wgerrard
Veteran
In the land of manual SLR's, Minoltas seem to be the best value. What's the reason? Are they lesser cameras than Nikon, Canon, and Olympus? Or do they have less panache?
I'm attracted to the F3HP and the OM4. Units in good shape seem to sell for $400-$600. XD-11's, X-700's, etc., are considerably cheaper. Ditto lenses.
What's a Nikon or Oly got that a Minolta doesn't? Why shouldn't I start putting together a Minolta kit?
I'm attracted to the F3HP and the OM4. Units in good shape seem to sell for $400-$600. XD-11's, X-700's, etc., are considerably cheaper. Ditto lenses.
What's a Nikon or Oly got that a Minolta doesn't? Why shouldn't I start putting together a Minolta kit?
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Why not indeed.
f8lee
Newbie
two things...
two things...
There are essentially two reasons that Minolta doesn't have the same level of desireability (and hence resale value) as Nikon or Olympus (or Canon, for that matter): actual quality and status value.
To the former, the F-series of Nikons (and to a lesser extent, the OM series from Oly) were built for 'pro use', which really means they were made to take a greater amount of use and abuse than the lower priced amateur-oriented cameras. This went along with the thinking that while an enthusiast might shoot a few dozen rolls a year, a pro would go through hundreds of rolls, so the shutter and mirror assemblies had to be more robust and capable of handling more actuations. Likewise, since pros view their cameras as tools, they were less concerned about putting the camera in a situation where it might get a bit battered - surely we've all seen examples of Nikon F's with the "professional black" anodizing worn through to the brass...
That leads to the second reason for the "big name" brand allure - the amateurs who wanted to impress thier friends made for a secondary market that kept these brands at the pricier levels.
That said, Nikon and Olympus have excellent lenses, but so does Minolta (and Pentax too). But I think the real reason Nikon and Olympus have maintained higher value is their pro level quality.
So the question when looking at used gear is how much use has it had? If the Minolta you have in mind is very clean and was obviously well cared for, you should be fine (I remember fondly my first SRT-101 a long long time ago). If you find lots of brassing or dings, though, you might want to think twice as this might indicate the camrea doesn't have a lot of exposures left in it.
Hope thta helps...
two things...
There are essentially two reasons that Minolta doesn't have the same level of desireability (and hence resale value) as Nikon or Olympus (or Canon, for that matter): actual quality and status value.
To the former, the F-series of Nikons (and to a lesser extent, the OM series from Oly) were built for 'pro use', which really means they were made to take a greater amount of use and abuse than the lower priced amateur-oriented cameras. This went along with the thinking that while an enthusiast might shoot a few dozen rolls a year, a pro would go through hundreds of rolls, so the shutter and mirror assemblies had to be more robust and capable of handling more actuations. Likewise, since pros view their cameras as tools, they were less concerned about putting the camera in a situation where it might get a bit battered - surely we've all seen examples of Nikon F's with the "professional black" anodizing worn through to the brass...
That leads to the second reason for the "big name" brand allure - the amateurs who wanted to impress thier friends made for a secondary market that kept these brands at the pricier levels.
That said, Nikon and Olympus have excellent lenses, but so does Minolta (and Pentax too). But I think the real reason Nikon and Olympus have maintained higher value is their pro level quality.
So the question when looking at used gear is how much use has it had? If the Minolta you have in mind is very clean and was obviously well cared for, you should be fine (I remember fondly my first SRT-101 a long long time ago). If you find lots of brassing or dings, though, you might want to think twice as this might indicate the camrea doesn't have a lot of exposures left in it.
Hope thta helps...
hans voralberg
Veteran
Minolta Rokkor lens are nothing to snob at, they're great value and quite a few of them achieved legendary status, I have used their 50/1.7 and 1.4 and they're great lens. The only problem with bodies is they're damn ugly compare to the macho look of Nikons, or the petite/compact look of OM.
Personally I'd use the SRT-101, IMO that's the finest SLR Minolta ever made, I dont like the half electronic things, they just dont feel right. Keh currently has 2 for $72 and $25 respectively, that's dirt cheap. The 50/1.7 goes for about the same price, or splash out for the 50/1.2, an you have a killer avail light kit
Personally I'd use the SRT-101, IMO that's the finest SLR Minolta ever made, I dont like the half electronic things, they just dont feel right. Keh currently has 2 for $72 and $25 respectively, that's dirt cheap. The 50/1.7 goes for about the same price, or splash out for the 50/1.2, an you have a killer avail light kit
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
I used to have a Nikon F. Great camera, but tank-like. My only SLR now is an X700. Much smaller and lighter. Yes, it has more plastic, but it's still a pretty rugged camera.
Your question prompts this thought: Minolta SLRs these days are a little like CV rangefinders and lenses in that they are great value (some of the Rokkor lenses are stellar) but they get less respect, perhaps, than they deserve.
Your question prompts this thought: Minolta SLRs these days are a little like CV rangefinders and lenses in that they are great value (some of the Rokkor lenses are stellar) but they get less respect, perhaps, than they deserve.
wgerrard
Veteran
Bingley, the respect doesn't concern me. Apart from forums like this, the people I know don't know a Minolta from a Nikon from a Big Mac.
I'm one who believes that the photographer contributes more than the camera. I'm also one who shoots film, scans slides or negatives, and posts the results on the web. I'm not so sure that the results delivered by the best hardware won't be lost in that process. Minolta hardware seems to be cheaper than Nikons, Olys, etc. I'm trying to decide what I'd gain, if anything, from paying for the best.
Let's face it. Lot's of people post scanned Leica images on RFF. Do they jump out at anyone as being obviously better than anything else.?
I'm one who believes that the photographer contributes more than the camera. I'm also one who shoots film, scans slides or negatives, and posts the results on the web. I'm not so sure that the results delivered by the best hardware won't be lost in that process. Minolta hardware seems to be cheaper than Nikons, Olys, etc. I'm trying to decide what I'd gain, if anything, from paying for the best.
Let's face it. Lot's of people post scanned Leica images on RFF. Do they jump out at anyone as being obviously better than anything else.?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
As others have said, Minolta didn't really get into the pro camera market. They made a camera called the XK (or XM outside the USA) back in the 70's that was a big, heavy, interchangeable finder pro system camera. It never sold well because by the time they introduced it, most pros were using older pro systems like the Nikon F2, the Olympus OM-1, and the Canon original F-1 (canon made 3 cameras all called the F-1...confusing!).
I have a Minolta SRT-101 that I bought on Ebay cheap just to use an obscure Chinese made Seagull brand 50mm f2 lens that I have. The seagull came on a Segull DF-1 body, which is a crappy made Chinese copy of an older Minolta model. The body feels like its gonna break when you put film through it, but the lens was very sharp and had better Bokeh than the Olympus and Nikon 50mm lenses I used. I got the SRT to have a well-made, reliable body to shoot the seagull lens on.
The SRT is well made, built heavy and strong, and takes good pictures. I later got a Minolta 50mm f1.7 and am impressed with it too.
My usual system is a couple of Olympus OM-4T bodies and 14 Zuiko lenses. Been using Olympus since I was 8 years old when my dad taught me how to use his OM-G. I think the Olympus has better fit and finish, though the Minolta is a well made camera. The OM cameras (I have an OM-1 also, which is a fairer comparison to an SRT since they're around the same age) just seem built a little nicer. My old OM-1 has a brighter, bigger, easier to focus viewfinder. That to me is the deal breaker....I have trouble focusing the SRT even in bright light, and indoors I can't hardly focus it at all. That's probably just my eyesight, but the OM-1 is MUCH easier to focus and my OM-4T bodies are easier still because I replaced their focusing screens with Olympus's newer 2-series screens that are brighter than the 1-series screens that came standard in every OM from the 1 to the 4T.
If you're considering an OM-4 and can find one you can afford, go for it! I LOVE my OM-4T bodies. I also have a Nikon F4 and its just too big and heavy. The OM-4 is small, light, built like a tank, focuses fast, and has an incredible meter, and OM lenses are excellent.
Minolta's SRT-101 is built strong, and has excellent lenses but its harder to focus and has a primitive metering system. They're cheap though. I paid $25 on ebay for my SRT (though it looked like new it needed a CLA for shutter tapering that cost me $100...but the total $125 got me a new-looking camera that worked like new and an OM-4 is a lot more expensive).
If you get an OM-4, get the newer OM-4T. The OM-4 ate batteries and is not fixable if it develops circuit problems. Olympus won't touch them and John Hermanson (the best OM repairman in the US) says he has no parts for them and Olympus won't sell them to him. The 4T is still repaired by Olympus and John H. hs parts for them too.
I have a Minolta SRT-101 that I bought on Ebay cheap just to use an obscure Chinese made Seagull brand 50mm f2 lens that I have. The seagull came on a Segull DF-1 body, which is a crappy made Chinese copy of an older Minolta model. The body feels like its gonna break when you put film through it, but the lens was very sharp and had better Bokeh than the Olympus and Nikon 50mm lenses I used. I got the SRT to have a well-made, reliable body to shoot the seagull lens on.
The SRT is well made, built heavy and strong, and takes good pictures. I later got a Minolta 50mm f1.7 and am impressed with it too.
My usual system is a couple of Olympus OM-4T bodies and 14 Zuiko lenses. Been using Olympus since I was 8 years old when my dad taught me how to use his OM-G. I think the Olympus has better fit and finish, though the Minolta is a well made camera. The OM cameras (I have an OM-1 also, which is a fairer comparison to an SRT since they're around the same age) just seem built a little nicer. My old OM-1 has a brighter, bigger, easier to focus viewfinder. That to me is the deal breaker....I have trouble focusing the SRT even in bright light, and indoors I can't hardly focus it at all. That's probably just my eyesight, but the OM-1 is MUCH easier to focus and my OM-4T bodies are easier still because I replaced their focusing screens with Olympus's newer 2-series screens that are brighter than the 1-series screens that came standard in every OM from the 1 to the 4T.
If you're considering an OM-4 and can find one you can afford, go for it! I LOVE my OM-4T bodies. I also have a Nikon F4 and its just too big and heavy. The OM-4 is small, light, built like a tank, focuses fast, and has an incredible meter, and OM lenses are excellent.
Minolta's SRT-101 is built strong, and has excellent lenses but its harder to focus and has a primitive metering system. They're cheap though. I paid $25 on ebay for my SRT (though it looked like new it needed a CLA for shutter tapering that cost me $100...but the total $125 got me a new-looking camera that worked like new and an OM-4 is a lot more expensive).
If you get an OM-4, get the newer OM-4T. The OM-4 ate batteries and is not fixable if it develops circuit problems. Olympus won't touch them and John Hermanson (the best OM repairman in the US) says he has no parts for them and Olympus won't sell them to him. The 4T is still repaired by Olympus and John H. hs parts for them too.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Hmmm, Oly and Nikon I get, they have quality stuff, what does Canon have more than the others? How can it become the no.1 camera maker in the world?
Marketing? mystic? Marketing?
wgerrard, I have the same question as you do about an even lesser known camera maker, Chinon. I have only heard this brand referred to as the third... no, sixth-tier cameras with below average quality and therefore unknown.
Until I get one myself, wow, what high quality, everything is as good as the top cameras from the Big Five.
So clearly those who has been trashing this brand didn't know what they are talking about. Sad, but such is the industry and market and people.
Marketing? mystic? Marketing?
wgerrard, I have the same question as you do about an even lesser known camera maker, Chinon. I have only heard this brand referred to as the third... no, sixth-tier cameras with below average quality and therefore unknown.
Until I get one myself, wow, what high quality, everything is as good as the top cameras from the Big Five.
So clearly those who has been trashing this brand didn't know what they are talking about. Sad, but such is the industry and market and people.
wgerrard
Veteran
Thanks for the detailed posts, everyone. I've got crummy vision and always wear glasses. So, viewfinder visibility and ease of focusing are big issues for me. Camera weight is important, camera size less so. For some reason, I see old Minoltas as weighing more than Oly's but less than Nikons.
Price aside, the F3HP and the OM4T seem very attractive. How can I tell if an OM4T has the series two screen?
OTOH, I'm thinking that a great Minolta kit would cost half the price of a great Nikon or Oly kit. Man...
Price aside, the F3HP and the OM4T seem very attractive. How can I tell if an OM4T has the series two screen?
OTOH, I'm thinking that a great Minolta kit would cost half the price of a great Nikon or Oly kit. Man...
Bingley
Veteran
wgerrard said:
I don't disagree w/ you. My point was that Minolta made some great SLR camera bodies and lenses which are sometimes overlooked today. But when one is scanning negatives and posting on the web, what, exactly, is the best???
Re: your comment about Leica images on RFF... FWIW, cyberblood has been spilled on these threads over this issue...
wgerrard
Veteran
Bingley said:...when one is scanning negatives and posting on the web, what, exactly, is the best???
Re: your comment about Leica images on RFF... FWIW, cyberblood has been spilled on these threads over this issue...
I guess that's at the heart of my question.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
wgerrard said:
FWIW, as an Oly nut, I'd advise you trying to get the OM-4T. The OM-4 is easier to get in good condition and cheaper.
Why? because people hang on to their pristine OM-4T. The ones floating around on the bay are usually not well maintained or broken in some ways.
I went through 3 (count three...) OM-4T's and none of them end up working. I have several OM-4's and they are all top condition. I also happen to feel the OM-4's are more sturdy than their Ti brethren.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Minolta's are cheap because there's no upgrade path.
Most ancient Nikkor's are still useable on a variety of modern SLRs and DSLR's.
Oly glass is usable on 4/3 and Canon DSLRs with adapters. The Oly bodies are pretty well the smallest full-featured SLRs out there.
OTOH, you cannot use older Minolta glass without major surgery or an adapter that will degrade the image.
I have a sizeable Minolta system, with very cheap but good glass. XD-11's, X-700's and X-570's are all relatively easy to come by and cheap.
Most ancient Nikkor's are still useable on a variety of modern SLRs and DSLR's.
Oly glass is usable on 4/3 and Canon DSLRs with adapters. The Oly bodies are pretty well the smallest full-featured SLRs out there.
OTOH, you cannot use older Minolta glass without major surgery or an adapter that will degrade the image.
I have a sizeable Minolta system, with very cheap but good glass. XD-11's, X-700's and X-570's are all relatively easy to come by and cheap.
GoodPhotos
Carpe lumen!
Having owned (and shot for dollars with) both minolta SRT102 bodies and Nikon FM2n bodies, I'd say that they are on par. The main difference is that the Nikons have TONS more quality glass that you can get (any of the new non-G lenses will work on any F body...FM2 included) and the Nikon had a faster flash synch (1/125 or 1/250 compared to minolta's 1/60).
Beyond that, the SRT102 is one of the best SLRs that was ever made and the Rokkor (and some of the Celtic) lenses rival the best of any other brand ever made. Given that both minolta bodies and lenses are REALLY CHEAP right now, why not?
I'm NOT a fan of the F3 at all. Other than the high eyepoint, it offers nothing over the FM series and indeed has a funky flash system, is much larger and clunkier, had a slower flash synch and is battery dependant.
Beyond that, the SRT102 is one of the best SLRs that was ever made and the Rokkor (and some of the Celtic) lenses rival the best of any other brand ever made. Given that both minolta bodies and lenses are REALLY CHEAP right now, why not?
I'm NOT a fan of the F3 at all. Other than the high eyepoint, it offers nothing over the FM series and indeed has a funky flash system, is much larger and clunkier, had a slower flash synch and is battery dependant.
gavinlg
Veteran
shadowfox said:Hmmm, Oly and Nikon I get, they have quality stuff, what does Canon have more than the others? How can it become the no.1 camera maker in the world?
Marketing? mystic? Marketing?
wgerrard, I have the same question as you do about an even lesser known camera maker, Chinon. I have only heard this brand referred to as the third... no, sixth-tier cameras with below average quality and therefore unknown.
Until I get one myself, wow, what high quality, everything is as good as the top cameras from the Big Five.
So clearly those who has been trashing this brand didn't know what they are talking about. Sad, but such is the industry and market and people.
Regarding Canon - the original F1 is a beautiful, trusty camera - many think it's one of the strongest SLRs ever made along with the nikon Fs. There are heaps of them stll ticking. The fd lenses are really bloody great too. I have a basic canon AV1 which was the aperture priority one with a 50 1.8, and that lens makes some stunning imagery for it's price and status. Beautiful color and bokeh, and very very sharp. I would love to see what the 85 1.2L and the 50 1.2L could do from the fd line.
Remember the canon P as well - one of the most beautiful cameras made in my eyes.
Another camera canon did was the A-1 which at the time was the first fully electronic camera with the M, Av, S and P modes in the world. This was a huge thing for many amateurs. It's remained reliable till this day - a big thing to ask for the first of anything.
As the AF SLRS came along, minolta got some of the first ones out early, but canon and nikon really perfected it. The change of mount by canon to the EOS mount - "electro optical system" made a lot of angry pros who had to change all their lenses over, but I think eventually they came round to the advantages it offered.
If you think about it canon did quite a few cool things. Toward the end of last century they really innovated and perfected a lot of the electronic technology.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
wgerrard said:
Virtually no OM-4 or OM-4T cameras have the series 2 screens. They didn't come new with the cameras, had to be bought as an accessory and installed by the user. Few of them were sold and today they typically go for close to $100 just for the screen. I think I paid about $90 each for mine. They almost never turn up on Ebay, though several members of the Olympus OM email list have some stashed that they'll sell. That's how I got mine. There are two of the series two screens. The 2-13 has a split-image surrounded by microprisms in the middle, like the standard screen (the standard OM screen is the 1-13). The other is the 2-4, which is all matte with no focus aids. Its less common than the 2-13.
feenej
Well-known
The Minolta XD bodies have a metal shutter with a faster flash sync of 1/100. Lots of people consider the XD11 to be Minolta's best manual focus camera. I have an XD5. It's nice. It's compact, not too heavy, and handles nicely. It has a mechanical shutter backup should your batteries fail. The only thing I don't like is that it is missing the electric meter finger touch switch of the XG's and X700, X370 etc. If the XG-9 had a faster sync it would be the perfect slr for me. The XG-1 has a real dim finder, I'd avoid that.
Last edited: