# Minolta Manual Focus



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

OK, so I've been wanting to get a mechanical, manual focus camera for a while now.  My birthday is not too far away, so I might be able to make this a present for myself.

I shoot Canon now, so that means I will have to buy at least a couple new lenses no matter what I go with.

So then I was thinking - I have 2 Minolta lenses laying around (probably crap, a 70-210 and a 35-80; they look cheap as hell...cheaper than a kit lens)...

While I don't necessarily plan on using those lenses, it did get me thinking.
I hadn't really considered Minolta, and I know almost nothing about them.

Which bodies should I look for?  Any to avoid?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 23, 2009)

Minolta SLR's that I liked ...

X-700 ... it was a good camera ... though very electronic.

The highly under-rated and unknown XK/XM !!
If you can get your hand on one of these ...


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

Well, 'mechanical' isn't really a requirement...

I would like at least the ability to trip the shutter with no batteries though.
(Not sure if any of these have that.  But I guess I could let that slide too, if it was a cool enough camera, lol.)

The X-700 looks very nice (and cheap too)...  X-570 looks good too.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 23, 2009)

The XD-7 had a mechanical shutter speed of 1/100.
The X-700 is only electronic.


----------



## compur (Jun 23, 2009)

I believe all of the X-series Minoltas have electronic shutters (though some
may have one or two mechanical speeds).

The X-700 was Minolta's last manual-focus camera and very popular.  They
were made up until 1999 so you can still find mint or near-mint examples.

The earlier XD-series and XE-series are fine choices too but be sure to
check them out first for full functionality.  They may also need new light
seals as they used the foam material that deteriorates with age.

The XG-series was popular too but, again, be sure it's fully working.  I often
find these in DOA condition due to electronic failures.

For a fully mechanical shuttered Minolta you'll have to go back to the
SRT-series (SRT-101, 102, etc.) or the earlier SR-series. These are fine,
rugged cameras but they're now 30-50 years old and you need to be sure
they are fully functional before buying -- especially the meter, if any. The
focusing screens on these also tend to get dirty with age and are not
easily user-replaceable. 

I think a late model X-700 would be the easiest choice.  The batteries are
the cheap LR44 type and last a long time.  It's also a great camera with
options like motor drives, focusing screens, TTL flash, etc.  Hard to beat
in a MF SLR.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

compur said:


> I think a late model X-700 would be the easiest choice.  The batteries are
> the cheap LR44 type and last a long time.  It's also a great camera with
> options like motor drives, focusing screens, TTL flash, etc.  Hard to beat
> in a MF SLR.



LR44s?  I had to look that up on google images...  Damn!  That's all the power it needs?

I think if I end up going Minolta it'll be the X-700.  The only bad thing I've read about it is that it doesn't display the shutter speed in the viewfinder (only the suggested shutter speed)...  Is that really as big a deal as it sounds?


----------



## benhasajeep (Jun 23, 2009)

When I was in school I had a Minolta X-370 as my second body.  Used it pretty regularly over that time span and never had an issue with it.  Brother borrowed it and never returned it.  He lost it somewhere :er:.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

OK - Lenses.

It is my understanding that Minolta has never changed it's mount (and this is also the mount used by the Sony alpha dSLRs), so there should be no compatability issues right?

The X-700 meters wide open, right?


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 23, 2009)

minolta had gone through a few mounts. the a-mount (AF) was from the 5000/7000/9000 SLRs onwards.
Minolta AF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i think the X-700 is MD mount.
Minolta SR mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

SonnarSphere said:


> i think the X-700 is SR (MD) mount.
> Minolta SR mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That link basically says that there are four versions of the same mount - updates to incorporate new features.
All changes were forwardly inclusive, and backwardly compatible.  So basically - all lenses will fit all bodies.


----------



## compur (Jun 23, 2009)

Sony Alpha and Minolta Maxxum cameras use the same mount. 

Minolta manual focus cameras (such as the X-700) use a different 
mount which is not compatible with the Maxxum/Alpha mount.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

Not compatable in what way?  The lens won't physically fit, or it will fit but work work?


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

OK, so then would it be correct that for the X-700 any MD or earlier lens will be fine?


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 23, 2009)

you want 'MC' and 'MD' lenses. the pre-1961 'SR' are not compatible 
according to the wikipedia article. the X-700 is from 1981. A-mount
(sony alpha DSLR mount) will not fit. it is a different mount.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

SonnarSphere said:


> if the lens is 'SR' it will fit an X-700. SR is a bayonet-style mount.
> Minolta ('Sony') A-mount is non bayonet-style. there are not cross-compatible.


  Ah, OK - I think I got it now.  All of the manual focus lenses are compatible, but the auto focus is different.



O|||||||O said:


> SonnarSphere said:
> 
> 
> > i think the X-700 is SR (MD) mount.
> ...


I think this is what confused me.  All of the _manual focus_ lenses are forward & backward compatible.  (But the auto focus mount is different.)


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 23, 2009)

yes but unfortunately you quote my error that i just edited from reading the wikipedia. 
it is badly explained.. SR is used to describe a family of mounts, 
however SR (pre 1961) is incompatible with post-1961 bodies.

unless a lens has MC or MD written on it - avoid it.

the statement all manual focuse lenses are forward/backward compatible is therefore
not strictly correct. a pre-1961 lens may not fit your X-700. an MC or MD will fit.
an A-mount (the mount sony alpha DSLRs use) is a totally different mount..
will not fit an X-700.

confused?..you will be, after another episode of... 'Konica Minolta'.. )

look.. throw the bloody thing away and buy a nikon =D


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

So then, are Nikon dSLRs the only ones that can use manual focus lenses with no adapter?


(won't affect my decision, just curious.)


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 23, 2009)

lol
trick question ?

you can use old nikon MF lenses actually, on nikon DSLRs without an adapator.
i was joking about throwing it away :0)


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

SonnarSphere said:


> i was joking about throwing it away :0)



I don't have one.  Thinking of buying one though.

I don't really care if the lenses are compatible with any dSLR (I just thought they were).  I already have a pretty good selection of Canon lenses, and I don't think I'll be starting _another_ digital system anytime soon.

Since Canon EF lenses don't fit Canon manual focus bodies, there's no reason to stick with Canon - so I just wanted to explore different options.

The X-700 does sound pretty good though.


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 23, 2009)

helios 44-2 58mm f2 (*bluetac & black tape mount*). soviet copy of a Zeiss Biotar.

(curves/levels/no sharpening)


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2009)

lol

Not bad for some putty & tape.


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 23, 2009)

thanks :0)


----------



## compur (Jun 23, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> So then, are Nikon dSLRs the only ones that can use manual focus lenses with no adapter?
> 
> 
> (won't affect my decision, just curious.)



Pentax DSLRs can use MF lenses (K-mount) without an adapter.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 23, 2009)

SonnarSphere, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Taping a lens to your camera? And I thought I was hardcore old-fashion with my photo ways....:lmao:

But, to get back to the question. I had to first dig up my cameras and then take out the batteries to makes 100% sure. And it is as I remembered. My SRT202s have fully mechanical shutters. The battery only runs the meter. On the other end my XD-11 is not.

It trips in Bulb and in O (whatever that is, sorry, I don't remember) but that's it.

Never had a single problem with any of my bodies and they went through hell (although looking at them right now, it's amazing how little wear and tear they show) but I would imagine the XD-11 would be the most likely to get one because of all the electronics. The SRT, on the other hand, is the ultimate body in the old-fashioned sense. All it does is hold the film and lens together.

It's built like a tank and if you have a battery in it, Great: you also have a light meter. if you don't, that's ok too. As an old fart, there was a time when I actually knew enough about my equipment to know what settings to use without the help of a light meter. At least, for my kind of photography at the time.

Now, let's talk a bit about lenses. I can't comment on the ones you have because I've never owned a zoom. Once upon a time zooms were frowned upon by the pros because they were too slow and, so, they were basically "amateur" lenses. But Minolta made some beautiful glass. Let's not forget they made lenses for Leica. You probably need to stick with fixed focal length lenses to get those though.

I wish I was ready to sell my film equipment so I could take "advantage" of you but I'm not. I still need to check it out and make sure it is working properly.

I almost forgot: from my research a few years ago, Minolta's non-AF lenses do not work with any of their AF bodies (digital or otherwise.)


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 24, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> SonnarSphere, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Taping a lens to your camera? And I thought I was hardcore old-fashion with my photo ways....:lmao:
> 
> Now, let's talk a bit about lenses. I can't comment on the ones you have because I've never owned a zoom. Once upon a time zooms were frowned upon by the pros because they were too slow and, so, they were basically "amateur" lenses. But Minolta made some beautiful glass. Let's not forget they made lenses for Leica.


 

i can do it very well now. people (even some amateur photogs) dont notice how its mounted. they say 'oh..i am amazed that lens fits on your modern camera' lol

jaja 


+1 what you say about minolta. some amazing lenses. can be beautiful color rendition and micro-contrast.


----------



## Battou (Jun 24, 2009)

Ok, I did not see it asked yet but What exactly are you looking fo body wise...Do you want the large & light feel similar to your digital SLR or do you want the rugged heavy feel of a classic film SLR?


Now I did notice that you said that you saw no particular reason to stick with canon due to incompatability in lenses abd that you where just exploring possibilities. Additionally I did notice that your direction to minolta was based on having some minolta glass loafin around but you have little to no confidence in them and would likely replace them. So my suggestions are based more on the exploration of possibilities than the fact you have some minolta glass loafin around.

You want the feel of your dSLR:

Canon T-90, Canon FD system body One of the last to use the FD mount (last one actually built by Canon I do believe), it pioneered many of the features on your current dSLR.

You want a light but classic feeling film SLR

Olympus OM-1, Olympus OM system body one of the first bodies using the OM mount that earned fame for being the lightest and quietest SLR in the early seventies.

Minolta XG series, Minolta MD system bodies, capable and lightweight bodies, made an for photographers who were interested in auto-exposure, while still retaining the capability for motorised film advance and full manual exposure.

You want a true rugged classic tank like feeling film SLR

Canon F series, Canon FD system bodies, First to use the FD mount. Really big baddass cameras too much to list.

Being an FD shooter my self, I reccomend sticking with Canon and exploring the FD series of lenses. I'm not saying Minolta Glass is bad, but Canons glass was renound for it's quality during that time period and is greately under apprieciated it todays market.


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> lol
> 
> Not bad for some putty & tape.


 





tessar/flektogon/44-2 





czj flektogon 35/2.8





czj tessar 50/2.8

photographed with respective lenses. mirror (reversed image)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 24, 2009)

^^^^^^

So, where is the tape?  you're just holding the lens there


----------



## SonnarSphere (Jun 24, 2009)

lol


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 24, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Now, let's talk a bit about lenses. I can't comment on the ones you have because I've never owned a zoom.


They are autofocus.  I thought it was the same mount, but it's not so it's a moot point.  Judging by their build quality & max aperture, they are very inexpensive.

I never really planned on using them, they just got me thinking - "hey, what about minolta?"



Battou said:


> Ok, I did not see it asked yet but What exactly are you looking fo body wise...Do you want the large & light feel similar to your digital SLR or do you want the rugged heavy feel of a classic film SLR?
> [...]



I'm leaning towards rugged, heavy, classic SLR.

I'm having second thoughts about the X-700...  One thing I read that just doesn't sit well with me is a silk shutter.
(Probably just being paranoid)

There are a few Canons and Nikons I was considering...


Unless I get talked out of it, so far I plan on going with a Canon F-1.


----------



## mooimeisie (Jun 24, 2009)

Would the Minolta 70-210 be the f/4 beercan?


----------



## compur (Jun 24, 2009)

Yes, the Minolta Maxxum AF 70-210mm f/4 is "the beercan."
There is also a 75-300mm Maxxum which is "the big beercan."


----------



## Battou (Jun 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Unless I get talked out of it, so far I plan on going with a Canon F-1.




If the F-1 falls out of your price range, I highly recomend the Canon EF as a backup plan averaging anywhere five to six hundred dollars cheaper built with the same ruggedness of the F-1 (litterally same chassis) with fewer automated features.


----------



## mooimeisie (Jun 25, 2009)

To 0lllllll0,
The 70-210mm lens is actually an amazing lens.  I purchased one a few weeks ago and it is now my favorite lens.  If you were to buy a camera to fit this lens, I don't think you'd be sorry.  If you get something else, let me know and I would probably have a sale of your Minolta lenses for you.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 25, 2009)

Battou said:


> If the F-1 falls out of your price range, I highly recomend the Canon EF as a backup plan


That was going to be my second choice.

edit
And by the time I throw in a few lenses, that may be what I go with.


mooimeisie said:


> To 0lllllll0,
> The 70-210mm lens is actually an amazing lens.  I purchased one a few weeks ago and it is now my favorite lens.  If you were to buy a camera to fit this lens, I don't think you'd be sorry.  If you get something else, let me know and I would probably have a sale of your Minolta lenses for you.



I have a feeling we're talking about different lenses...

Is your's the f/4 "beercan"?

The one I have is a very cheap feeling, mostly plastic (plastic mount too), 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 lens.  Actually, other than the glass, it may be entirely plastic.

I can't see it costing more than $50 (new), although I'm sure it was more than that (hopefully not much more).


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 25, 2009)

Where a Maxxum would shatter into a billion pieces of plastic and glass and wire and metal upon impact after being hurtled at a cinder block wall, the sr-T101 would make a hole and keep on trucking.


----------



## mooimeisie (Jun 25, 2009)

You're right, we are talking about different lenses.  Mine is the 70-210mm f/4 Minolta "beercan".


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> The one I have is a very cheap feeling, mostly plastic (plastic mount too), 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 lens.  Actually, other than the glass, it may be entirely plastic.



You probably have the Minolta MD 70-210mm and the Minolta MD 35-70mm. Cheap lenses, mainly plastic, and acceptable image quality.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 25, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > The one I have is a very cheap feeling, mostly plastic (plastic mount too), 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 lens.  Actually, other than the glass, it may be entirely plastic.
> ...



No, it's not those.  They're autofocus.  They look like kit lenses, only cheaper.
They're silver plastic.

Pretty sure this is the 28-80 (wow, MSRP $42) and this is the 70-210.

Optically, they're probably about the same as a standard kit lens.  They just look & feel cheaper.


EDIT
Mine is not 28-80, it's 35-80.  It looks just like that though.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 25, 2009)

... hmm, for some strange reason I thought we were talking about manual focus lens/cameras.

I should start reading the middle stuff :lmao:


----------



## MattxMosh (Jun 28, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> ... hmm, for some strange reason I thought we were talking about manual focus lens/cameras.
> 
> I should start reading the middle stuff :lmao:



I did too!

I was all excited about someone else joining the ranks of the rabid Minolta Manual Focus world.

So many great cameras and lenses so cheap (for the most part). I love my Minolta's and I'd much rather shoot with these than any digital any day.

I always keep these just like this by my front door, grabbing one and a lens on my way out the door. All the rest are scattered through the house, ha.







Making a fairly cheap investment in some nice rokkor glass and most any x series camera is never a mistake.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 28, 2009)

MattxMosh said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > ... hmm, for some strange reason I thought we were talking about manual focus lens/cameras.
> ...



We were, at first.  The thread kept going back to these two AF lenses I have laying around though...lol.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 28, 2009)

Is a silk shutter really as bad as it sounds?

All of the cameras I've had/used had metal shutters...  Not sure if I'd be comfortable with a fabric one.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2009)

I think these will be the same quality as the standard Kit lenses available for the Sony Alpha camera line.

If you are considering using these lenses on a DSLR ... then you will have to get a Sony.

You could find a used Sony a100's ... they should be inexpensive now that the newer models are out.
I am happy with mine ... I don't see any need to upgrade (yet).


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2009)

No. Many camera's had a silk shutter.
I do not know of any issue with them.

One benefit of a cloth shutter ... if you accidentally poke the shutter you won't pop the metal shutter blades out of the rail (I have helped a number of people put their metal shutter blades back in place).


----------



## compur (Jun 28, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Is a silk shutter really as bad as it sounds?



Sounds pretty cool to me.


----------



## a_spaceman (Jul 20, 2009)

i have two minolta manual focus - an SRT101b (european name for the SRT201) and an XG-m.
both great cameras, the xg-m being much more practical thanks to its auto mode (only shutter speed is automatic).
the original rokkor lenses are great and there are loads of them out there.
mind that if you look for a lens you want a minolta md or mc, not just an md or mc mount, as praktika had mounts of either name, too.
i still have a zeiss jena 28mm md (or is it mc?) mount i bought for the minoltas but turned out to be for praktica cameras. and this thread gives credit to the theory i had in the back of my mind that i should get a praktica as i already have a lens...


----------



## Dwig (Jul 20, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> I think this is what confused me.  All of the _manual focus_ lenses are forward & backward compatible.  (But the auto focus mount is different.)



All of the manual focus models share the same lens _mount_, but the meter coupling and auto-diaphram mechinisms differ. The auto diaphram mechinism in the earliest of the bunch, the SR, is not compatible with most of the newer model cameras. The MC lenses have basic meter coupling, all that any manual body (SRT series) or simple manual & aperture priority body (XE series) needs. the newer MD lenses are necessary if you want to use the shutter priority and program modes on the newer auto exposure models.

Your best bet for a fully mechanical body would be the SRT-202, with the SRT-201 coming in a close second (small feature differences only). The SRT-101 and 102 are also good but slightly older, though much more commonly available. The SRT-100 and 200 were simplified variants. All of these will were designed for the now extinct mercury batteries. Modern substitutes generally require some meter adjustment, either shop service or chronically lying to the camera when you set the ISO.

Compared to the other good classics of the day (Pentax K1000 & Spotmatic, Nikkormat FTn FT2 FT3, Canon FTb TLb, etc) the Minolta SRT's compare well. I'd prefer one to a Pentax Spotmatic and about even with a K1000, though would prefer a Canon FTb over and SRT and a good Nikkormat over them all.


----------

