Minolta SRT's -- Gotta Love 'Em.

WJJ3 said:
I don't know the details about identifying all the production changes to the 101. Is my camera an earlier one? Do you have a good resource that explains the production changes to the SR-T 101?
Click to expand...

Yes the black dial SRT's are the early ones. Regarding production changes I imagine a lot of internal changes were probably made, some Minolta collectors have tried to make sense of all the serial numbers, but I'm never seen anything definitive. I'll bet they made cameras with specific parts, until they ran out of those parts, and then they went to "improved" parts. Using up inventory and all that.

Like a lot of classic cameras, the early SRT's seem to be the ones to get. And it does look like you have a nice one there! I have a few black dials and they are very smooth operating.
 
very interesting, thanks for your input you guys. This topic has got me doing some searches and I came across this blog:

http://anitakramarska3.blogspot.jp/2012/02/blog-post_1554.html

About halfway down he mentions the early black dial srt 101.
attach32-771952.jpg

He says there are 4 main points that distinguish the early srt101:

-Film advance on early models has more friction.
-Shutter speed dial is black, has thin vertical texture.
-ASA dial screw is flat-head, whereas late models have a philips head screw.
-Mirror gear material is different inside the bottom cover.

In the next paragraph he explains that by looking in the bottom of the camera, you can see the mirror gearing in early models is black, and circuit board screws are flat-head. The other three points are easier to check for. Based on this information, I don't think my camera is one of the super early production 101's because the ASA dial screw is philips, texture of the shutter speed dial is not thin vertical, and film advance is not particularly high friction (although I don't have an early camera to compare it to). It would be interesing to see if any other 101 users here have cameras that are contrary to these points...
 
Interesting information, Will. Thanks for posting it. Unfortunately, I can't read Japanese, so I can't follow the info in the website myself.

My SR-T 101 looks like the one in your illustration, but it has a black phillips head screw on the ASA/shutter speed dial. Is that what you have? My camera also came with a first-generation 58mm f1.4 MC Rokkor, but I don't know which years these were made. I believe it is original to the camera and it would make it within the first 3 - 4 years of the 1966 start of production.

I have also read something about the placement of the screws on the back of the top plate for determining age.

It seems to me that I saw information about serial numbers somewhere, so I'll need to see if I can find that again.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
Interesting information, Will. Thanks for posting it. Unfortunately, I can't read Japanese, so I can't follow the info in the website myself.

My SR-T 101 looks like the one in your illustration, but it has a black phillips head screw on the ASA/shutter speed dial. Is that what you have? My camera also came with a first-generation 58mm f1.4 MC Rokkor, but I don't know which years these were made. I believe it is original to the camera and it would make it within the first 3 - 4 years of the 1966 start of production.

I have also read something about the placement of the screws on the back of the top plate for determining age.

It seems to me that I saw information about serial numbers somewhere, so I'll need to see if I can find that again.

- Murray
Click to expand...
Yes, the location of the top cover rear screws was altered. Different positions adjacent the viewfinder window etc. Not that I am any sort of expert on Minoltas, but I have read that at the Rokkor files, (on this page). I can confirm it's accurate, because I actually have a dead 101 black dial body here that is early enough to feature the equidistant screw spacing either side of the viewfinder. I cannibalised the meter tell tale pulley strings off it a few years back, to repair a later black dial 101, before I realised how early the donor body is. If I ever get time I will have to filch some strings off another body to replace them, (groan!) and see if I can get it unjammed and working, as I now understand that it is worthy of preservation.

My early example is partially stripped down and boxed away with a number of other DOA Japanese SLRs, however here are a couple of google image links I've quickly found, showing the earlier placement of the screws an identical distance either side of the eyepiece, and then, the later location of them. It's a point worth noting if one is seeking out early parts bodies because the two types of top covers would not interchange completely.

I seem to recall reading that the front finishing plates (a small plastic piece) either side of the prism hump around the top cover joint to the body underwent some changes to their method of fixing, also, but can't recall when and how this was made. External screws, versus no visible external screws, perhaps?
Cheers,
Brett
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Yes, the location of the top cover rear screws was altered. Different positions adjacent the viewfinder window etc. Not that I am any sort of expert on Minoltas, but I have read that at the Rokkor files, (on this page). I can confirm it's accurate, because I actually have a dead 101 black dial body here that is early enough to feature the equidistant screw spacing either side of the viewfinder. I cannibalised the meter tell tale pulley strings off it a few years back, to repair a later black dial 101, before I realised how early the donor body is. If I ever get time I will have to filch some strings off another body to replace them, (groan!) and see if I can get it unjammed and working, as I now understand that it is worthy of preservation.

My early example is partially stripped down and boxed away with a number of other DOA Japanese SLRs, however here are a couple of google image links I've quickly found, showing the earlier placement of the screws an identical distance either side of the eyepiece, and then, the later location of them. It's a point worth noting if one is seeking out early parts bodies because the two types of top covers would not interchange completely.

I also seem to recall reading that the front finishing plates (a small plastic piece) either side of the prism hump around the top cover joint to the body underwent some changes to their method of fixing, also, but can't recall when and how this was made. External screws, versus no visible external screws, perhaps?
Cheers,
Brett
Click to expand...

Thanks, Brett. My SR-T 101 has the same black dial and the equidistant placement of the screws as in the illustration with your second link.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
Thanks, Brett. My SR-T 101 has the same black dial and the equidistant placement of the screws as in the illustration with your second link.

- Murray
Click to expand...
You're welcome, Murray. You would have a fairly early black dial, then, I don't think the early screw placement lasted for a terribly long time. The 101 was released in 1966, I believe, so maybe yours could be from the first year or two? Perhaps others can be more precise about the timing of these changes?

I got seduced by the finish and build of classic German stuff quite early so my knowledge of Minolta lore is quite limited, however I consider myself fortunate to have been given so much Minolta kit either free of charge or very cheaply when few people wanted it because, when I finally overcame my prejudices against their inclination to use strings, instead of gears for certain internals I was really impressed. I'd still rather work on a German camera any day, but, when it comes to making images, the 101s really deliver the goods and I don't use mine nearly enough. It occurs to me that I haven't actually shared any images made with my 101s in this thread, so I'll add a few, directly.
Cheers
Brett
 
Here are a few images made with (mostly) my black dial 101 or later silver dial model. Film was Pan F Plus, Delta 100 or Kentmere 100, all in ID-11.

Max & Maisy
Kentmere 100 Rokkor 135mm f/2.8
22560283777_f8c0d5cbc8_o.jpg



Hyde Park, Sydney
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 Delta 100
22952636936_ae7bfb5c78_b.jpg



Maisy
Delta 100 MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4
22355903074_809a3790e0_b.jpg



The Old Jail, Richmond, Tasmania
Delta 100 MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4
22790624840_8cbe131d15_b.jpg



MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 Delta 100
22586481599_33fdddf707_b.jpg


Central Station, Sydney
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 Delta 100
22978656525_2c1144ed28_b.jpg


Elizabeth Street, Hobart
MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 Pan F Plus
22560299367_39e2827494_c.jpg


Saint David's Cathedral, Hobart
MC Rokkor 28m f/3.5 Pan F Plus
22357470343_18db4b2e07_b.jpg

 
Nice images, Brett. The standouts for me are the one of Maisy and of the cathedral.

What do you think of the 58mm 1.4 lens? I have one, but I have hardly used it. It has a six-element design rather than the usual seven for a 1.4. I have a couple of Rokkor normal lenses that would be sharper, but I need to explore the rendering of this one. The images posted here that you took with that lens look good on the computer screen.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
Nice images, Brett. The standouts for me are the one of Maisy and of the cathedral.

What do you think of the 58mm 1.4 lens? I have one, but I have hardly used it. It has a six-element design rather than the usual seven for a 1.4. I have a couple of Rokkor normal lenses that would be sharper, but I need to explore the rendering of this one. The images posted here that you took with that lens look good on the computer screen.

- Murray
Click to expand...
Thanks Murray. I have two copies of the MC 58mm f/1.4, both spotted at local tip shops and acquired cheaply. I have had some good luck with Minolta gear occasionally from these places but decent stuff is harder to find now. I had a 58mm on each of my 101s for a while, and then some months back I scored an XD-7 with MD 50mm f/1.4 for $20, so I need to do some back to back shots with each lens, I think. I haven't owned too many f/1.4 lenses, so you'll have to take my comments in that context. But my impressions of it are, firstly, that in the MC version, at least, it's a well made and solid optic with metal focus and aperture rings. I like that. The MD 50mm f/2, for instance, is said to be a very well corrected lens that's suitable for Eg. architecture, but too much plastic! I stripped down one with some issues that had turned up in a box of bits, and was very unimpressed. I've also taken a 58mm MC f/1.4 down to clean aperture blades, and it's altogether a much more robust thing. I'd go so far as to say that, superior MD coatings notwithstanding, generally, I think I'd take MC over MD, just on the basis of solidity.

It seems to be a typical 58mm f/1.4, optically, as far as I can tell. Which is to say sharpness wide open is not up to the standards of some slower lenses, but is still not too bad (naturally it improves substantially as it is stopped down). The images of Maisy and of Elizabeth St were both made wide open, or nearly, as I recall. As was the one of Sydney's Central Station: at one second, hand held. (I pressed the camera firmly against an adjacent fence, set the self timer and tried to stay still as the shutter tripped.) The train station image isn't a bad one to take a look at, because, with no tripod and not much light on Delta 100, I could only focus mid way into the scene, for whatever depth of field I could get (we'd been out all day long in crowds at the Royal Easter Show, definitely not tripod territory, and I took the shot as we got off the train back to the hotel). You can see on the right of the shot the sign with "6" is reasonably sharp and about the focus point. The rolling stock on the left provides an equivalent point as well as some hard lines to inspect fore and aft of the focus point. It was only scanned with a V700 (3200ppi, 16 bit, tiff, resized down to web size with bicubic sharpen in CS6, as is the case with most or all of these, it's my normal workflow). You can compare this shot against the one of Maisy, also wide open but obviously focused at a much shorter distance, (on her eye, as I recall) in terms of out of focus rendition.

I must be happy with them, because I have a few other lenses, Eg. the MD 50mm f/1.4, and a 50mm f/1.7 or two, as well, but the 58s usually stay on the cameras, and I seem to keep liking the images they produce. They've crept up in price a little in the last couple of years (or more than a little if you're in Australia). The mirrorless adapter effect, perhaps? But in the USA they'd still be super affordable. You've already got one, but I'd encourage anyone who'd like to try one to give one a go, at least, unless they stumble on a bargain f/1.2, one I'd really love to try myself but which is no longer a dirt cheap lens Down Under.

I'll see if I have any other images made with it closed down a bit: if so, I'll add them.
Cheers
Brett :)
 
Brett, I'm impressed that those images were taken with the 58mm wide open. I would expect the lens to be sharper stopped down, but I need to explore what unique qualities it imparts to an image at larger apertures.

I don't actually use a normal lens that much, shooting instead with my 85mm 1.7 MD or 28mm 2.8 late MC most of the time. My 85 is the best of both worlds. It is really an MC lens carried over into MD with the MD's multi-coating. It is a large, hefty lens. The original 85mm 1.7 came out as a second-generation MC lens (second version of the all-metal focusing ring) with some thorium glass. In the third-generation/late MC or MD version, it was reformulated without the thorium element/s.

Third-generation/late MC lenses had the rubberized focusing rings and multi-coating, while still having the robust build (at least, as far as I know). I think multi-coating continued to evolve during the MD years. Early MD lenses adapted from existing MC lenses were still pretty solid. New MD introductions and later downsized MD reformulations took on the newer, lighter, more compact, less robust mechanicals. I would guess, however, that even the MD lenses are more robust than AF lenses (?).

- Murray
 
I must second Brett's praise of the MC 58/1.4 lens. It is one of my go-to lenses, both for film on the SRT102 and via adapter on the SRT's great-grandson, the Sony a7. I use the lens less frequently now only because my girlfriend tends to favor the SRT102 and this lens over any other of my kit. I can't quite put my finger on what is pleasing about the 58's rendition, but I do like it. I have an MD 50/1.7 that is probably technically superior, but as Brett also said, light and plasticky. That one gets chosen only when weight or space is absolutely at a premium in the camera bag, or gets used by whomever in the house is second to reach the Minolta shelf and finds the 58/1.4 already taken!
--Dave
 
I also will have to get some future use from my 58mm MC F1.4s. The rendition IS different from my 58mm MC F1.2 and certainly different to look through and use. Like the difference between a Summilux and an early Noctilux. All of my 101s have the non-equidistant rear screws, and philips-heads on the shutter dial. But you know they are still great cameras and I'm comfortable using them. I'd like to examine one of the real early ones to see the differences.
 
Apologies if this has been mentioned previously, however I discovered today that Pacific Rim Camera have kindly uploaded a number of documents relating to Minolta cameras and other equipment (and, indeed, also for many other companies). What's really worth noting is that there are sales brochures, such as one for the XK (which I know some contributors to this thread own) but also, less often sighted Minolta dealer documentation with interesting period information about the products and price lists. They've made these files available to retrieve free of charge, so I recommend taking a look at them.
Cheers
Brett
http://pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlminoltamisc.htm
 
I've been working on getting this 250 Exposure SR-M Back going. It fires and works well, but really needs an interior mechanism cleaning, and I am going to check to see if John Titterington will take it on. If not, then I will try Greg Stelz, they are my two main repair guys for Minolta. Greg has been doing a great job with my SRM's.

I decided to buy another Domke Gripper strap for the 250 SRM Back. It works great and matches my other Minolta gear. I wondered how I was going to carry this thing around. With the Domke it's not an issue, easy to sling and quick to use. Massive Photo Firepower!

2016-01-23 13.04.41 by Nokton48, on Flickr
 
I found my Minolta 16MG! :) I took this camera on my honeymoon twenty years ago. I want to load up some cartridges (I have three, need more) and shoot some Eastman 7222 or cut-down 5222. This will be a fun project. Notice the curves on the 16MG; They remind me a lot of the SRT series cameras. The meter and shutter still seem to operate perfectly. Typical of most Minolta products.

2016-03-17 16.42.11 by Nokton48, on Flickr
 
A Dutch shop has the Minolta MD 250mm f/5.6 RF Rokkor for sale. I thought it interesting, looked into it and it seemed a very capable lens. I was considering it until I saw the price: €750,- :eek:
 
Well now I have -two- Minolta 16mm F2.8 MC Rokkors. I misplaced this lens, and searched for it for over a year, with no luck. At the same time I kept an eye out and finally bought this one, all the way from Hungary. And, then of course, the first lens turned up! :confused::cool::confused:

16 Rokkor by Nokton48, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom