Should I Buy an Old Minolta or Old Pentax Kit?

[Stu W]

I just got over my lust for an LX, let's not start this again. Of course if I could find a black one, maybe with some distinguished brassing....

No brass. Some are titanium, and some are another alloy but no brass. Anyway, the finish is very durable-you'd be hard pressed to wear through it.
However, I would try to find a late one-with the late shutter lock. They don't seem to be plagued by the sticky syndrome.

Like Kim said they meter low light situations like no other camera. The camera measures the light reflected off the curtain and gives you an "estimated" exposure. The actual one which measures cumulative light reflected off the film may vary greatly from the estimated one. Cool camera! You need one.

 

[dee]

I would go for Minolta

BUT ... if you were to buy Pentax or Nikon , you could use all your lenses on most digital DSLRs . My Rokkors are useless on any DSLR and I am uncertain about Canon FD . I am adapting my Rokkors for my M 8 - no focusing aids , but full meter operation , but will by buying more S Takumars to complement my Spotmatic 50 f 1.8 to use on a Pentax K 10D ...

I might even buy another manual Pentax before the inheritance is properly wasted !!!

... but then I am certified crazeee dee

 

[Sonnar2]

I would recommend nikkormat FT2 and non-AI lenses, like 28/F2.0, 50/F2.0, and 85/F2.0 or 105/F2.5. They are cheap, very good quality and easy to find.

I highly second that. The best performance : price relation you may find in the whole camera world is NIKKORMAT EL.

If you need a 35mm film camera plus a 35/2.0 lens, you can spend 7000 USD (Leica) or just 100 (this combo)... believe me, from the pictures there will be no major (if any) difference!

The EL has Auto-Exposure and open aperture metering with every Nikon SLR lens made in the 1960's (NON-AI). They are heavy, good to handle (slightly bigger than the FM/FE series), very dependable, and it's even possible to overhaul them. But they are too damn cheap these days to buy that any effort will make sence. And lastly, very seldom have any defects, even after 30 years of use. They are true NIKONS...

In these days (early 70's) the use of electronics was not to cut costs (electronical functions instead of mechanical) but to allow additional features = AE. Once they were new they were quite expensive cameras. Professionals bought them as second body next to their F/F2 to familiarize with AE. They are completely mechanical cameras like the ones in the 1960's plus having electronics onboard. That's why this first generation AE cameras was so heavy. NIKON did it best in terms of longevity.

The NON-AI Lenses are cheap as dirt and excellent as well, both mechanically and optically.

cheers, Frank

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Look at the lenses

Look at the lenses

I started out in the 1980's with a Pentax K1000 and so have a bias; but I would make a decision based on the glass. For instance, I always felt that the Pentax glass was a little slow for my needs, and over the years migrated to Nikon and then to Leica. But if you look at the used prices on Pentax and Minolta glass at KEH, you'll find many bargains to be had. The Pentax screw-mount stuff, in particular is just being given away these days. A Minolta manual focus 50/1.2 goes for around $200, depending on condition; a Pentax lens of the same specs goes for $144; the Pentax screw mount version goes for $84 and believe me -- the all metal build quality on this lens is just not to be believed. You can't buy a new lens with this much brass in it. And this is with a 90 day warranty and a no-hassle return policy. Just amazing. Easily the best value in 35mm photography today. All IMHO, of course. Good luck with your choice -- there aren't really any bad ones.

Ben Marks

 

[Kim Coxon]

I haven't found a problem with the speed of pentax glass. In K mount, they are very few focal lenths where you can get faster from another maker. However, the prices can be quite high. Overall, the quality of Pentax glass may well be one of the best. There are a few "duds" in the budget range and there are some star performers in other ranges but the quality of Pentax glass is consistantly good throughout the range. As to the 50/1.2s, Pentax never made one in M42. The price you quote must be for a 1.4. 3 or 4 years ago, the same M42 lenses were about a 1/3 of the price now. The advent of the dSLRa nd the wide availability of M42 adapters has pushed up the price of Pentax M42 glass no end.

Kim

I started out in the 1980's with a Pentax K1000 and so have a bias; but I would make a decision based on the glass. For instance, I always felt that the Pentax glass was a little slow for my needs, and over the years migrated to Nikon and then to Leica. But if you look at the used prices on Pentax and Minolta glass at KEH, you'll find many bargains to be had. The Pentax screw-mount stuff, in particular is just being given away these days. A Minolta manual focus 50/1.2 goes for around $200, depending on condition; a Pentax lens of the same specs goes for $144; the Pentax screw mount version goes for $84 and believe me -- the all metal build quality on this lens is just not to be believed. You can't buy a new lens with this much brass in it. And this is with a 90 day warranty and a no-hassle return policy. Just amazing. Easily the best value in 35mm photography today. All IMHO, of course. Good luck with your choice -- there aren't really any bad ones.

Ben Marks

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Speed freaks

Speed freaks

FWIW you won't see a vast difference in finder brightness with an ultrafast 50mm,
especially with older manual focus SLRs. Optical performance varies among 50mm
lens models, but you'd be hard pressed to find a bad one from most manufacturers.
I'd go with a 50/1.7, 1.8 or 2.0 and use the savings for something else...

Chris

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Kim: You're absolutely right. The 50/1.4's are a K-mount and screw mount respectively. Bad typing on my part. My point was that these are great lenses and available for a song.

 

[charjohncarter]

Pentax K1000; my son has one that I bought for him when he was in High School. He is now 35 years old. Millions of lens fit it and the needle match is a dream. I have used my Spotmatic for so many years and I'm so comfortable with it, that it seems easier than some of my automatics.

I think the Minolta is great, too. But you might have a little more trouble with putting the kit together and getting repairs. I may be wrong, I'm looking at it from the Pentax side.

 

[wgerrard]

Boy, I never expect to generate a thread of this length when I posted my question. Keep it coming.

Despite the attractiveness of Minolta lenses, the bodies seem too large and heavy for my tastes. So, maybe it will be Pentax.

Basically, Im looking to end up with only two cameras, something for 'serious' shooting and a smaller stick-in-the-pocket camera. I'm rather wary of the reliability and repairability of the electronics in old cameras, so will likely confine my search to models that only use batteries to power the meter.

I'm in no hurry, and need to sell some toys first, so, who knows.

 

[wgerrard]

OK. To contradict myself (and why not?) I just agreed to buy what are billed as a very nice XE-7 and four lenses -- MC 50/1.4, MD 45/2, MD 28/2.8 and MC 50/1.7 -- for $250. Let's see how it goes.

 

[Kim Coxon]

The fully serviced one I sold recently for $230 was a bargain then. They are very nice lenses but unless you need the speed, I prefer the handing/feel of the 105/2.8.

It used to be that the M42 lenses were a bargain but not anymore. Unless you are only using a Spot or similar, I would go for the SMC Pentax K mount versions. Not that easy to find but better value now that the dSLR users, (especially Canon!) seem to be chasing the M42 ones. Why go for the problems of stop down metering etc when you can have full functionality with exactly the same lens in K mount either at the same price or cheaper?

Kim

PeterM didn't mention the 85/1.8 SMCT which is an absolutely phenomenal lens -- unfortunately good copies go for $300 and up.

Yes I have amended my response to include mention of this one. I have this lens and can attest to its quality. You do not often often see them for sale but when they do come up, as Joe Brugger says, it is not unusual to see them going for over $300 and up to $400 or thereabouts on eBay. Probably a higher price than the Nikon 85mm f 1.8 of the era which is also regarded as being a beauty. I can say it is a nice lens of comparable build quality to the other Taks. It is sharp and has lovely bokeh when shot wide open.

I can rave about these (Takumar) lenses till the cows come home for milking. For many years they have been sleepers. With the exception perhaps of the 85mm they were so common that no one wanted them. I am a bit like ChrisN - part of me would prefer they stay unknown, but I am lucky. I have pretty well all of the Takumar lenses I could ever want and am turning my attention to Nikon and Canon of the era.

 

[feenej]

Only the oldest Minolta bodies are large and heavy.

 

[wgerrard]

The XE-7 deal fell through. Back to window shopping.

 

[Luddite Frank]

I picked-up a Minolta XG-1 kit at a rummage sale about five years ago... nice body with the motor-drive, 28 / 45 / 50-1.4 /100-220 Zoom, several flashes, couple of convertors, etc, for $50.

It is my "new" SLR outfit. The glass is all hard to beat, and still plentiful through dealers in used gear or e-bay.

The down-side to the XG-1 is the electronic shutter, and the LED display for the meter. It will operate as Full AE, Aperture-Priority, or manual (using the TTL meter in the camera).

I just received a Minolta SR-1 from e-bay, that I bought primarily for the vintage Heiland Strobonar (pre-Honeywell) flash that was being listed with it.

I was pleasantly surprised when I opened the box and started checking-out the camera; it is a SR- 1 b, from about 1960, and is a full-mechanical, manual SLR. Heck, it doesn't even have an accessory shoe on the body !
There was a clip-on shoe that mounted over the prism housing, and a meter that clipped-over the shutter speed dial, like on a Leica M.

It came with the original Auto-Rokkor PF lenses, a 35mm f:2.8, and a 55 mm f:1.7. It will accept just about every MC / MD lens made since.

The SR series was made from 1959 into the 1970s, and were good yeoman cameras with decent, fast glass, and bright finders.

The earlier SR cameras did not have aperture pre-view levers or mirror lock-up; and models made before 1963, the aperture did not re-open to full until the film was advanced to the next frame.

I went looking for several more early minolta SLR lenses and found at least a dozen on e-Bay, few listing over $100 USD.

I've been very pleased with the pics from my XG-1; I am planning to hacve this SR-1 CLA's and shoot with it... goodness knows I already have plenty of glass that will fit.

Can't knock Pentax; good stuff, many professional photogs in my area used them, one guy even wore-out several Spot-matics !

As for finding a compact/light-weight SLR... that almost seems like a contradiction. But maybe I'm spoiled by all the screw-mount Leicas I've been playing with lately !

I think I'd vote for either the Minolta or Asahi-Pentax, in a pure mechanical... it can be CLA'd for generations to come... if you've got the bucks, the Nikon /Canon are excellent too.

Good luck !

Luddite Frank

( Or you could come over to the "dark side", and get an Exakta !!!! )

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Some of the later manual focus Minoltas have problematic plastic wind gears.

Chris