Discussion in 'Sony/Minolta' started by danny|3, Dec 4, 2008.

  1. I just bought a minolta maxxum 5000 af with a maxxum 1800 af flash,a maxxum 50mm af 1:1.7(22) lens,and a
    maxxum af zoom 70-210 1:4(32)lens. I have most of the boxes and papers. i was just wanting to know a little history
    on this camera,as in what kind of reviews did it get in its day. the manual says it is a 1986 model. I have not
    devolped any film out of it, but all functions seem to be working well,oh where is the light meter for when you want all
    manual mode.thanks any info would be great, thanks
  2. I found info on the light meter, i still want the other info
  3. It was Minolta's first forray into such, it is very dated when compared to modern systems.....good optically, but otherwise quite dated wishes, Bob
  4. The Maxxum 7000's poor cousin. I used to own one. Choice of program or metered manual exposure. AF is slow compared to the more modern AF SLR's, but in good light where the subject has at least one strong verticale line, the AF still works surprisingly well. Tip: Keep the 1800 AF flash mounted on the camera even when not needed. In low light the flash will emit a pattern to help the camera focus. As far as reviews, I don't remember much about this one. The 7000 got most of the press. Reviews for it were certainly good, especially since it was the only game in town for about a year after it was introduced. By the time the entry level 5000 and Pro/Advanced Amatuer 9000 came out, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Olympus either had one or were nearly ready to market one. If I remember, when using manual metering you will have two triangles lighted. For under or overexposure only one lights. One advantage the 5000 and 7000 had over later models was the choice of three battery holders. The standard holder took 4 AAA batteries. You could opt for one that took 4 AA batteres, or a lithium holder. The 50mm and 70-210 lenses will of course be useful should you upgrade to a later model.
  5. Good build quality for an early entry-level AF body, simple operation and easy to familiarize yourself with. The
    aperture and shutter speed control buttons are a bit small to my taste, AF is slow and noisy but it can produce
    excellent pictures and is likely to remain an excellent backup or travel body, even after you feel you've
    outgrown its no-nonsense set of functions.
  6. The 5000 is the first AF SLR camera. If it has the double X's (Exxon style), then it is something of a collector's item. The AF speed is slow, especially with the original AF lenses. The 70-210 f/4.0, is the BEERCAN, and again if it has the double X's, then it is a collector's item, although you won't be able to retire on the resell of the lens and body.
  7. .


    I looked up "good" in my photography encyclopedias, and ... I haven't the foggiest what that could
    mean. Anyway, the camera originally did exactly as promised, the owner's instruction manual is still
    available online from Minolta, so you can read up on what they promised, at:

    ("ca" stands for "camera", Konica, a company in the photo business earlier than Kodak, merged with
    Minolta towards the end, by the way, hence as the web page for "cameras from
    konica minolta")

    Click on [Manuals] then [Film AF SLR Cameras]: or

    Then way down at the bottom, last, see the PDF files to download for the owner's instruction manuals
    for the 5000:

    Dynax 5000 / MAXXUM 5000 (Alpha 5000), English Part 1 (1,763KB), English Part 2 (2,342KB)


    ... back to "good?":


    "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, so it really translates to "appropriate for ..." and then specify your
    preferences. Is it "good" for fast sports shooting from half a football field away for facial closeups? Is it
    "good" for studio macro and micro shots with facile auto exposure and flash controls? Is it "good" for
    sub zero mountain climbing? Is it "good" for underwater exploration? Is it "good" for stealth street
    capture? Is it "good" for astronomical exposures overnight long?

    Is it "good" for ... what do you want a camera to do, Daniel? Are you asking if it was "reliable" or if it
    failed frequently? The answer is that it was reliable and had no overwhelming failure pattern or history.
    Are you asking if it was a manufacturing and marketing fluke which embarrassed the maker? The
    answer is, "No." Are you asking of it is so all purpose that it can do anything, the answer is, "More so
    than the first question."

    Although the more expensive Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7000 camera was the world's best
    selling at the time, this bodes well for the 5000 in that accessories and lenses and flashes and so on
    are equally in plentiful supply, so you are in good stead - almost anything you acquire to explore and
    expand the 5000 will translate to current modern Sony DSLRs, especially lenses. Browse:

    Click on [Cameras and Camcorders] then [a (alpha) Digital SLR Cameras], then explore, especially

    Then browse [Support] and click on Alpha DSLR support and see:

    Lens and Accessory Compatibility Chart or

    Which will give you an idea of what's out there that may fit and work for you now on the 5000, AND fit
    and work on a modern DSLR. Enjoy.


