Opinion: Minolta x-700 and xg-2 with lenses - smart buy?

Hey everyone,

 

Looking to get into 35mm and could do with some experienced opinions. There is a local seller here in Boise that is trying to move their two minolta bodies & lenses along. She claims she paid $200 for these before getting into photography in school:

 

an x-700 & xg-2 body

Vivitar 28-50 f3.5-4.5 MC

Vivitar 24 f2 auto wide MC

Vivitar 80-200 f4.5 macro focusing zoom MC

Minolta 50 f1.4 MD ROKKOR

 

She was asking for $160, but when testing things I found that the xg-2 has a problem where no LEDs show up in the viewfinder. I tried in A mode, checked with batteries that worked in the x-700 - no luck. She took it to a local shop and they told her, "it looks like it's an internal issue and not a power one - it would cost more to replace the part than the xg-2 is worth."

 

What could cause this? Does this sound like a capacitor problem? Busted light meter? Something else? Otherwise, the camera seems to operate properly.

 

What about those lenses? Good stuff?

 

What might be a good offer?

 

Thanks for your help here! I'm new to the film game and have no idea what this stuff is worth. I know there's a ton on ebay, but it seems like so many of the cameras on there are "as-is" or "untested," probably more trouble than it is worth.

I’m not sure what these items would sell for, but a working X700 (these often have to have electrical work) with a 50/1.4 Rokkor and a 24/2 Vivitar is a great kit! The XG isn’t worth much and I don’t know the other Vivs.

The Vivitar 24mm F/2 and Minolta 50mm F/1.4 are desirable lenses, but check that the aperture blades move freely with absolutely no sluggishness. The Vivitar in particular seems prone to getting oil on the aperture blades in my experience.

 

The XG2 in its condition has little value. The other two lenses aren't that exciting.

I'm not a Minolta guy. (But I did put my ex on a Seagull X300! & recall what the X700 was.) Minolta MD used to be the cheapest lens mount during the 80s & 90s with plenty of supply. Seagull carrying on making MD bodies till the very last days of consumer film photography is probably good for you in the long run. I don't clearly understand why folks moved away from MD stuff.

 

Sorry, I am not the watchmaker flavor of a mechanic and way too little of a makeshift electrician, to radiate any hope about DIY fixing the XG. If repair manuals and wiring plans are floating around: Get one understand it and ponder trying your luck or binning the beater. IDK what shooting style you are planning. I care little about built in meters. My current favorite or go to film cameras lack them and since I have to rely on handheld meters anyhow to operate those why should I care about replacing batteries in a fully mechanical SLR, I might end shooting on the side?

 

Lenses: I dare to believe that 50/1.4s are a bit overrated; i.e. they fetch their price but I wouldn't feel an urge to acquire one (after being not overly happy with the Pentax AF version). Slower is fast enough for me and film too expensive for wide open spray & pray.

24/2 should be "nice to have" if it is in usable shape, as John described. (I don't know the Vivitar but am sometimes glad to have a 28/2 to make SLR focusing a tad easier.)

The kit seems lacking a 135/2.8. I'd want one. - Just something, made by never heard of should be sufficient. An f3.5 should do well enough too.

 

Dim off brand 1980s zooms hold very little value; tend to be "€/$20 anytime" deals but are nice for walking around and happy snapping.

She claims she paid $200 for these before getting into photography in school

1. When?
   
2. Keep in mind that "buying on the non market" tends to be cheaper than dealing inside the scene.
   

No comment on the pricing. - I stopped buying film gear 15 years ago. You can search ebay yourself and there are no more brick and mortar store windows to feed me with numbers. - All I know: They weren't keen to buy huge MD bags while they were still around. I can't tell if the Sony A7 family changed that game.

 

Suggested homework: Find out which fully mechanical body might be worth buying & adding to your kit.

 

Hint on the side: While film has to be fun, since it used to be fun, digital is hard to sweep below the carpet in 2019. I recommend planning a hybrid option, that isn't too heavy on your shoulders. Poor and semi-stupid me used to carry 2 Leicas, 4-5 M lenses and a DSLR + 4 (or more) matching lenses. - Try to avoid that!

A wise contributor to this forum has often posted advice to the effect "don't let the tail wag the dog: i.e., don't look for a "bargain" first and then try to make it work for you- consider what you want to do and then shop for a camera that will suit you at a good price".

 

Before buying anything, consider why exactly you want to try 35mm film, and how you might use it. Younger people who've never used film often come to it with different expectations and use cases than those who grew up with film, migrated to digital, then return to film for certain projects. An electronic camera like the X700 has the advantage of auto-exposure, which is convenient and comforting, but also kind of defeats the purpose of learning to exploit and use film.

 

This type of aperture-priority automatic 35mm SLR is still quite popular with many of the old hands here, but they used them back in their heyday and understand the difference between AE with film and AE with digital. Its hard to explain, but generally those who've NEVER used film can get more out of the new experience with manual mechanical cameras, while experienced film users can go either way (auto or manual) to achieve similar results.

 

This is somewhat reflected in the strongly-held opinion by some here that an auto-exposing 35mm film camera is redundant in today's digital era: your average consumer DSLR will handle similarly while blowing it away in nailing exposure and overall PQ (the feeling being, all the 35mm gives you is grain and the "film look", which at this point has been flogged to death by Instagram filters and the like without the very high film/processing costs). Of course many of us still do enjoy shooting 35mm for personal reasons, even if we also shoot medium or larger film formats for their more distinct results vs digital. The largest selection of affordable gear is in 35mm, and depending on brand-model its the easiest to resell if you change your mind.

 

Regarding this specific kit you are considering: the $160 ask is fair value ONLY if the X700 is working perfectly, and the 50/1.4 and 24/2 are both perfect mechanically and optically. Take special care to examine the aperture blades and mechanisms: are they clean or oily? do both lenses stop down to f/16 and reopen instantly? If not, the value of the lenses drops like a stone because repair costs more than they're worth.

 

The Vivitar-Kiron 24/2 has a volatile following: in good condition Minolta film mount, some months it sells for over $100, other times it goes for as little as $30. Performance is average for a vintage fast wide: the 2.0 is more of a "bonus" aperture than general-purpose usable, and the lens has other performance compromises typical of its era. It would be sneered at on digital, but on the film it was designed for it should be fine. The Minolta 50mm f/1.4 is typical of other 50/1.4 lenses of the period: very good, but perhaps not great, and don't expect miracles at f/1.4. It sells for the same $80-$100 fetched by similar Nikon, Pentax and Canon manual lenses.

 

The X700 body is kind of... meh. The combination of features and price made it popular when new, but today it isn't all that inspiring to handle or use. It was designed primarily for autoexposure: when switched to manual mode it isn't as usable as other brand AE bodies. The full-auto Program mode only works with "MD" lenses, so the Vivitar 24/2 MC will only work in Aperture Priority or manual. Clean, fully-operational X700 bodies remain mysteriously popular on eBay, fetching an average $60-$80. For that money, I would be more inclined to a Nikon FE or FG or Olympus OM2, or better yet a fully manual mechanical body like Minolta SRT, Nikkormat or Pentax.

 

But if you like the operating feel of the X700, the asking price of $160 with the two lenses is a good deal (if the lenses are in great shape, you're basically getting the X700 for $40). If the seller is open to it, you could try offering $20- $30 less, since she would lose that much more selling on eBay anyway. Just be absolutely sure the X700. 50/1.4 and 24/2 work perfectly before paying. The XG and remaining zoom lenses in the kit are essentially worthless, but might be fun accessories if in good condition. Keep in mind these slow zooms were horrible to use with 35mm film, which tops out at ISO 400 for decent results. Fine in broad daylight, but forget indoors or night shoots: you don't have the option of setting a 35mm film camera to a clean ISO 6400 like you do with digital.

Edited May 31, 2019 by orsetto

At that price point, I don't think that you need to settle on a Minolta system with problems. While you don't say what your experience level is or what your goals are, why make your foray into film more difficult than they need to be? Get something that works so that you can start shooting and, maybe, take a risk on your next purchase.

 

I agree with the advice above but I might get a little beaten up for my next comment: Without prior film experience, I wouldn't put my money into a system that never generated the sales of Nikon or Canon. Now that film is considered "quaint", there are tons of quality Nikon and Canon bodies and lenses floating around on the used market. Most of these have been well maintained and still have years of life left in them. You might pay a little more money but you will end up with fully functioning, quality, gear that will let you accomplish what you want instead of having it limit you.

There's a lot to be said for buying locally and actually getting your hands on the kit to check for all the potential pitfalls. Sure, there's plenty of Canon and Nikon stuff floating around but there's just as much potential for problems with those brands, which are more likely to have been heavily used, as there is with Minolta, or Pentax or Olympus for that matter,

If you want to go with Minolta bodies, I'd suggest going with a reconditioned XG-M, making sure it has new seals and the electronics are clean and working, although I do love the older SRT 1,2 bodies. The advantage of using Minolta Rokkor lenses over 3rd party is that when produced, virtually all of their in-house lenses had consistent color profiles across the line, which for transparency/slide shooters was a real benefit. In my Minolta stable, thought, I did choose a Vivitar 200/3.5 manufactured by Komine over the Minolta equivalent as I got an outstanding deal on a near-mint copy, and I was familiar with that lens and its performance.

Minolta made some beautiful manual-focus glass: the challenge today is finding a truly compelling (and reliable) manual focus film body to use it on. Prior to the disruptive Sony A7 FX mirrorless revolution, you could pick up fantastic premier lenses for the "forgotten" systems like Minolta, Konica, Canon FD (sometimes even Pentax K and Olympus OM) at significantly lower cost than digital-compatible Nikon or Canon EOS film glass. That awesome bargain pricing made up for the sometimes pedestrian or disappointing body choices.

 

With Sony now joined by Nikon and Canon in the FX mirrorless sandbox, all those once-orphaned, obsolete lenses have become sought-after and pricier than they ever were, at the very least approaching the cost of classic Nikon/Canon lenses that were already usable on digital. At these higher price points, ed_farmer raises an important consideration for film enthusiasts: at a given lens cost, do you want to get stuck with blah film body options or have a choice of legendary film bodies? When Minolta Rokkor 85mm f/2 sold used for $75 twelve years ago it was an amazing deal that justified using some so-so Minolta bodies. That same lens today fetches $200- $300 from mirrorless Frankenstein wannabes: not such a bargain. For that price, a Nikkor AI or Canon FD fast 85mm can be used on any number of great reliable film bodies (manual, AE, pro, non-pro).

 

I loved the Minolta XD-11, perhaps the nicest 35mm film body of the era. But they're hard to find in fully operational condition anymore (and the once-posh finish tends to be in tatters). The followup XG and X700 designs were not as nice, earlier AE classics like XE-7 or XK have their own issues, and the mechanical SRTs are a mixed bag. At current vintage film lens prices, I'd rather be able to use a 1976 Canon F-1n or Nikon F series or FE/FM/FG.