muf
Well-known
I've read it's got a 6 element lens. Some say it's pin sharp and great colors. I've also read that the lens on the Minolta TC-1 was based on it. Others have said that for it's 6 elements, the performance wasn't near as good as they thought it would be.
So, anyone got one? Had one? Would you share your opinion and give me an indication what level you think it's at. i.e as good or inferior to Oly XA, Pentax PC35AF, Stylus Epic, Contax T2 etc.
Cheers,
Paul
So, anyone got one? Had one? Would you share your opinion and give me an indication what level you think it's at. i.e as good or inferior to Oly XA, Pentax PC35AF, Stylus Epic, Contax T2 etc.
Cheers,
Paul
daveisbest
Established
I have an XA, an XA3 and a Canon MC but the Minolta AF-C is by far my favourite compact, I rarely leave the house without it. With colour film the colours tend to be more vibrant than you would expect with other cameras. I've found it works especially well with Kodak Ektar 100.
The camera itself is scarcely bigger than an XA, and I find it to be more useful for quick, little thinking involved point-and-shooting. With the AF-C all you need to worry about is composition, the only manual things on the camera are the shutter button, self timer, ISO dial and winding mechanisms. The lens is adequately sharp, perhaps slightly less sharp than the lens on the XA. The exposure system on the camera is generally good, though mine sometimes slightly underexposes but this could be due to weak batteries. The camera makes almost no noise, the shutter is extremely quiet and the only real audible noise comes when the flash is attached and charging. I don't think the self-timer even makes a noise. The AF-C works surprisingly well in low light, whether supported on a tripod/flat surface for long exposures or held in the hands for slightly shorter exposures. The only times I've been disappointed with the AF-C have been when using the flash. At a distance of 3-8 meters the flash seems to work well, but any closer and the flash is generally overpowering.
Overall if you want a pocketable, auto-focus, auto-exposure camera with no noisy autowind then it's hard to beat the AF-C. I have a set of photos taken with the AF-C and various films here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveisbest/sets/72157607412821496/
The camera itself is scarcely bigger than an XA, and I find it to be more useful for quick, little thinking involved point-and-shooting. With the AF-C all you need to worry about is composition, the only manual things on the camera are the shutter button, self timer, ISO dial and winding mechanisms. The lens is adequately sharp, perhaps slightly less sharp than the lens on the XA. The exposure system on the camera is generally good, though mine sometimes slightly underexposes but this could be due to weak batteries. The camera makes almost no noise, the shutter is extremely quiet and the only real audible noise comes when the flash is attached and charging. I don't think the self-timer even makes a noise. The AF-C works surprisingly well in low light, whether supported on a tripod/flat surface for long exposures or held in the hands for slightly shorter exposures. The only times I've been disappointed with the AF-C have been when using the flash. At a distance of 3-8 meters the flash seems to work well, but any closer and the flash is generally overpowering.
Overall if you want a pocketable, auto-focus, auto-exposure camera with no noisy autowind then it's hard to beat the AF-C. I have a set of photos taken with the AF-C and various films here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveisbest/sets/72157607412821496/
Last edited:
muf
Well-known
Thanks for the detailed response. Looking at those photo's, it looks like a real nice taker. I'm gonna have to hunt one of those down. What would you say is a fair price for one of those? I've seen them for as much as £100 but generally they appear to go for about £50 to £60. Is that a good price?
Paul
Paul
daveisbest
Established
With flash and in fully working order I would say £30-£50 is a good price. If it's just the camera, in working order around £35 is a fair price. I'm not saying that's all the cameras worth, but it's what the market price seems to be roughly.
I forgot to mention there's also a silver version of the AF-C which is quite rare but they pop up for sale every now and then. It's kinda ugly, but the max ISO on the silver version is 1000, whearas on the normal black version the ISO tops out at 400. Expect to pay a little bit more for the silver version.
I forgot to mention there's also a silver version of the AF-C which is quite rare but they pop up for sale every now and then. It's kinda ugly, but the max ISO on the silver version is 1000, whearas on the normal black version the ISO tops out at 400. Expect to pay a little bit more for the silver version.
btgc
Veteran
I think PC35AF is as good as AF-C, judging by web pics. Especially if you consider Pentax can be had cheaper than cup of coffee. OK, those extra elements matter for sure, but I can't force myself to pay more than $20 for compact fully automatic camera 
Well, I make exceptions for this rule, but for wider than 35mm lenses.
Well, I make exceptions for this rule, but for wider than 35mm lenses.
muf
Well-known
I saw a black one on the 'bay a few weeks ago that went to ISO1000. I've just been checking and you can get the manual here http://www.wayneyoungphoto.com/minoltaafc.html and it shows a black model and states clearly that it goes to ISO1000. Wonder if it is a later model?
muf
muf
micromoogman
Well-known
Silver Minolta AF-C has ASA1000, Pentax PC35AF-M (motor) has also ASA1000. Pentax has 5 elements and AF-C 6, but Yashica T4 and T5 Tessars have 4 elements and are sharper than both of them... TC-1 has nothing to do with AF-C design at all.
AF-C's have one big down comparing to PC35AF, you don't know where it's focusing. Just a green light says OK. Pentax has symbols for where it's focusing. Pentax feels more sturdy. AF-C takes 4xSR44 (!!) plus battery for the flash, the PC35AF two AA's flash inclusive.
I'd rate those you mentioned as: T2 (not in the same league), XA, Stylus Epic, PC35AF
and last AF-C.
AF-C's have one big down comparing to PC35AF, you don't know where it's focusing. Just a green light says OK. Pentax has symbols for where it's focusing. Pentax feels more sturdy. AF-C takes 4xSR44 (!!) plus battery for the flash, the PC35AF two AA's flash inclusive.
I'd rate those you mentioned as: T2 (not in the same league), XA, Stylus Epic, PC35AF
and last AF-C.
chubasco
Well-known
I like my AF-C, need to shoot it more:
from my last roll of Legacy Pro 400, Fomadon R09, 1+50
from my last roll of Legacy Pro 400, Fomadon R09, 1+50
daveisbest
Established
muf
Well-known
Sorry about the confusion. I found the one I mentioned and on closer inspection it was actuallly set on ISO 100. Looked like a 1000 when viewed on my phone but a pc monitor does reveal better detail. Whoops :bang:
Paul
Paul
Last edited:
muf
Well-known
daveisbest
Established
Nice one! Congrats on your purchase, I hope you get on well with the AF-C and take some good photos. Might see if I can get myself one of those ISO 1000 models, would be nice to shoot some 800 speed film in the AF-C.
camera.bear
Well-known
Paul,
Congrats on getting an AF-C. Of course, this is one of my favorite P&S cameras. The recent posts have got me stoked to load some Ektar 100 in my AF-C and shoot a roll. Nice to see others talking about this camera.
Congrats on getting an AF-C. Of course, this is one of my favorite P&S cameras. The recent posts have got me stoked to load some Ektar 100 in my AF-C and shoot a roll. Nice to see others talking about this camera.
chubasco
Well-known
Dave S.
Well-known
Thanks for all of the above information. I stopped by the Puget Sound photographic Collectors Society Annual Photographic Show and Swap last Saturday and picked up a Minolta AF-C. It had a price tag on it for $5, but when I tried using it it didn't work. I asked the sell if he some new batteries for it (there were batteries in it already and I figured they were dead) he said no, but added "I tell you what, you can have it for free".
I took the camera home and realized the batteries were in backwards - I flipped them around and it works like a charm!
Alas, ISO up to 400 only and the orange ready light on the flash doesn't seem to work - but for the price who cares!
I took the camera home and realized the batteries were in backwards - I flipped them around and it works like a charm!
Alas, ISO up to 400 only and the orange ready light on the flash doesn't seem to work - but for the price who cares!
racoll
Well-known
Is the lens in the AF-C the same one that's in the AF-Sv "Talker"? It's also a 35mm f/2.8 and the images are also tack sharp. The Talker with its built-in flash is actually more compact than the AF-C with its flash attached.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I took the camera home and realized the batteries were in backwards - I flipped them around and it works like a charm!
Hi,
Congratulations. I'd love to know how many cameras have been scrapped for just that reason. It's very popular, judging by the ones I've picked up.
You'd think someone selling would look at the thing first but there you are. You'd better announce the next PSPCSAPS&S and we'll all turn up.
Regards, David
btgc
Veteran
I took the camera home and realized the batteries were in backwards - I flipped them around and it works like a charm!
So despite you were exhausted exposing test roll you had to return to seller to hand him $5?
eurekaiv
Established
That might fix itself. The capacitor that charges the flash probably hasn't been used in over a decade and so it's not able to fully charge to light the lamp. After you use it for awhile the electrolyte should reform enough to get a full power burst. Sometimes this only takes a few cycles and sometimes it takes a few dozen. Had the same thing with a Canon MC I picked up recently and it's working like a champ now.