    ... for more on the future of the 5000 - where it lead to in today's camera field:


    Anyway, history wise, this was part of Minolta's endless market leading exploration into computerized
    push button photography. I'm not sure any other company was such a leader in this effort at automating
    everything, and using computers inside the camera, and using computer interfaces outside the camera.

    Oddly, in spite of the 7000 and 5000 buttons, Minolta kept direct input and direct readout knobs on their
    contemporaneous Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 9000 professional model, while the 7000 (world's
    best selling at the time) and 5000 were button mongers.

    Sadly, by my standards, this was also Minolta's abandoning 30 prior years of also world's best selling
    lens designs since the new Alpha AF system used a different lens mount than the prior Minolta SR T-
    series and Minolta -X-series 35mm SLRs, and instead, Minolta opted to have the camera's internal
    computers and motors operate everything automatically - focus, aperture, shutter ... so we lost an
    aperture setting ring on our lenses and we lost a shutter speed dial on our camera bodies, opting
    instead for + / - input buttons or freely rotating dials for each function that neither accepted direct input
    nor delivered directly readable output.

    Minolta returned to as many knobs as possible in the 1995 Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum
    507si/600si/650si and subsequent award winning 9 and 7 models, but the lenses have been aperture-
    control-ring-less since 1985.


    Daniel, let us know how it works for you, and share some pictures when you scan them - you are using
    a Minolta film scanner, right? ;-)

  8. Thanks for the info i will share some of the photos when i get it devoloped, however my scanner is a low end so the scans will not have the same quailty as the picture , thanks again
  9. .


    You apparently have acquired the coveted original "beercan" lens as some Minolta Photographers call it,
    let us know how it works for you, see others discuss the:

    Minolta AF Zoom 70-210mm f/4 - 12 elements in 9 groups, 696 grams, 1985-02

    ... and waay more about it at a Google search for [Minolta AF Zoom 70-210mm f/4 +beercan] - 625 additional pages to read and enjoy and gloat over: or

    A prize indeed!

  10. Earlier, Peter said "You apparently have acquired the coveted original "beercan" lens..., however, it has not assertained whether the OP did in fact, acquire the "original" bercan. So far as I can see, the OP has the BEERCAN, but the original ones were the ones with the 'Exxon' style X. Exxon sued over trademark infringement and Minolta switched to the separate Xs, while retaining the rest of the design. And if you want the most coverted of the coverted beercan, try and find a sample of the 'beercans' that were made for sales samples to demostrate how the AF system worked. These lenses have a clear plastic rear section. This allowed the viewer to see the AF gears, and the CPU. They had a regular serial number and were fully functional.
    The only 70-210mm lens that is considered the "beercan" by Minolta users, is the version that had a fixed f/4 maximum aperture, and a minimum aperture of f/32. Any attempt by any individual to assert that the other 70-210mm lenses, with a non-fixed maximum aperture, where 'beercans' is revisionist history.
  11. .
    Well said Paul. You tell all those ad hoc Minolta historians to get in line and obey!
    Herding cats are we?
    Now, me, I think of my Minolta 135mm f/2.8 as a "beer can" design:
    Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 135mm f/2.8 via
    In fact, as I look at my Edmund Optical and other Optical catalogs, I see that most industrial lens assemblies look rather like beer cans in being simple tubes into which they machine lens-holding and heliacal stuff, and the non-beer can lenses are rare in the commercial world, only usually seen out here in the amateur, art, and professional world where wide angle lenses look like, well, musical horns, and zooms and lens hoods make our lenses look like anythign but a beer can.
    Here are some Edmund Optical "beer cans":
    TECHSPEC Mounted NIR Achromatic Pairs
    (Don't worry, admins - these image are NOT hosted at, but are hosted on and
  12. Peter, I didn't name the Minolta 70-210mm f/4, the 'Beercan', but I do know what people are talking about, when they talk about the 'beercan'. Just as I know what lens they are talking about when they talk about the 'Big Beercan'. And the pictures that you posted of 'beercans', look like we used to call 'stubbies'.
    Peter, just admit that you were wrong and move on.
  13. I think by the time the 5000 came out Minolta had already been forced to drop the crossed X designation. Plenty of original 7000's and lenses out there that have it.
  14. Thanks for all your I dont even know what a 'beercan' is,I used to see a lot of Marine Corps buddies drink out of some. I don't care what you call the lens I bought I know this it dosent say "beercan" on the lens anywhere, it says Minolta MaXXum..... I just wanted to know what kind of quality it was, and Peter Blaise Monahon I think did a good job of telling what this lens was like. Please don't get in a stupid argument over the nikname of a 24 year old lens. Is it good quility?Is it worth the $10.00 I payed for the camera the two lens and the flash?I dont yet know what the pictures will come out like yet I will find out the first of next week but I feel sure I will get my moneys worth, thanks again
  15. Daniel, there is a good reason to understand which lens is known as the 'Beercan'. This is due to the fact that the Beercan was, and is, far superior to the later 70-210mm lenses that Minolta released. The price for a used Beercan is still quite high, while the others have faded into history. For Peter to try and put the other 70-210s in the same class as the Beercan, is a disservice to those looking for a high quality used lenses. Even today, with digital SLRs from Sony, the Beercan still gets many posts extolling the quality of the lens.
    Mike, Minolta was not forced to drop the crossed X designation until after the 7000 was released. Exxon could not sue until they knew of a trademark violation, and Minolta's ads used the crossed X, which they would not have been able to do if they prevented from using it prior to its release.
  16. Daniel, I forgot to add that the value of the 'Beercan' you bought is probably worth more than the Maxxum 5000, 1800 af flash, and the 50mm f/1.7 added together.
  17. Robert- The original 7000 had the crossed X. Later 7000's had that corrected. I think since the 5000 came out later, that none of them had the crossed X. I could be wrong, but I've never seen any 5000's with the crossed X. Since the Maxxum 7000 came out in 1985 and Exxon's case with them came up in 1986 there were quite a few crossed X Maxxum 7000's and lenses produced. They were allowed to distribute those already manufactured, but any new ones had to have the revised logo. When my family owned a camera shop we carried Minolta. Our first Maxxum sales were crossed X 7000's. The first 5000's we stocked (came out in 1986) didn't have crossed X. Of course, it's possible that a limited number were made since legal action was taken against Minolta in 1986 which is the same year of the 5000. I just never saw one with the logo nor did any of our brochures or dealer catalogs show any 5000's with crossed X.
  18. Mike, my apologies... it has been so long since the cameras came out, that I got confused, when earlier, Bob Cossar, posted that the Maxxum 5000 was "Minolta's first foray into AF." I didn't properly research it, and took it as truth. And since Peter didn't catch this error, nor did anyone else challenge it, it passed as gospel until you provided the correct information. This goes to show you how important it is to get the facts straight.
    You're right about the Maxxum 7000 having the crossed 'X's. and the Maxxum 5000 coming out at a later date with the regular 'X's. And I wonder, since your family owned a camera shop, did your Minolta sales rep show you the sales samples of the 70-210 f/4, Beercan, that had the clear body section?
  19. .
    Earlier: "... Please don't get in a stupid argument ..."
    Peter Blaise responds: You callin' our argument stupid? =8^o
    Earlier: "... it has been so long since the cameras came out, that I got confused ... that the Maxxum 5000 was "Minolta's first foray into AF." I didn't properly research it, and took it as truth. And since Peter didn't catch this error, nor did anyone else challenge it, it passed as gospel until ... provided [with] the correct information ..."
    Peter Blaise responds: "... Peter didn't catch this error ..."!?! It's not in the opening post. rules say to respond to the opening post only, and do not engage other respondets in cross talk. Oh, we ignore THAT rule, do we?
    I did write that the 5000 was "part of" Minolta's leading efforts to automate. I even mentioned the 9000 as being contemporaneous, even though it was released earlier than the 5000. Subsequently I wrote about Minolta's automation in general, placing the 5000 in historical perspective, automation wise. However, all three - the 7000, 9000, and 5000 - were produced, marketed, and sold contemporaneously. In this post, I wrote about the camera, but I accept that I did not clearly identify release dates and sequence of "first, second, third" and so on for each camera, nor challenge the "... It was Minolta's first forray into AF ... " comment, which could be read as an error, but I read the comment as containing an implied "... part of ..." as "... It was part of Minolta's first forray into AF ..." which is accurate. Here are the dates:
    1985-02 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7000

