Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,914   Posts: 1,521,734   Online: 1080
      
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 192
  1. #21
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Dude, if you have got to this point there are differences between the three. I used a Minolta XG-M for twenty years and an X-700 off and on for about 10. Find one and buy it. Don't over think this one. Just get your camera and have a blast.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  2. #22
    Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeM1977 View Post
    Neither. They stopped using the "Rokkor" designation in later lenses. The quality of the glass is generally the same. Older "MD Rokkor" will tend to have more metal parts than the newest lenses. Just avoid the "Celtic" line of Minolta lenses as that was their lower-priced bargain line.
    Why would you avoid the "Celtic" lenses? I picked up a clean 200mm Celtic for 5 bucks at a garage sale and I think it is a fine lens. I think that the quality is excellent considering it is a "bargain" lens. Not trying to pick a fight here, just curious.
    When the chips are down,

    The buffalo is empty!!!



  3. #23
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,676
    All I can say about Minolta lenses , and for that matter matter marque lenses from any of the leading manufacturers, Nikon Canon Pentax Leica etc. is the question we should be asking ourselves is, am I good enough photographer to justify owning them ?
    Last edited by benjiboy; 07-05-2008 at 03:39 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: error
    Ben

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1
    hello, i would like to throw my 2 cents in, although it reflects what everyone else has already said. my first camera was a minolta x370 that someone gave me. i then switched to an autofocus canon eos elan 7e but sold it because it failed in my naive expectations that it would make better pictures. (hence, they got worse) recently, i went back to minolta md / x - series manual. and yes, i deliberately switched back, not just circumstance this time, my lovely wife even gave me the green light to buy any camera i wanted. Here is the great minolta gear i have accumulated over the past year: body: x-570, 24mm 2.8 md, 35mm 2.8 md. 50mm 1.7 md, 85mm 2 md, 135mm 2.8 md, a 360px flash, an autowinder.

    seriously, all of these lenses are among the best of their type ever made by any manufacturer. im especially impressed with my cheapest lens, (well, beside the 50mm) that is the 135mm, it is unusually sharp. i also am very impressed with the flash capability, even though it is "old" ttl, its exposure accuracy is on par with my (previous) canon eos elan 7e. the body is very easy and fast to use in manual mode (because the aperture, shutter, and recommended metering is shown in the viewfinder) and the meter is very accurate. in fact, the meter is so good, that i often kick myself for overcompensating and making bad exposures when i dont trust the meter as much as i should.

    i recommend the x570 over the x700 or any other minolta. however, these two are almost identical. the x700's program mode is good, but totally misses the point of using this kind of camera. it was advanced in its day but the program mode is sort of useless now for anyone who knows how to use a camera. yes, all md / mc lenses are useable on x series cameras, except for some really obscure and expensive ones that you'll probably never buy. mc stands for "metered coupling" which basically was Minolta's version of "full aperture metering", so yes, full aperture metering is exactly what they do. i believe the most recent md lenses have improved coatings, more plastic in their construction, and upgraded optical designs over their mc counterparts. but i dont think this will make any difference in the quality of your images. go for whatever your wallet allows

    as for durability, the x series are still serviceable. even if you do break a body, they are plentiful and cheap on ebay. if you decide to go with minolta, your pictures will be as good as they can be, your lenses will last forever, and you will have some money left over to take your loved-one out for a nice dinner. minolta makes everyone happy.

    dsp

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I thank you for your thoughtful reply, dsp. I had decided to go with the XG-M; however, your comments (and some others, too) are making me think I should go with the X-570. I like the additional info in the 570's viewfinder, but I am having a harder time coming up with an X-570 in nice shape. The XG-Ms are rather plentiful--and are cheaper, too. In either case, I will start with an MD Rokkor 50/1.7 and an MC Rokkor 28/2.8. I know that all seem to hail the 24/2.8, but at nearly four times the price, I do not know if it is worth it (or practical) for me to go for the 24 (I have compared KEH prices). I gather the MC 28/2.8 is pretty nice, too.

    Before I forget: what do you think of Minolta's build quality? I am not so much thinking in terms of reliability issues (as all cameras seem to have these issues), but more in terms of the build itself (i.e. craftsmanship). Since I have gotten into Canon gear recently, I am comparing my AE-1 Program to my Pentax gear. While the build of my Spotmatics is tough to beat, I think I prefer my AE-1P to my ME Super. Things seem to be nice and "tight" on the AE-1P (and the winder A2).

    Thanks,
    Glen

  6. #26
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Top notch. No reason to doubt the integrity of these cameras. Honestly, they're not Nikons or Canons, but they are MINOLTAS and well worth the investment.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  7. #27
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,676
    If you want build quality "feel" you need to look at the Minolta XK /XM series the cameras you mention are consumer grade, if you're into Canon why not look at an F1N AE ?
    Ben

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    Excellent question, Ben...I realize these are "consumer grade" cameras. I have seriously considered the F1N (with standard prism). The main reason I have not gone in this direction is because an EX+ example from KEH is $429. I would rather have a camera that does not have any brassing, paint loss, or dings. The F1Ns are also fairly pricey on eBay, and with eBay there is no guarantee they will be as described. I have noticed that the "mint" or "minty" camera of eBay is a BGN or perhaps EX grade example at KEH.

    Also, I have handled an F1N, and found it a bit bulky for my hand. Honestly, I know that the F1N and the later cameras like it (from Nikon, too) are sealed against weather, but, for the vast majority of situations, I question how much this will matter. In any case, I still would avoid using my cameras in pouring rain. I have yet to have a leakage problem with my very "plastic" Pentax ZX-M. The ZX-M survived strong winds at the beach without a speck of sand inside the film transport area. I was careful with the camera, but I just used my common sense (as I imagine anyone would).

    Any other comments, folks? Your suggestions and remarks have helped.

    Thanks,
    Glen

  9. #29
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    IMO they are perfectly fine, but Minolta had nowhere near the outstanding selection and super fast lenses of the big two. I loved my Minolta MD lenses, even the 70-210 f/4 zoom. (Or was it an 80-210?) I rarely like zooms, but this one was pretty sharp, even with a badly scuffed front element. I had an X-700 and found the goofy light-up meter that tells you what shutter speed to use to be nonsensical and impossible to read in low light. It was obviously designed to be used on aperture priority or program mode 95% of the time. I did love certain things about the camera. Very small, very light, pretty quiet, and no problems with batteries (yet). If I remember right, it could not even be used without batteries, which I find to be about the most idiotic thing you could possibly build a camera to do. What were they thinking? The X series suffers from serious 80s damage. Oh well. They were all doing piles of coke and listening to bad new wave music at the drawing boards, *obviously*. The SRTs have much more sensible meters, are actually very light for their size/type of camera, and are made for people who really have some brains and some chops. If all you need is a few lenses and not much as far as system accessories, I would highly recommend Minoltas over Canons or Nikons, simply because they cost abut as much as dirt. Skip the X series IMO. They are the dumbed down McCamera for the masses in Minoltas line, though they do have their advantages as I listed above. Go for an SRT instead. As an added benefit, you can get about ten of them for what you would pay for a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2. Don't pay more than $50 for one, and you can find them for $25 fairly often. If you need more system though, Canon and Nikon are the way to go IMO. I loved my X-700 and my SRTs when I had just started, but got rid of them all in favor of Canon FD. Minolta just did not have enough lenswise for my liking. All IMHO of course...
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 07-06-2008 at 10:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,034
    I feel the Minolta camera design was superior to everyone else's from the same period, the pinacle being the exquisitely-designed X-700 and accompanying MPS. The lenses were on par with the best out there, because they had to be. Look around on eBay for Minolta X-700 kits. If you find one, you'll often find a Minolta 50mm an a collection of non-Minolta glass, simply because the original owner didn't want to pay Minolta prices. I did the same thing. I got my (deceased) X-570 in 1985 along with a Kiron 70-210 zoom and a Minolta 35-70 zoom. I also got a 280px flash and a MD1 motor drive. That motor drive died last year - after 21 years of faithful service. I still have the 280px and 35-70 in perfect working condition. The Kiron never got used much because it was, like most non-manufacturer zooms, somewhat of a stinker, and I sold it.

    To me, the Minolta design just makes sense.
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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