Easiest to focus SLR?

[Brian Atherton]

...lubricant-impregnated stainless steel...

Very interesting... never heard of this, and can find no reference to it. I am really curious. Can you enlighten me?

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Even between the x570 and x700, the shutter speed dial and film advance both feels noticeably cheaper in the x570. Almost kind of hollow? I do prefer the manual mode in the x570 however.

Didnt know that about them, will have to see how much abuse they can take hehe. Thanks Murray!

I let a young photographer who runs the darkroom I use in normal times my X500 (your X570 IIRC) as she didn't have an SLR and loved the glass on her Minolta Autocord. She loved it, light and fast, and takes gorgeous pics. You can still pick them up with fast primes for so little.

I also did a test in low light with my bright screens and the focus pops on all areas, not just the microprism. Then I dug out my Pentacon 6 with its really thick darkscreen and could neither see a thing to focus on, nor indeed outside in the light could I focus effectively. There is a reason makers moved.

The only camera I still miss focus in low light at wide open is the Nikon FM2n with 50mm f1.4.

 

[CMur12]

Very interesting... never heard of this, and can find no reference to it. I am really curious. Can you enlighten me?

Brian, I have some old Minolta pamphlets from the early 1980s. The X-700 and the X-570 are presented as having a lubricant-impregnated lens mount. From the pamphlet:


"An improved stainless steel material has been lubricant-impregnated to produce an extremely accurate and smooth lens-to-camera fit."


None of the previous cameras (XD series or XK Motor) have this feature, nor does the less expensive X-370.


- Murray

 

[Brian Atherton]

Brian, I have some old Minolta pamphlets from the early 1980s. The X-700 and the X-570 are presented as having a lubricant-impregnated lens mount. From the pamphlet:

"An improved stainless steel material has been lubricant-impregnated to produce an extremely accurate and smooth lens-to-camera fit."

None of the previous cameras (XD series or XK Motor) have this feature, nor does the less expensive X-370.

- Murray

Wow. Cheers, Murray, thanks for the prompt response. I’ve learned something today!

The only Minolta I ever used and owned was the CLE, but never before come across this attribute of some of their cameras.

I wonder if other manufacturers had/have this type of material, or was it a patented feature of Minolta only?

 

[analogpics]

Has anyone shot with both the x700 and any of the leica R series? Since leica and minolta collaborated for a time, i wonder if any of the R bodies are on par with the x700 for focusing. I believe the R4 or R5 were around the same time....?

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Yes - I have both an X500 and XD7 (X570 and XD11 in US) and a Leica R4 and R7. The screens are to be honest pretty much the same, and having just tried the X500 vs the R7 with f2 lenses, they are so similar as to be identical.

It has to be said, while I love Leica R glass, Minolta gets you 95% of the way there for about a fifth of the cost...

 

[Pál_K]

So i got my hands on an f2 with the h2 screen, and it's pretty great so far! I like the uncluttered view, and having the microprism across the whole area is amazing.
...

Sounds like a Leicaflex

Not really. On my Leicaflex. SL's, the view through the screen is expansive and bright, but nothing at all like the H2 screen on my F3/T.

 

[Pál_K]

Alright, so my first roll with the F2 was....mediocre as far as accurately focused shots haha. Curious why my rolls from the x700 are so much better(?)...

What you're comparing is (1) the known-good x700 optical paths (that is, the lens-to-mirror-to-screen path matches the lens-to-film path) versus (2) the F2 and its optical paths.

Do you know whether the F2 with the screen you had before the H2 was as good at focus as your x700?

Swapping the original Nikon screen for the H2 shouldn't have made any difference in focus - so my question is how good were the results you were getting beforehand? How do those Nikon shots compare with what you're getting with the H2?

There's also the question of the lenses being used on one system vs the other.

I hate to suggest a tripod and brick wall / newspaper test, but it may reveal if there's an issue.

Also, are you looking at the negatives or prints?

 

[analogpics]

Yes - I have both an X500 and XD7 (X570 and XD11 in US) and a Leica R4 and R7. The screens are to be honest pretty much the same, and having just tried the X500 vs the R7 with f2 lenses, they are so similar as to be identical.

It has to be said, while I love Leica R glass, Minolta gets you 95% of the way there for about a fifth of the cost...

Ahh that is very true haha, and getting the Minoltas serviced is probably much easier/cheaper as well. Part of me does still want an R4 or R6.2 but I may wait on that for now

 

[CMur12]

To be sure, there is something uniquely appealing about a Leica R-series camera and lenses!

On the other hand, I have been very happy with the performance of my old manual-focus Minolta SLRs and MC/MD Minolta/Rokkor glass.

In my own case, I choose to go the medium format route with my beloved TLRs for an upgrade in image quality.

- Murray

 

[analogpics]

What you're comparing is (1) the known-good x700 optical paths (that is, the lens-to-mirror-to-screen path matches the lens-to-film path) versus (2) the F2 and its optical paths.

Do you know whether the F2 with the screen you had before the H2 was as good at focus as your x700?

Swapping the original Nikon screen for the H2 shouldn't have made any difference in focus - so my question is how good were the results you were getting beforehand? How do those Nikon shots compare with what you're getting with the H2?

There's also the question of the lenses being used on one system vs the other.

I hate to suggest a tripod and brick wall / newspaper test, but it may reveal if there's an issue.

Also, are you looking at the negatives or prints?

I'm actually borrowing this F2 with the H2 screen and was curious if swapping the screen would make a difference lol. I don't necessarily believe this camera is off on the focus per se, i think it's just my eyes ability to get proper focus depending on the type of focus screen, brightness/contrast in the scene i'm photographing etc.

I noticed the microprism in the x700 is....coarser? So the focus REALLY pops and makes it easier (at least for me) to see when something is in focus. The nikon (and pretty much every other brand i've tested so far) has a much more subtle microprism. I'm using 50 1.4 ai and 50 1.8 ais long nose for the nikon and 50mm f2 md for the minolta.

One thing i don't know if i've mentioned yet, the amount of resistance in the focus ring. The two 50mm lenses ive used on the nikon have much less resistance when turning the focus ring vs the minolta. I typically love when it's a bit freer to move, but i wonder if these are almost too loose (for me). I find myself going back and forth a lot more with the nikon and the minolta does feel a bit more precise.

I'm looking at the negs with a loupe, then after at the scans (noritsu LS-600 lab scanner)

 

[analogpics]

To be sure, there is something uniquely appealing about a Leica R-series camera and lenses!

On the other hand, I have been very happy with the performance of my old manual-focus Minolta SLRs and MC/MD Minolta/Rokkor glass.

In my own case, I choose to go the medium format route with my beloved TLRs for an upgrade in image quality.

- Murray

What are your favorite lenses in the system? At this point i still only have a couple 50mm f1.7 md rokkor-x and f2 md (came with my x570 and x700). Curious to try the 85mm f2 md and 35 1.8....and one of the versions of the 58 1.2, but am open to suggestions too! 🙂

Man, I really need to start shooting my med format gear again, but it's sadly been neglected ever since i got a noritsu LS600 lab scanner at home (only does 35mm).

 

[john_s]

Your optometrist's conclusion might be inaccurate unless he was specifically talking about your camera use and if and only if he is quite familiar with the optics in camera VFs....

Absolutely!

Which is why I (being shortsighted) use different correcting diopter values on different cameras. Why? The camera viewfinder optics are different.

 

[CMur12]

My impression is that the coarser microprism offers an advantage for faster lenses. With slower lenses, these focusing aids black out if the eye isn't perfectly placed in the finder. Finer microprisms aren't as "snappy," but they function with less compromise with slower lenses.

- Murray

 

[CMur12]

What are your favorite lenses in the system? At this point i still only have a couple 50mm f1.7 md rokkor-x and f2 md (came with my x570 and x700). Curious to try the 85mm f2 md and 35 1.8....and one of the versions of the 58 1.2, but am open to suggestions too! 🙂

Man, I really need to start shooting my med format gear again, but it's sadly been neglected ever since i got a noritsu LS600 lab scanner at home (only does 35mm).

The 50mm f1.7 MD lens is a very good lens, and the f2 should be, as well.

My favorite lens (and focal length) is the 85mm f1.7 MD (essentially an updated MC lens, with the robust mechanics of the MC line). This is a large, heavy lens, but it balances nicely on an X-570 with an autowinder attached. I got this lens new, in 1983, and it was discontinued soon thereafter. My next most-used lens is a 28mm f2.8 late MC. I have Minolta/Rokkor primes in all focal lengths from 28mm to 200mm, in an assortment of MC and MD.

From what I have read, the 85mm f2 MD is a very good lens - much lighter and more compact than mine - with even a slight edge in performance over the f1.7. The 35mm f1.8 should be a nice lens and the 58mm f1.2 is a cult lens, so that one would cost you! The 58mm f1.2 is a large, heavy lens, too. It looks just like my 85mm f1.7, apparently sharing parts of the lens barrel, and the 58mm is even a little heavier than the 85mm.

- Murray

 

[analogpics]

Absolutely!

Which is why I (being shortsighted) use different correcting diopter values on different cameras. Why? The camera viewfinder optics are different.

I thought about my vision being the main factor, but I'm not sure if that explains why the x700 has been so consistent? Or do you mean each camera needs to be adjusted for the user?

 

[Freakscene]

The big issue with the "brighter" screens is that they achieve their brightness at the expense of focusing precision. They are great for viewing but not for focusing. With the brighter screens you need to rely on the central split prism or micro-prism array for focusing.

Only if it is a modern screen that is effectively a bundle of fibre optics with a lens on each side as are used in AF and digital SLRs. There are “bright” ground glass screens such as the Olympus 2 series, the K3 screen in the Nikon FM3a and various others. These are traditional ground glass screens and offer a bright view and good focus snap. They are not as bright as the brightest AF screens or with as much focus snap as the coarsest old style ground glass screens like the H series Nikons or the screens in the Leicaflex SL and SL2.

Brightest is not always best.

Marty

 

[Pál_K]

... I don't necessarily believe this camera is off on the focus per se, i think it's just my eyes ability to get proper focus depending on the type of focus screen, brightness/contrast in the scene i'm photographing etc.

I noticed the microprism in the x700 is....coarser? So the focus REALLY pops and makes it easier (at least for me) to see when something is in focus...

OK, I can understand that. Even with my Nikon's H2 screen, my Leicaflex SL's, my OM cameras, what actually works best of all for me is my Pentax SP500's central microprism - it's better than all of them. That's strange, actually. It was my very first SLR - so did I just get LuCkY in finding what appears to be my Best Ever Screen or did I just train myself and my vision over 15 years and adapt?

One thing i don't know if i've mentioned yet, the amount of resistance in the focus ring. The two 50mm lenses ive used on the nikon have much less resistance when turning the focus ring vs the minolta.

My pre-AI Nikkors are pretty loose. This baby, however, requires some torque to focus:

 

[analogpics]

OK, I can understand that. Even with my Nikon's H2 screen, my Leicaflex SL's, my OM cameras, what actually works best of all for me is my Pentax SP500's central microprism - it's better than all of them. That's strange, actually. It was my very first SLR - so did I just get LuCkY in finding what appears to be my Best Ever Screen or did I just train myself and my vision over 15 years and adapt?

My pre-AI Nikkors are pretty loose. This baby, however, requires some torque to focus:

Interesting, i think someone else recommended the Spotmatic earlier. I wonder if these early Pentax bodies are ones to consider as well. They're inexpensive enough I may just try one out. 🙂

Wow, that 58mm is still on my list 🙂

 

[Huss]

My recently acquired Pentax K2 is remarkably easy to focus. The center microprism circle is very effective. I’d say it is easier to focus than any of my Nikons (F, F2, F3, Fm2 etc). Or any of my other cameras.