Minolta AF-C - How do I know it's autofocusing?

C

CliveC

Well-known
Local time
5:24 PM
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
683
Picked up an Minolta AF-C recently for cheap and fortunately it seems to work just fine, but I don't know if the autofocus mechanism works (short of shooting a roll I guess).

In the finder, there are two LEDs, red and green. I assume the green one on the left indicates if there is enough light and the red on the right indicates if it is unable focus. I don't know if that's the case though, since I have not been able to locate a manual.

When I click the shutter, I hear an electronic click (aperture changes with light level). I don't notice any lens movement at all (unlike cameras such as the Mju/Stylus Epic). Does the autofocus of the AF-C work differently?
 
Hi,

I haven't got that model of the Minolta but when I look at them in charity shops it's safe to assume a green LED means focus. A steady light for focussed OK and flickering for not yet in focus.

The red or orange LED is usually the flash. Steady for ready or OK and flickering for charging.

A lot of AF P&S cameras seem to follow this convention. I often wonder if they all buy in the same electronics...

Regards, David
 
It would be a rarity, but there have been some compact cameras with internal focusing, where only a subtle movement of a internal group (or not even that, if it should be behind the shutter) is visible as the camera shifts focus. I am not aware of any apart from (mostly digital) waterproof ones, though. But then I am not familiar with Minolta compacts at all (FWIW, I did not even remember they ever built any until you mentioned it - obviously their market penetration in Germany was negligible)...
 
Austintatious said:
I have a Minolta AF-C. Green means focus. They are nice little shooters :D
Click to expand...

Does it default to a certain focusing distance if there's no green light?
Can you hear the camera itself focus?

I'm fairly sure now that the green light means focus and the red is a low-light warning. The flash ready light is not in the viewfinder, but on top of the flash.

Anybody have an idea about the minimum focusing distance? It seems to be greater than 0.9M, based on how close I can target something and still get a green light.
 
I don't shoot with film anymore, but when I did a couple of years ago the AF-C was my most used camera, great little P&S.

I could never hear it when it focused, partly why I loved it. Combine near silent operation with a manual wind on and you've got a stealthy little shooter. But yeah from what I can remember there is really no way of knowing that it's focusing other than the green light, just half-press and let the camera do it's stuff. A true point and shoot.

Don't know if it defaults to a set distance if it can't acquire focus. I'm guessing the close focusing distance is around 1M but can't be sure. You're right about the green and red lights.
 
Wow. I just poked through my camera collection and found one of these. (Yes, I have that many cameras that I don't remember just what I have in there, but its not as bad as you might think) Anyway, now that we've figured out some of the operationals, what about the lens performance? This might be a fun little guy to take out this week. Once I run a roll, I could probably get a feel for minimum focus.

BTW, I have never seen another one of these. Are they rare, or were they marketed to some other geographic region? (I'm in western U.S./Canada)
 
There's really not much online about them other than the fact that it has a 6 element lens and there are two versions, one that only goes up to ASA 400 and the other that can do ASA 1000. It was available in black and silver.

They're not extremely rare, but certainly much rarer than the Olympus XA.
 
Interesting. I'm certain I picked up mine because its much like an XA. For a while I was collecting XA models and their clear competitors. I managed an XA, a couple XA2s, an XA3, and some of the competitors (such as the AF-C).

If the AF-C has a lens on par with the XA, this could be a fun camera. If its more like the XA2, I might put it back in the closet.
 
rfaspen said:
Interesting. I'm certain I picked up mine because its much like an XA. For a while I was collecting XA models and their clear competitors. I managed an XA, a couple XA2s, an XA3, and some of the competitors (such as the AF-C).

If the AF-C has a lens on par with the XA, this could be a fun camera. If its more like the XA2, I might put it back in the closet.
Click to expand...


In my eyes AF-C is better than XA2 (but I never owned XA). Fantastic camera, the only drawback - when batteries are low or in the cold it tends to underexpose...
 
I own quite a few different compact cameras, including an XA and XA3, and the AF-C is my favourite. I don't think the lens on the AF-C is much better or worse than the one on the XA, I just preferred shooting with the AF-C. I will echo Valdas' comments about underexposure though, when my batteries were getting old the camera would underexpose by about a stop and it took me a couple of rolls to notice and figure out why it was happening.
 
I've been hoping to pick one of these up for a while now, still haven't come across one in the flesh.

Hoping to see some results from them in this thread
 
Just an aside, apart from that auction site, there's very few cameras coming out of cupboards and going into charity shops and the like. A few years ago I'd see dozens every week but these days I see a handful and most of them have been there a while. Mostly because they are 127 ones.

Regards, David
 
I found mine at a camera show in a bin that was mostly filled with old flashes. Paid $10 for it. Quality wise, it doesn't feel quite as well built as the XA. The shutter button on the XA is very sensitive (perhaps too much so) but I like the metal construction. The AF-C is plasticky, but the chassis is metal I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom