Minolta SRT-101 vs. Canon AE-1 Program

Minolta SRT-101 vs. Canon AE-1 Program

  • Total voters
    105
I serviced a Minolta SRT-101 for a member of my wife's family (left by some great aunt who died). Shot a test roll of Tri-X with that Rokkor 55 f1.7 lens IIRC. Really beautiful, was really sad to turn the camera back over.

My holy grail has always been tack sharp, lower contrast lenses, paired with Tri-X and HC-110, scanned with a Coolscan 9000. That Minolta with that Rokkor lens was superb for the type of black and white I love to shoot.

Best,
-Tim
 
Having used everything that you posted I would dispose of the Argus unless it came in a color other than black then use it as an ornament. As for the Canon: It is a starter kit. Go with a 50mm Canon lens which is supposedly better but I have never taken to Canon. The Minolta lenses have a pastel look in color. Since you have two cameras designate the Canon for B&W and the Minolta for color. I know that you said you will only be using B&W but the Minolta does have very good color rendition which I prefer over the Canon's, which is pretty good, too.
 
Some of my best photos came from a AE-1 w/ an FD 50 1.8 lens. You can pick these lenses up for $30 or less, and they're excellent performers. It's a fine little camera, and the meter is accurate, so no need to buy a hand held one. Some have the infamous Canon "squeek", a noise when the shutter trips, but I've never heard one that was THAT bad. It's not a difficult fix anyway.

The Minolta cameras are good, but I was underwhelmed by the two 135mm lenses I tried. People say that's one of Minolta's better lenses, but I compared an early one and the last, compact 135. Both had identical IQ, and I liked neither.
 
Steve M. said:
The Minolta cameras are good, but I was underwhelmed by the two 135mm lenses I tried. People say that's one of Minolta's better lenses, but I compared an early one and the last, compact 135. Both had identical IQ, and I liked neither.
Click to expand...

I never cared for the 135mm in any brand. I have the 100mm then jump to the 200mm.

It just seems like a useless focal length but it is popular among many users.

I only have primes in part because zooms are in my opinion less than great performers. Most I have used except for the 70-210mm f/4 Minolta lens delivered poor quality..
 
I never understood why the Minolta is so highly regarded, so I got one and now it's even harder to understand. Yes, it is manual, but flimsy. My first camera that I bought for my own hard earned pocket money was a Canon AE-1 with a 50mm f1.8 lens. A well designed, simple camera that inspired me to take great photos. Shouldn't have traded it for a Rollei SLR...
 
So I just developed my first roll of KMax 100 b&W from the Argus C3. Out of the 24 possible negatives I think about 5-6 were good enough to throw in my enlarger and attempt to develope. With the faulty shutter speed dial its pretty much a toss up as to wether or not a picture is going to come out. Pretty sure its going to become a nice piece for the top of my bookshelf. As far as the Canon, I recieved it yesterday in the mail. Beautiful camera, good shape, not much noise from the mirror and came with original flash, bag and manual. I think I made out well, got the package for roughly 40 dollars. Ill run a test roll through it this weekend when I take the GF and dog out camping. Ill post a few pictures from each. You guys are greatly appreciated!
 
Oh and as far as color goes. I'm actually deploying to Afghanistan in May for 3 months, so I will probably give color a try when I get back. But thanks for the ideas.
 
I'm going to go against the grain here and say the canon is a better system. The lenses especially are better. Minolta has a very good 58mm f1.2, but thats about it. The 35mm f1.8 is beat by canons 35mm f2 (concave element), the 24's are beat by canons 24mm f1.4L, and the 85's are beat by canons 85mm f1.2L. Even the 58mm f1.2 at least equalled by canons 50mm f1.2L.
The canon bodies may be electronic but they're no fuss and very reliable.

After using a few modern minolta primes, I was rather disappointed with their optical quality. Their reputation is far overhyped. The bodies are quite nice though.
 
colyn said:
Personal opinion........I feel the Rokkor and Rokkor-X lens beat the Canon manual focus lens.

I also find it interesting that many Canon users are buying Rokkor-X lens and converting them to Canon mount...

!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Only because the Canon EF lens either too expensive or too plasticity but they do convert Canon FD, FL lens, Nikon AIs lens, Contax lens, Leica R lens...to EF mount.:angel:
 
Film noob said:
I was wondering if anyone had some good info or tips on my new cameras/lenses. I'm going to be using black and white film and enlarging/processing my own fiber based paper. Thanks for the help ahead of time. You guys are the best!
Click to expand...

The AE1 runs on modern batteries and if it does the shutter speeds should be perfect (electronically controlled). The SRT is all manual, the speeds are most likely off and you wont find mercury batteries anyhwere.
 
Speedfreak said:
The AE1 runs on modern batteries and if it does the shutter speeds should be perfect (electronically controlled).
Click to expand...

And when the speeds are off which is as often as any mechanically controlled speeds they are impossible to bring back into spec unless you have the proper equipment to adjust the several variable resisters. This equipment by the way is very expensive.

Speedfreak said:
The SRT is all manual, the speeds are most likely off and you wont find mercury batteries anyhwere.
Click to expand...

As with any mechanically controlled shutter whether it be Minolta or whatever brand it is easy to adjust back into specs with very simple equipment after a good CLA..

Who needs mercury batteries??? My srT's work fine with silver oxide batteries and the meter is accurate..
 
For more on the Minolta:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070312081005/members.aol.com/manualminolta/index.htm

There are a lot of great inexpensive used manual focus Minolta lenses on ebay (just shop carefully) becuase they can't be used on autofocus film cameras or digital cameras. The MD Zoom Rokkor-X 35-70mm f3.5 and MD Zoom 70-210 f4 lenses are excellent (developed jointly by Minolta and Leica, also issued by Leica as Leitz lenses).
 
mwoenv said:
There are a lot of great inexpensive used manual focus Minolta lenses on ebay (just shop carefully) becuase they can't be used on autofocus film cameras or digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Actually Minolta MC, MD, and newer manual focus lens as well as the older auto rokkor's can be used on some digital cameras. I use mine on my Olympus E-PL1 micro 4/3 digital camera via the glassless MC/MD to micro 4/3 adapter. I've also used them on the Olympus E-300 and the E-620 DSLR's.. Adapters do also exist to mount these lens on the Sony NEX cameras. Again with infinity focus.

The same lens can be used on Minolta autofocus cameras as well as the Sony DSLR but only via an adapter with a glass diopter in order to get infinity.. The problem though is this glass adapter will degrade the image quality.

A few samples of images taken with this camera and my Minolta 50mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.4, and 200mm f/3.5 lens can be found here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/colyng/
 
I have & shoot a Canon AE1 program & it's a fine camera. Only problem I ever had was the squeal but with a CLA which cost me 80 bucks the camera is fine. Buy a Canon FD 50/1.4 & you'll put most any other 50 to shame. Don't worry about the circuit board going out. This camera will out last a Leica M8 or M9 and especially a Fuji X100.
 
I love my Canon AE-1s. When I'm shooting w/ an SLR for whatever reason I always bring one as a backup to the T90. Was also the first 35mm camera I bought for myself, and I currently own 9 of them with about 20 FD lenses. The stuff is just so damn cheap!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top