Minolta SRT-101 vs. Canon AE-1 Program

Minolta SRT-101 vs. Canon AE-1 Program

  • Total voters
    105
EZfan said:
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:
Click to expand...

Have you seen the asking price of this lens since it has become popular with Canon users??
 
Film noob said:
I have not purchased a light meter. But what I read maybe a light meter may be a bad idea. As they take the refection of light from an object, and can degrade quite quickly.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about ? Every camera light meter is reading reflected light, worst, they try to be smart and that not always work well.
 
I have a Canon FT QL and I like it a lot. The build quality is close to a Leicaflex. Feels like it's carved from one solid piece of metal. But the eye relief is terrible, so I went w/ an AE-1 Program. The AE-1 is so much better. Much brighter focus screen, program mode, etc, and it's a lot smaller and lighter. Exposures on the first roll were perfect. It takes my FD BL 85 1.8 SSC lens (very, very good) AND my Nikon HC non ai 50 2.0 ens w/ an adapter. Funny, I'd forgotten how nice these cameras were, and the FD primes are just wonderful. That 85 is a killer at portraits.
 
There are few brands that can match Canon FD lenses in quality.
I was never tempted to use Minolta optics.
 
The Canon FD lenses are some of the best lenses there are. Panavision uses FD and EOS elements for some of their Primo lenses. Canon is a respected name in the motion picture world Minolta is not. Minolta lenses are good but they do have a different signature/look to the Canon glass.

For Afghanista I'd prefer a fully manual Body so my vote goes to the SRT.

Good Luck

Dominik
 
I have all three of these cameras (well the Minolta is the 201), though I have never actually shot with the C3 (was handed down from my grandfather), my vote goes for the Minolta. It's a more solid camera than the the Canon, and has Mechanical shutter. I also prefer the metering on the Minolta.
 
I remember back in the late 60s, Minolta was in use by a fair amount of pros. I never used one myself. I went for the Yashica TL Super. Perfectly good camera, and the Yashinon (not Yashikor) lenses were much better than they generally got credit for.

When I upgraded, I had a commitment to M42 lenses so I got the Fujica ST901, since I wanted an auto exposure SLR that was aperture preferred. Hard to beat.

I was pretty good at taking photos of whatever I wanted to, and had a small reputation. When my command decided to buy camera kits for all offices, much to my chagrin, they didn't ask my advice. :p They got (Ugh!) Canon AE-1 cameras. I hated them. But doggoned if they weren't very agent proof, and didn't have a big learning curve either. We consistently got good photos where before we didn't even get photos as most agents didn't have cameras, or weren't very good at using them.

That's all I know about either of them. But I do tend to agree with the comment above that it might be better to take the Minolta to Afganistan since it is mechanical. But I don't recall now if one is more dust proof that another. Regardless of which you take, I would take a good supply of metal-tie and zip-lock plastic bags. I would also recommend some color film for sure. I have seen photos and documentaries, and there seem to sometimes be colorful scenes, or scenes with color that pops out in the otherwise drab areas.

Stay safe over there!

EDIT: I also meant to comment on light meters. First, many meters are both incident and reflected light meters; each has its advantages and disadvantages. No meter selling for more that $50 should change its characteristics for reading light for many years. I still use my Sekonic L28c2 I purchased about 1976. Although it does both incident and reflected, I don't prefer it for reflected.

I would be interested in what caused you to say what you did about meters, that they quickly degrade. Even the old Westons and GEs would last quite a while.
 
The Canon AE-1 Program has a program mode and a split focusing screen. The Minolta SRT-101 has no program mode and a microprism focusing screen which I find harder to use in dim light. I'd pick the Canon.
 
The finer micro-prism focusing aid in the SR-T 101 is very good if you have younger eyes and it works better with slower lenses than the newer, coarser micro-prism/split-image focusing aids which tend to black out unless you have your eye perfectly positioned.

In my book, the lack of a program mode is a plus. I was offended when manufacturers started offering program mode in cameras aimed at serious photographers. Even if I had a camera that included this feature, I wouldn't use it.

- Murray
 
Instead I'd choose a camera with mechanical shutter and built-in exposure meter that uses modern commonly available batteries.

Chris
 
Where is film noob?

Where is film noob?

Dear Board,

I read through these posts twice after noticing that film noob was deploying to Afghanistan back in 2012.

I noticed he never posted on this thread again and I hope he made it through unscathed.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
 
You're right, Tim. His last post on RFF was to this forum in 2012.

I, too, hope he got back home safely.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
The finer micro-prism focusing aid in the SR-T 101 is very good if you have younger eyes and it works better with slower lenses than the newer, coarser micro-prism/split-image focusing aids which tend to black out unless you have your eye perfectly positioned. - Murray
Click to expand...

The last model (the SRT-202) has the Minolta Acute-Matte Screen and split mage screen. It is brighter if that is important to you. Personally I prefer viewing through the SRT-101. I do use all my cameras with SRT Diopters (guess I am getting OLD). They offer a big improvement in viewing. But I also have an SRT-202 :)
 
Nokton48 said:
The last model (the SRT-202) has the Minolta Acute-Matte Screen and split mage screen. It is brighter if that is important to you. Personally I prefer viewing through the SRT-101. I do use all my cameras with SRT Diopters (guess I am getting OLD). They offer a big improvement in viewing. But I also have an SRT-202 :)
Click to expand...

I have a couple of X-570s with Acute-Matte screens, which are indeed much brighter, but they have the same coarser micro-prism and steeper split-image focusing aid as the SR-T 102 and all later models. In my experience, regardless of the Acute-Matte screen in later models, the finer micro-prism of the older SLRs has better resistance to focusing black-out with slower lenses. It doesn't snap in and out of focus as decisively with faster lenses as the coarser/steeper focusing aids do, however.

- Murray
 
I have a few camera, but the AE-1P I keep bringing it on trip, the grip on the camera is marvelous! I keep it in a sling bag, when I want to take a picture I put my hand in my bag and pull it out, the grip makes the whole thing really easy for me, other camera i tend to pull it by the wrist loop (if I have put one on).
 
CMur12 said:
I have a couple of X-570s with Acute-Matte screens, which are indeed much brighter, but they have the same coarser micro-prism and steeper split-image focusing aid as the SR-T 102 and all later models. In my experience, regardless of the Acute-Matte screen in later models, the finer micro-prism of the older SLRs has better resistance to focusing black-out with slower lenses. It doesn't snap in and out of focus as decisively with faster lenses as the coarser/steeper focusing aids do, however.

- Murray
Click to expand...


It is good to have both. Which I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom