XD-11 result

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

<p><strong>Q.L</strong>., it would be <em>so</em> nice to have you come out from under the rickety-rackety bridge and <em>initiate</em> a thread, showing and describing some of the undoubtably CMC items from your fine collection and even possibly posting a few examples of your work. It would make a refreshing change from your banging on about the definition of a CMC...</p>

While i'd love this to be a thread about me, it - alas - is not.<br>Erik, i stand corrected. I confused the OM2 with the OM-4, which also offers 1/60.<br>But again: <i>"But this is not about other cameras that also (!) would not qualify as CMCs."</i><br><br>Bebu,<br>You appear to be confusing Classic Manual Cameras for Classic Camera Manufacturers.<br>Why do you find it difficult to recognize that <i>"the XD-11 is an important milestone for Minolta. It was the first camera to have both modes of automation. Before that camera manufacturer built their camera and lens mount to optimize for one type of automation only."</i> is exactly why this thing does not fit the definition of a CMC as given by this forum's 'charter' ? (And no: a Hasselblad 2000 FC may be a Classic (debatable), but it certainly isn't a classic manual camera. Again for the very reason no other than you know and mention already.)<br><br>James,<br>I would love to read a post of yours that doesn't include references to military and war.<br><br>Rick,<br>You're just cross that someone dared question your Chinon making an appearance in the CMC forum.<br><br>Marc,<br>You talk about <i>"value to this forum"</i>. Stop a while to think about what <i>"this forum"</i> is and how a picture taken by a modern film camera, without even any discussion of the camera itself, could do that: add value to this forum.<br>The OP might not have expected the Spanish Inquisition. He could and should have known that this is not the place to get a photo-critique. (And he even got his photo-critique anyway.)<br><br>In short: people, you all spend a lot of energy getting worked up about this. Why not spend some of that energy on making sure you don't make a mess of what the good people of PNet have constructed. If they say this is the place for CMCs, provide another place for MFCs, yet more places for 'look at my picture' threads, who are you to ignore that?

Hmmm...

 

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=u_bNdx5vKxIC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=rickety+racketybridge&source=bl&ots=Q-CYrg-nWI&sig=5F6hUVYjwoo5PLgFoQU9LdAuTmg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3eyZUcCWLs6eiQfb9oHYDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rickety%20racketybridge&f=false

That's your answer to <i>"who are you to ignore that?"</i> I see...

Uh, back to the camera...

 

I posted here because the XD-11 is manual focus and I've seen posts on it in this forum before. Cheers, all.

Les,<br>Whether this forum is dedicated to what it is dedicated to is not a matter of you voting. If you want to change it, submit a proposal and have a discussion about it. After which a decision may be made on the matter by whoever is in the position to.<br>The 'charter' is posted in plain sight. You are requested, by PNet, to take the trouble to read and take note of it. Ignoring it, claiming that you can do that because you think it fit is rather antisocial, uncommunity-like behaviour.<br>Who do you think you are that you can decide that a forum is dedicated to whatever you think it is?<br><br>Now you want me to explain to you what a classic camera is? I'll happily oblige. I have done so on several occasions, right from the start, when it was discussed what this forum (then yet to be started) would have to be devoted to.<br>The decision then was to interpret "Classic" as meaning what the charter still says. So be it. Could have been better, but it's fine. What is not fine is that people like you treat such a decision as if it was made by a bunch of imbeciles and not worth anything.<br><br>If i would explain the difference between any old camera and a classic camera to you, someone here will again show himself to be rather uncivil and start saying things about it being o.k. to freely ignore that too. A personality-trait that, wanting to point out something then acting as if he never heard of it, demonstrated by that same person quoting the charter, then proceeding to ignore it.<br><br>Meanwhile, show yourself to be a civil person, and take note of what the charter says this forum is about.

<p>Concern Troll</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.<br>

</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Q.G.'s bona fides as a crank and all-round irritant are already well-established. He should bear in mind that his "hero" status isn't a life peerage and can be revoked for incivility and/or disutility to the site and its community. I'd personally like to see him benched for a month or so if he can't keep his stick on the ice.</p>

<p>BTW lovely shot, Royall. Thanks for sharing.</p>

Isn't it heart warming to see how much energy people spend searching the web for all sorts of things they can use to hurl at someone. Amazing... Threats, even.<br><br>Amazing that these very same people can't seem to find, or understand what this site expects of them.<br>Or is it? Not really<br><br>Ah well. Such is life on the web.<br>Time will tell if, despite all this face saving posturing, you will have learned a bit. I'm not overly optimistic, but still... hope springs eternal. Just look, for instance, at what Erik took this experience to: a fresh thread that is not just about a very inreresting topic, but one that is firmly at home here in CMC.

<p>If you want a ruling here it is.</p>

<p>The XD-11/XD-7 is an appropriate camera for this forum.</p>

<p>Those who wish to dispute forum policy should take it up with site administration (contact@photo.net), not me. Discussion of forum policy IN the forum is not encouraged, in fact it's highly discouraged.</p>

<p>What would be excluded? Anything autofocus. Anything in current production (-> Modern Film Cameras). Anything which is solely dependent on electronics for all shutter, metering, information display and film winding functions. Example? Probably the Canon T90 might be a good one. It's certainly a classic, but fails on the "electronics" clause.</p>

<p>What's not allowed? Bitching an moaning IN the forum about what should be allowed in the forum. Off topic postings. Repeat violators of these policies will likely be suspended.</p>

<p>You wanted a ruling, now you have it.</p>

<p>Thank you Bob.</p>

<p>Thanks Bob. That's simple and clear, and easily understood.</p>

<p>Not to debate forum policy at all, but just express my appreciation for the postings here on all these different cameras. If there's something I'm not interested in, I don't read it; but more often than not, I read and learn.</p>

<p>Greg - excellent approach. If you're not interested in it, don't read it.</p>

<p>If you do think the inclusion of whatever you don't think belongs here is a problem for the forum, email contact@photo.net and complain that the forum is being ruined.</p>

<p>Royall, there is an Autowinder D and dedicated flash available for the XD-11 (200-X). Should be available at a bargain price. Also, the Rokkor 45mm f2 is a compact normal lens that enables the XD to fit in a jacket pocket.<br>

With the winder its easy to do multiple exposures since the rewind button can be accessed from the back of the autowinder.</p>

<p>goodness me what a kerfuffal over nowt</p>

 

<p>Another XD-11 tip: when the camera is packed in a bag pressure on the shutter release might drain the batteries (courtesy of VF LEDs). Set the shutter speed dial to "O" when packing the camera in a bag or backpack. This is a mechanical speed and the shutter button requires more travel to engage. Also, if batteries fail this is a mechanical 1/100 second. </p>

<p>I think the OM-2000 should qualify alongside the OM-1 and OM-3. It is all manual, has no auto focus and in technical terms, is quite classic. :)</p>

<p>Fight on, Brothers !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The OM-2000 was made by Cosina so it's a little bigger than the Olympus-made OM series, but I remember reading a test report on it. Although it doesn't have the following of the traditional OM series, it is an inexpensive way to have an OM body that can reach 1/2000 second. Similar in specs to Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 and Nikon FM10. I don't have one, but I'm holding out for one with the bronze finish.</p>

note to anyone who would wish to get one of these: try to find a camera belonging to the latest production series, with the over/under exposure control lever in the inward position as depicted in this photo. Earlier cameras had the lever in opposite outward position, and it is only too easy for the lever to be accidentally moved by the photographer's hand, the strap etc. so producing unwanted over/under exposures. I learned this the hard way.<div></div>

A further XD tip: in shutter priority mode it will automatically shift the shutter speed if the user-selected speed is to fast or

slow to allow the camera to set the correct aperture.