DennisM
Established
What? No Minolta's? How about the Minolta SR-T 101, 102, etc? Minolta's seem to be the Rodney Dangerfield of cameras. They don't get no respect.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Brand recognition. Nikon, Canon, Leica have it, other brands are considered to be for amateurs. Doesn't make them worse -- Minolta, Pentax, Konica, all great.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear AlwaysOnAuto,
I'm going to say this and run for cover. I have a pair of working Minolta SRT 101's. I know Minolta lenses are held in high regard. The camera is pleasant to use and it provides good results for me.
Here is where I need to duck and run. Had I never shot with a Nikkormat, or Spotmatic F I might feel differently about the Minolta. When I compare it to a Nikkormat FT2, or Pentax Spotmatic F, both cameras are of the same mid-1970's vintage, the Minolta's seems rather cheap and chintzy to me, whereas the Nikkormat and Pentax seem much more sturdily and precisely built. The Minolta body is lighter which some may feel is an advantage, but it literally feels like the difference between night and day to me. I have a friend who uses a Minolta X700 and his camera seems more solidly built compared to the SRT 101.
I'm not trying to start a war here, just expressing my opinion on the popularity of certain brands over others.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Dear Tim Murphy,
I have two working SR-T's also.
I also have a bought new by me Nikon FE.
I used to have an FM2 (I bought it for the 1.2 lens) but I traded it for a grip to put on my M3.
Yes, the Nikon's feel weightier than the Minolta's, but at my age I'm not interested in lugging more weight around just because of the name attached to it.
I'm also pretty sure the Minolta's will last as long as the Nikon's and I'd even be willing to bet that mine have had more film thru them than my Nikon's have had run thru them.
Not trying to cause/start a fight here. I just don't equate weight with quality.
Regards,
AOA ;>{)
I have two working SR-T's also.
I also have a bought new by me Nikon FE.
I used to have an FM2 (I bought it for the 1.2 lens) but I traded it for a grip to put on my M3.
Yes, the Nikon's feel weightier than the Minolta's, but at my age I'm not interested in lugging more weight around just because of the name attached to it.
I'm also pretty sure the Minolta's will last as long as the Nikon's and I'd even be willing to bet that mine have had more film thru them than my Nikon's have had run thru them.
Not trying to cause/start a fight here. I just don't equate weight with quality.
Regards,
AOA ;>{)
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Hard to speak to anyone else but for me but the Nikons I've used - the F, F2, F4, F90 & more just fall to hand better, have a better ergonomic fit (it's slight and subtle but for me, real) and the finders are significantly better. So when I looked at the Minolta products I could see they were well enough made but not sufficiently different or better than either the Canon FD I used before or the Nikon I use now to go to the expense of changing.
Had I chosen them in the first place? I undoubtedly would be happily still using them along with having followed along the way to Sony digital today. But the PX in Illesheim FRG had a Canon AE-1 instead and that, as they say, is history.
CMur12
Well-known
I put Nikons such as the professional F, F2, F3, F4, F5, and F6 in one class and the others - Nikkormat, FM/2, FE/2, FM3a - in the amateur class, even though "amateur" cameras are often used by professionals, too.
I have to wear glasses when using a camera. That isn't a problem with the F, F2, etc, but I can't see the whole finder in the FM/FE class of cameras. My Nikkormat allows me to see most of the finder. I can't see the whole finder in the old Pentaxes.
I love the old Pentax M42 Super Takumar and Super Multi-Coated Takumar lenses, but I don't like the corresponding Pentax cameras. I can't see a large part of the finder with glasses on, and the Pentax finders are darker and have largely useless focusing aids, making them harder to focus. (I have an H1a, a Spotmatic II, and a Spotmatic F. I finally came to the realization that I just don't like them.)
I can see the whole finder in my Minolta SR-Ts and they are easier to focus than the Pentaxes referenced above. I can still just see the whole finder in my Minolta X-570s, though there is more magnification (but not too much). The X-700/570/370 also have the very bright and contrasty Acute Matte focusing screens, a technology that Minolta licensed to Hasselblad. I prefer how my Minoltas feel in my hands to my old Pentaxes. I might also note that there have been professional photographers who used Minoltas (and Olympuses and Pentaxes).
I had a Nikon F for awhile, and I really liked it. But when it came to taking pictures, I always grabbed a Minolta instead. I finally sold the Nikon, with some regrets.
I need to thin out my film cameras, as I have way more than I will ever use. For 35mm, I will be keeping several Minoltas (SR-Ts and X-570 with winder, along with my MC and MD lenses). I might also keep the Nikkormat and a Canonet QL 17 GIII.
(Next, I will need to thin out my ten TLRs to a more reasonable number. )
- Murray
I have to wear glasses when using a camera. That isn't a problem with the F, F2, etc, but I can't see the whole finder in the FM/FE class of cameras. My Nikkormat allows me to see most of the finder. I can't see the whole finder in the old Pentaxes.
I love the old Pentax M42 Super Takumar and Super Multi-Coated Takumar lenses, but I don't like the corresponding Pentax cameras. I can't see a large part of the finder with glasses on, and the Pentax finders are darker and have largely useless focusing aids, making them harder to focus. (I have an H1a, a Spotmatic II, and a Spotmatic F. I finally came to the realization that I just don't like them.)
I can see the whole finder in my Minolta SR-Ts and they are easier to focus than the Pentaxes referenced above. I can still just see the whole finder in my Minolta X-570s, though there is more magnification (but not too much). The X-700/570/370 also have the very bright and contrasty Acute Matte focusing screens, a technology that Minolta licensed to Hasselblad. I prefer how my Minoltas feel in my hands to my old Pentaxes. I might also note that there have been professional photographers who used Minoltas (and Olympuses and Pentaxes).
I had a Nikon F for awhile, and I really liked it. But when it came to taking pictures, I always grabbed a Minolta instead. I finally sold the Nikon, with some regrets.
I need to thin out my film cameras, as I have way more than I will ever use. For 35mm, I will be keeping several Minoltas (SR-Ts and X-570 with winder, along with my MC and MD lenses). I might also keep the Nikkormat and a Canonet QL 17 GIII.
(Next, I will need to thin out my ten TLRs to a more reasonable number. )
- Murray
Last edited:
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
More brain... whatever.
I had a Minolta SRT101 in the '70s, fora. few years. Well constructed, but a clunker. Tripping the shutter usually scared away all the birds in the vicinity.
I took it to North America with me in 1979 and 1982 and the Rokkor 50/1.7 (the only lens I had for it at the time) gave me a fair few magnificent images.
IEventually moved on to Nikons (Nikkormats, actually) and gave away the 101. To someone who took to it, and went on using it for a very long time. So yeh, they were built to last. Like Nikkormats.
Up to about 15 years ago one could find old Rockors at giveaway prices. Unsure about now. In the '90s I passed on a 21 Rokkor for $20 in a Sydney (Australia) camera shop. Kicked myself for years afterwards, I've never seen another one.
Next wave. Consider any Nikon F (aka N) model from the early '00s. Above F60. Mine are F65s. Plasticky, and if it's handled too roughly the lock on the back breaks with amazing ease. Otherwise, great little shooters, limited in some ways (auto-ISO reading off the film canister, otherwise you are stuck with shooting at ISO 100, which can be inconvenient), in most other ways reasonably adjustable.
Most can be set up with a battery grip often available cheaply on Ebay. Takes standard supermarket batteries, allso rechargeable. Best deal ever.
I had a Minolta SRT101 in the '70s, fora. few years. Well constructed, but a clunker. Tripping the shutter usually scared away all the birds in the vicinity.
I took it to North America with me in 1979 and 1982 and the Rokkor 50/1.7 (the only lens I had for it at the time) gave me a fair few magnificent images.
IEventually moved on to Nikons (Nikkormats, actually) and gave away the 101. To someone who took to it, and went on using it for a very long time. So yeh, they were built to last. Like Nikkormats.
Up to about 15 years ago one could find old Rockors at giveaway prices. Unsure about now. In the '90s I passed on a 21 Rokkor for $20 in a Sydney (Australia) camera shop. Kicked myself for years afterwards, I've never seen another one.
Next wave. Consider any Nikon F (aka N) model from the early '00s. Above F60. Mine are F65s. Plasticky, and if it's handled too roughly the lock on the back breaks with amazing ease. Otherwise, great little shooters, limited in some ways (auto-ISO reading off the film canister, otherwise you are stuck with shooting at ISO 100, which can be inconvenient), in most other ways reasonably adjustable.
Most can be set up with a battery grip often available cheaply on Ebay. Takes standard supermarket batteries, allso rechargeable. Best deal ever.