Jump to content

HOW GOOD IS A MINOLTA MAXXUM 5000 AF?


danny3

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

"Good"?

 

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:

 

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/

 

("ca" stands for "camera", Konica, a company in the photo business earlier than Kodak, merged with

Minolta towards the end, by the way, hence ca.konicaminolta.com as the web page for "cameras from

konica minolta")

 

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

 

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support/manuals/film-cameras/film_af_slr/index.html or

http://tinyurl.com/2atshe

 

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?

 

"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:

 

http://www.sonystyle.com/

 

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

LENSES.

 

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

 

Lens and Accessory Compatibility Chart

 

http://esupport.sony.com/perl/news-item.pl?&news_id=193&template_id=1&region_id=1 or http://tinyurl.com/62ffnq

 

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:

 

MINOLTA HISTORY VIA THE 5000:

 

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? ;-)

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Daniel,

 

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

 

http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00Rh3D

 

... 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:

 

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS300US304&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Minolta+AF+Zoom+70-210mm+f/4+%2Bbeercan or http://tinyurl.com/5qf9kc

 

A prize indeed!

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Well said Paul.  You tell all those ad hoc Minolta historians to get in line and obey!<br>

Herding cats are we?<br>

Now, me, I think of my Minolta 135mm f/2.8 as a "beer can" design:<br>

<img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:Yt6HoGy-2mtSqM:http://www.dyxum.com/images/lenses/75/75_1.jpg" alt="Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 135mm f/2.8 via Dyxum.com" width="146" height="97" /><br>

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 135mm f/2.8 via Dyxum.com</span></span><br>

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.<br>

Here are some Edmund Optical "beer cans":<br>

<img style="border: 0px initial initial;" src="http://www.edmundoptics.com/images/catalog/2461.jpg" alt="TECHSPEC® Mounted NIR Achromatic Pairs" width="225" height="175" /><br>

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">TECHSPEC Mounted NIR Achromatic Pairs</span></span><br>

<a href="http://www.edmundoptics.com/images/catalog/2461.jpg">http://www.edmundoptics.com/images/catalog/2461.jpg</a><br>

(Don't worry, photo.net admins - these image are NOT hosted at photo.net, but are hosted on Dyxum.com and EdmundOptics.com)</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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'.</p>

<p>Peter, just admit that you were wrong and move on.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for all your help.now 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 <a href="http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=169395"><span style="color: #003399;">Peter Blaise Monahon</span></a> 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</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mike, Minolta was not forced to drop the crossed X designation until <strong>after</strong> 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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <span style="font-style: italic;">Please don't get in a stupid argument</span> ..."</p>

<p>Peter Blaise responds: You callin' our argument <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">stupid</span></span>?  =8^o</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <span style="font-style: italic;">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</span> ..."</p>

<p>Peter Blaise responds: "... <span style="font-style: italic;">Peter didn't catch this error ...<span style="font-style: normal;">"!?! It's not in the opening post. Photo.net 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? </span></span></p>

<p>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. <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Subsequently I wrote about Minolta's automation in general, placing the 5000 in historical perspective, automation wise.</span></span> However, all three - the 7000, 9000, and 5000 - were produced, marketed, and sold contemporaneously.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> 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 "... <em>It was Minolta's first forray into AF</em> ... " comment, which could be read as an error, but I read the comment as containing an implied "... <em>part of</em> ..." as "... <em>It was part of Minolta's first forray into AF</em> ..." which is accurate. Here are the dates:</span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">1985-02 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7000</span></span><br>

<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">1985-08 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 9000</span></span><br>

1986-03 = Minolta <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum</span></span> 5000<br>

1987 = nothing new!<br>

1988-05 = ALREADY releasing the next generation Minolta <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7</span></span>700i/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!</p>

<p>Speaking of research, does anyone know the LAST Minolta film 35mm SLR made? Is it the 60/70 or the 30/40/50?</p>

<p><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">In the other post mentioned - <a href="00Rh3D">http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00Rh3D</a> -  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?</span></span><br>

<img src="http://www.redlightbeer.com/images/beercan.jpg" alt="http://www.redlightbeer.com/images/beercan.jpg" width="345" height="452" /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /> </span></span></p>

<p><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Perhaps the 135 looks like a soup can:</span></span><br>

<img src="http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/518/3Andy-Warhol-Campbell-SoupCan-tomato-.jpg" alt="http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/518/3Andy-Warhol-Campbell-SoupCan-tomato-.jpg" width="250" height="375" /><br>

<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: normal;">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, n</span></span>ote also the ancient manual focus Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 "beercan" (or "soupcan", if you will):</p>

<p><img src="http://www.ritzcam.com/catalog/images/Viv135_2823.jpg" alt="http://www.ritzcam.com/catalog/images/Viv135_2823.jpg" width="400" height="375" /><span style="font-size: 13px;"><br /> </span><br>

(again, Photo.net admins, don't worry, these images are NOT hosted on photo.net, but viewed directly on their respective hosts)</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>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?! ;-)</p>

<p><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>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 <a href="http://www.camerapedia.org/">http://www.camerapedia.org/</a> for that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...