    1985-08 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 9000
    1986-03 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 5000
    1987 = nothing new!
    1988-05 = ALREADY releasing the next generation Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7700i/7000i - and we think of modern DSLRs as moving quickly through model releases, and yearn for the good ol' days when 35mm film camera models were much more stable! Like it never was!
    Speaking of research, does anyone know the LAST Minolta film 35mm SLR made? Is it the 60/70 or the 30/40/50?
    In the other post mentioned - - I only wrote about the technology of Minolta 70-210 lenses, not about the historial application of the "beercan" minoker by the Minolta user community, leaving that to others to explore and share, which they did quite well. I think the 70-210 actually looks more like a tall lager can, not a "beer" can. How many ounces are we talking about?
    Perhaps the 135 looks like a soup can:

    Perhaps we should open a new thread and compare our gear to same-shape other products from around the house. Fun. A Google search for lens images brings this to my eye, note also the ancient manual focus Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 "beercan" (or "soupcan", if you will):

    (again, admins, don't worry, these images are NOT hosted on, but viewed directly on their respective hosts)
    As you can see, Daniel, we Minoltians are a energetic bunch with a dynamic interplay of vibrant personalities, but all of us are ready, wiling, and able to pitch in and help our fellow Minoltian. I offer $20 for the lot you spent $10 on - a 100% profit margin - how nice it that?! ;-)
  20. Robert- Our sales rep never brought the "beercan" sample. He did introduce us, though, to a reallly cool loaners program where dealers could try a sample of a lens to see if they wanted to stock it. We tried a Maxxum 100mm macor and loved it so much that we bought one for ourselves. We were on the waiting list to try a 300mm f2.8 but the program was discontinued before we got to try one.
  21. WOW!!!
  22. Even if you upgrade to a later model Maxxum, you should keep the 5000. This is because if you ever acquire one of the early independent AF lenses (especially early Sigma's) you can still use them. Sigma "reverse engineered" AF lenses to work with the first Maxxums. When the "i" series came out the first Sigmas wouldn't work unless rechipped. The 70-210 is a great, highly sought after lens so hang on to it. If you later upgrade, it will focus even faster.
  23. "And if you want the most coverted of the coverted beercan, try and find a sample of the 'beercans' that were made for sales samples to demostrate how the AF system worked. These lenses have a clear plastic rear section. This allowed the viewer to see the AF gears, and the CPU. They had a regular serial number and were fully functional."
    Facinating! I'd seen one or two of those on ebay over the last 5 or so years and always thought they were just tampered with copies, as they were not described as you have above (clearly someone just not knowing what they were selling). I'd love to see one of those up close. I had a regular old beercan for a couple of years. Loved it on film; the range, the speed, the bokeh & colour... the focus speed was actually pretty decent on a dynax 7. I didnt like the range when i went digital with the A100 though, nor the awful AF performance with the A100. Eventually found a 200/2.8 HS G for a good price and traded up - never regretted it.
    Moderators? I can't help but think there is a lot of useless stuff on this long thread... Does make them hard to read and get to the useful/relevent info at times...
  24. .
    Moderators are not editors. We've all stayed pretty much on topic here: Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 5000 and at least one lens as mentioned in the opening post (the 50m is hyper valued at the moment, too, by the way). No off topic, no spam. We're all pretty much Sony/Minolta photographers here as illustrated in this thread. I wouldn't want anyone to spend their volunteer time editing as if this were an encyclopedic wiki - see for that.
    Yes, reading through a lot of stuff to find what interests only ourselves is sometimes hard. I find much of the Internet like that. Libraries, too.
  25. Richard, The lens has its serial number on the clear section, and are fully functional.
  26. Here is two of the pictures i took with my $10.00 camera. On these images i did not take time to make sure i was taken anything important, i was just tring to exspose to roll to see how the camera was working.
  27. It only let me send one, so here is the other one.
  28. .
    Best $10 I've ever seen in a camera investment!
  29. I have one and it is a good every day camera It can take a beating if you want go for a nikon em i think it works better. I still like it.
    here what I use, I have a Yashica FX-103, Mamiya/ Sekar 1000 DTL, Argus C-3,Nikon EM w/lens, 2 Minolta 5000 Maxxum (one w/o lens), 1 Minolta Maxxum 1800AF flash, 1 Toyo 28mm lens w/case, 1 zoom lens w/case, 1 Nikon MD-E motor drive, 1 Coastar flash mount, Misc. lens caps and filters.

Share This Page