and F series are obvious descendants in design. You are comparing a 1930s design with what??
    I have a Contax IIa and a Contax II. The IIa came after World War II and it was a smaller and easier to use rangefinder.

    The II came before World War II and was a larger and heavier rangefinder. The beamsplitter window is on the far right side front of the II and you are forced to reach over that window with your finger to focus the 50mm lenses using the on camera dial. More often than not your hand or fingers will interfere with the rangefinder window and the split image disappears as a result.

    On the IIa the beamsplitter window was moved inboard on the camera just a little bit so that it is positioned under the focus wheel, not to the right of the focus wheel. With this re-design it was not as common to have your finger interfere with the split image.

    However, keep in mind that the Contax II is far and away the most accurate rangefinder because the base length was so much longer than Leica's. In fact, it was so accurate that the Contax II was actually considered the professional camera at the time and the Leica was seen as an amateur camera. Of course, when the Leica M3 came out in 1954 it changed the entire game. Zeiss was never able to catch up after that.

    I guess there are pros and cons to every design. Ergonomically I find the Contax II, Contax IIa and my Leica IIIc to be equally difficult to work with, for different reasons.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin