# Minolta Film Cameras



## Oldschool92'

Alright guys, I want to get a Minolta film camera but I'm not sure as to what specific one I should get. This is mainly for people that have used Minolta cameras before, but anyone can throw in their two cents.  

I know that every thread I start asks for help and I still haven't given anything back. But I'm still very knew to this and I don't have a lot of knowledge with photography to give advice or comments for that matter. :er:

As always  your opinions are greatly appreciated! Thanks! :mrgreen:


----------



## white

Why Minolta over Canon, Nikon, Pentax, et al?

I have an SRT-202 because somebody gave it to me, and while it's a solid camera, I'd personally go for a Nikon F series.


----------



## Oldschool92'

That is a very good point. My main reason is because I found quite a few more minolta cameras that were cheaper then some of the nikon ones.


----------



## Torus34

Ok. You note that price is your reason for picking Minolta, so let's talk price. Forget about the glamor associated with one name or another.

When you begin to explore 35mm rigs, you usually end up realizing that they are 'systems' consisting of bodies and lenses. The lenses must fit the bodies. Various brands [Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Konica and Pentax come readily to mind] have their own mount systems. Konica lenses don't 'fit' Canon bodies and vice versa. [nb: The quotes 'round 'fit' are there to indicate that sometimes there are adapters available. I've found them to be something of a hassle.]

So what has this to do with price? Well, if you're willing and able to deal with a manual camera [You'll want to add a decent exposure meter to your gadget bag. I recommend the Luna Pro.] you can keep the price of a body and lenses [That's right, lenses -- plural. You'll probably want a 50mm and a 135mm lens for starters, and possibly a zoom.] to a minimum if you choose the right 'system'.

Now, Minolta's lens mount system wasn't adapted by other manufacturers*. If you start with Minolta, you'll end with Minolta components or those manufactured by 'generic' lens manufacturers such as Tamron and Vivitar.  However, the Pentax mounts, especially the screw mount system, was widely adopted by both body and lens manufacturers. So you can get an 'off-brand' manual body [A Chinon with Chinon f1.7/50mm lens went for $13 on eBay last night] and add decent Pentax or other screw mount lenses as you wish. By the bye, the Chinon lens isn't exactly Holga quality, either. You would have had a good starter rig for $13 + $8 shipping. There are also Pentax screw mount bodies with light metering functions available if you wish to go that route.

To sum up: pick up a Pentax screw mount body and add lenses as your needs indicate. Cost will be a minimum with a wide range of choices available.

M42 screw mount camera reference: http://anusf.anu.edu.au/~aab900/photography/cameras/cameras.htm

* Yeah, yeah. I know about the eventual Minolta/Konica merge. It isn't germane to the thrust of the argument presented.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Oldschool92' said:


> Alright guys, I want to get a Minolta film camera but I'm not sure as to what specific one I should get. This is mainly for people that have used Minolta cameras before, but anyone can throw in their two cents.
> 
> I know that every thread I start asks for help and I still haven't given anything back. But I'm still very knew to this and I don't have a lot of knowledge with photography to give advice or comments for that matter. :er:
> 
> As always  your opinions are greatly appreciated! Thanks! :mrgreen:



I see no particular reason to  choose a Minolta over any other brand of Japanese film camera. Are you thinking SRT-series?


----------



## Mike_E

Minolta's are fine cameras, go ahead.  Though I'd stick with either the SRTs or the last ones if you want auto focus.


----------



## Idahophoto

Torus34 said:


> Now, Minolta's lens mount system wasn't adapted by other manufacturers*.



Actually Sony now uses them so any newer sony will work for Minolta. I loved my Minolta 7xi and have plans on buying a new one soon. They can be found online for around 70 bucks now. 

Keep in mind that you are buying into a system. Canon and Nikon both have a large line of cheap reliable cameras that will serve your photography needs very easily. This is not so with Minolta who left the business. Sony has picked up the line but there products have not been up to par and there selection is small. I would highly suggest you stay away from them.

On the up side there are a ton a great Minolta products you can get used that though may be a few years old can more than compete with the lenses out now for the newer stuff. Minolta made some of the best stuff in the game in my opinion and even though I had switched to Nikon before they left I was sad to see it happen. 

The 9xi was the pro version of the 7xi so you may want to look at it if you really wanting to focus on Minolta gear. I never owned this model, but I have no doubts it would be a great deal if bought today. Perhaps I will need to check it out myself at some point. Good luck


----------



## usayit

Idahophoto said:


> Torus34 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Minolta's lens mount system wasn't adapted by other manufacturers*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Sony now uses them so any newer sony will work for Minolta.
Click to expand...


More accurately the Minolta AF mount...   previous mount design was discontinued.  Minolta AF glass may be a little slower to focus but still optically good...


In regards to the M42 screwmount option suggested...  Keep in mind that you are now getting into fairly dated optics and coatings (many don't have any).    Also many of the camera bodies are at the age that a CLA or repair is also a must.   Cloth shutters do deteriorate with age even when not in use.  Many of the Selenium light meters also stop working wiht age...  battery driven meters are sensitive to voltages for accuracy with many designed to be used with mercury batteries which are banned here in the US.  My point is... do research..   In the end, many will find the hassle not worth it... while a few (like me) understand and simply shoot with this vintage equipment because it is interesting/different/fun.

Oh btw.. Pentax branding was actually "Takumar" during that time.  The cameras -> Asahi/Honeywell/etc.   They all originated from the Asahi Optical Corp of Japan.  The M42 screwmount wasn't started by pentax but Praktica.



As for Minolta, there are lots of AF bodies to choose from and any lenses you get for it will work with the newer Sony DSLRs.    The 7xi as mentioned is a good example.  My first SLR was my fathers Maxxum 7000 which was the first successfully marketed  in-body 35mm AF camera.  It was reliable for years but for some reason the plastics are starting to degrade on it... so it sits in my cabinet.


----------



## Oldschool92'

Thanks everyone for your opinions. Torus would the m42 lens work on the k mount cameras?


----------



## Oldschool92'

This seems like a good deal to me...
Vivitar V335 SLR w/Vivitar 35-70mm f/3.5-4.8 Zoom Lens - eBay (item 370391341340 end time Aug-02-10 19:55:05 PDT)


----------



## usayit

Oldschool92' said:


> Thanks everyone for your opinions. Torus would the m42 lens work on the k mount cameras?



Yes.. with the appropriate adapter.  You'll have to meter by stopping down the lens manually.


----------



## Cork

Oldschool92' said:


> Alright guys, I want to get a Minolta film camera but I'm not sure as to what specific one I should get.



Well, this message finally got me to register.  First of all, let me say that I'm a fan of Pentax and have a healthy respect for their K-mount lenses and several of their camera bodies.

However, I am and have been a Minolta user for decades for the simple reason that I like many of their cameras and I love their lens philosophy, at least up to the early 90's.

You are interested in manual focus, so I will concentrate on the MF Minoltas.  Starting with the newest, the X-700 and X-570 have good metering, are reasonably inexpensive, and are durable.  The MD Rokkor and MD lenses are excellent and are widely available for fairly low prices.  

I use the XD-11/XD-7 as my MF body of choice; it lacks the Program mode of the X-700 and the TTL/OTF flash metering of the X-700/X-570, but has a quieter, better shutter and metal construction.  Though not as advanced as the X-700 in some ways, the XD-11/XD-7 is regarded by most to be the finest MF camera ever made by Minolta, as is the equal to similar systems by any manufacturer.  It is, perhaps, the best SLR for photojournalism ever made; sort of a reflex version of a Leica rangefinder.

Prior to the XD-11 was the XE-7, a larger, heavier camera that has its own support as the best Minolta.  Another superb shutter, somewhat less automation, but a fine instrument.

The mechanical MF Minoltas (as opposed to the electronic XE, XD, and X series) reached their apex with the SRT-102 and SRT-202.  Similar in size to the XE-7, these are outstanding cameras but need some workarounds for batteries as they were designed for mercury cells.

Minolta cameras from the above list are simply superb.  I'd recommend either the X-700 or X-570 to anyone looking for a great camera.  The Minolta lenses (made by Minolta) are superior, plentiful, and mostly inexpensive.  Let me know if you wish additional information.


----------



## icassell

I love my XD-11, but I bought it new back in the '70's. It was the first camera that had both shutter-priority AND aperture priority semi-automatic modes (Canon's first semi-auto at that time only had shutter-priority).  It was the best I could afford and it still works well today almost 35 years later.  It's a great camera and the nice thing is that Minolta actually made their own glass for their optics.  On the other hand, in those days, I dreamed of owning Nikon but just couldn't afford it. In this day and age where 35mm cameras are pretty cheap, I'd probably buy a Nikon if I was going to buy an old 35mm body.  If I understand it correctly, you can even use those old Nikon MF lenses on new Nikon digitals.


----------



## Cork

icassell said:


> If I understand it correctly, you can even use those old Nikon MF lenses on new Nikon digitals.



Yes, you can.  I have Nikons and they are quite nice cameras.  Nikon made some excellent systems in their manual focus line, including the lovely FE and FM-2.

However, you cannot assemble a high-quality Nikon system for anywhere near the cost of a quality Minolta system.  Minolta equipment is the best combination of quality and value currrently available on the market.  As you point out, Minolta and Nikon were two of the very few OEM's to make their own glass.

The difference is that Nikon's lens philosophy placed its emphasis on sharpness to the exclusion of all other elements of optical design.  Minolta followed the Leitz philosophy of balancing all factors in their designs, particularly their emphasis on balancing micro-contrast and coarse contrast.  Additionally, Minolta worked to ensure that the color rendition of every lens in their line was the same.  In the 70's/80's, a photographer could load a 36 shot roll of Kodachrome in his Minolta, use 10 different Minolta lenses, and not see any color difference among the shots.  No other manufacturer's lenses could do that EXCEPT Leitz.  

Nikon built its rep on sharpness in the 50's and landed in the offices of every newsroom in the country as a result.  The pros used Nikons because they were available (free) and because the lenses gave good results.  Naturally, everyone wanted to have Nikons because the pros used them.  

However, you don't need a Nikon or a Minolta or a Pentax to create great photographs.  Heck, you can even create art with a Canon!  (grin)  The point is this: you can take superb photos with any of these systems.  But the key point is this: you can assemble a terrific Minolta system for the fraction of the cost of a similar Nikon system.  

I'm not a big fan of digital.  But if you want to use MF Minolta lenses on digital cameras you have multiple options, including adapters for the new Sony NEX system, the Olympus/Panasonic 4/3rds system, and even the Canon system.  

So here's my summary: if you are looking for *value* in one of the finest systems of lenses and camera bodies made, with a path available to digital, there is no system that offers more than the manual focus Minolta system.


----------



## EricO

Considering that the OP asked about Minoltas I will limit my comments to Minoltas.  When I started buying SLR's I chose Minolta bodies based on the price of the lenses.  I found that you can get the same functionality and features out of Minolta bodies that you can get out of any other brand.  In addition, if you want to save additional money you can use Sigma lenses, regardless of the brand of body.  

I would recommend:

Maxxum 7 - I love it.  Great for pro jobs and anything else.  Feels good in the hands and can do everything but fly.

Maxxum 5 - Smallest body in its class.  Great for taking to parties, etc.

I also have the Maxxum 3xi and Maxxum 7000.  These are good "beat around" cameras.  I take these out when I don't want to worry about the camera getting damaged or coming up missing.


----------



## Cork

EricO said:


> I would recommend: Maxxum 7



Probably the finest 35mm film camera ever made.  When I replace my 9xi the 7 will be at the top of my list.


----------



## asiafish

New to the forum.

I started in photography with a Minolta SRT200 and 45mm f/2 MD Rokkor that I bought new as a teenager in the late 1970s.  Today I shoot mostly Leica (M Monochrom), but I still maintain a Minolta kit for film.  Currently I have a roll of Tri-X about half finished in my XE-7 and have an XD-11 in the cabinet that could use new leatherette, but otherwise is in great shape.  Its an early XD-11 without the green marking on the 1/125th shutter speed.

The XE-7 is by far my favorite Minolta body.  It has the solid heft that I loved in the SRT and still love in the Leica M Monochrom, with just enough automation (aperture priority only) and that smooth Copal-Leitz shutter that is a luxurious delight with every release.  I also like the moving needle instead of LEDs for shutter speed / meter display and the frame counter on the back of the camera.  My XE-7 is in almost new condition and is simply a joy to behold.

Of course the main reason to own any of this stuff is for the images, and Minolta glass is about the best of its time available from Japan.  I have fairly humble Minolta lenses, a late MD Rokkor 28mm f/2.8 that is quite boring in specification, but produces beautiful images on film.  An early MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens, with outstanding sharpness in the center from wide-open, sharp to the corners at f/4 and lovely bokeh.  Finally I have an old MC Rokkor PF 135mm f/2.8 which is widely regarded as the weakest of Minolta's MC/MD 135s as far as technical quality (sharpness wide-open), but possessing the best bokeh.  These lenses and the two bodies cost me less than $300 recently at a camera show, all are in near mint condition, and despite their low cost, they are a delight to use, and that says a lot coming from a picky Leica user.

So to the original OP, by all means find a nice Minolta body, and more importantly some nice Minolta glass.  MC and MD Rokkors are best.


----------



## gsgary

asiafish said:


> New to the forum.
> 
> I started in photography with a Minolta SRT200 and 45mm f/2 MD Rokkor that I bought new as a teenager in the late 1970s.  Today I shoot mostly Leica (M Monochrom), but I still maintain a Minolta kit for film.  Currently I have a roll of Tri-X about half finished in my XE-7 and have an XD-11 in the cabinet that could use new leatherette, but otherwise is in great shape.  Its an early XD-11 without the green marking on the 1/125th shutter speed.
> 
> The XE-7 is by far my favorite Minolta body.  It has the solid heft that I loved in the SRT and still love in the Leica M Monochrom, with just enough automation (aperture priority only) and that smooth Copal-Leitz shutter that is a luxurious delight with every release.  I also like the moving needle instead of LEDs for shutter speed / meter display and the frame counter on the back of the camera.  My XE-7 is in almost new condition and is simply a joy to behold.
> 
> Of course the main reason to own any of this stuff is for the images, and Minolta glass is about the best of its time available from Japan.  I have fairly humble Minolta lenses, a late MD Rokkor 28mm f/2.8 that is quite boring in specification, but produces beautiful images on film.  An early MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens, with outstanding sharpness in the center from wide-open, sharp to the corners at f/4 and lovely bokeh.  Finally I have an old MC Rokkor PF 135mm f/2.8 which is widely regarded as the weakest of Minolta's MC/MD 135s as far as technical quality (sharpness wide-open), but possessing the best bokeh.  These lenses and the two bodies cost me less than $300 recently at a camera show, all are in near mint condition, and despite their low cost, they are a delight to use, and that says a lot coming from a picky Leica user.
> 
> So to the original OP, by all means find a nice Minolta body, and more importantly some nice Minolta glass.  MC and MD Rokkors are best.




Great first post the one before yours was more than 4 years ago


----------

