Too many SRT's??

I currently have 10 Minolta SRT Bodies. Boy do I love these

cameras!! Am I crazy? Especially with all the talk of film dying?

How many is too many?

I am starting to think that maybe I have a problem.

I love these cameras for their durabilty...Heck they are 30+ years

old now and still going...

It makes me wonder how long a digital camera can last? I bought my

Nikon Coolpix 3100 a year and a half ago and it is falling apart.

There is $300 down the drain.

Digital photography is expensive. The batteries for this thing are

running $17 for a two-pack and they don't last very long. Printer

ink and glossy paper are outrageous. I don't think people realize

all the hidden costs or maybe they don't care. My digital camera has

it's uses...it's great for point and shoot but it won't be replacing

my manual cameras any time soon. Plus there is something magical

about getting prints back.

I may sell a couple of my SRT Bodies, or I may give a few away as

gifts along with a manual camera book and let someone else discover

the love.

One last story...

A few years ago I was in New Zealand shooting with my SRT-202...I was

perched over a muddy ledge trying to get a shot of some sheep when I

slipped all the way down the embankment. I was coated in mud, my

camera was coated in mud...it was messy. The only thing that was

hurt was my pride. I am still using that camera today. I wonder

what would have happened if I were using my digital camera?

I bought an SRT100 and 55/1.9 new in the box in 1972, used it for 15 years. Now I have two boys, 11 and 14, discovering photography. I bought them each a body, and 50mm and 135mm Rokkor lenses. So now I three black SRT101 bodies for myself, and an SRT100/1.9 (couldn't resist for $30). That's six bodies between us. I also have a complete set of just about all the original MC Rokkor Chrome lenses.

No, you are not crazy. Film will be available as long as they cameras are functional, I'll wager, it's a matter of supply and demand.

IMHO you should get rid of them all! Digital is the future, man! No point living in the past! After all FILM IS DYING, man! No new FILM cameras are available, and the SRT's are junk anyway! What would you expect in cameras with 30 years? Nothing! A digital camera after falling in the mud would help you get up, clean you up, give you a cup of coffe, grant you wish and god knows what else! Give up on film and get a digital camera! A decent one! One that has a price tag with more zero's than the one on my BMW!

 

Just a little note: just got myself my first srt, hell of a pice of machinery... that sclonk sound is like music...but i miss the zzzzttt sound of film going forward... i guess i'm too used to my dynax by now.

as we speak, I just bought another supposedly fully working SRT-102 with 50mm f1.4 Rokkor-X lens on the bay for $60.

 

I've gotten to the stage that I only buy 102/202/303/Super models, because they cost so little more than the others.

Sign of the times: I paid less for my SRT-102 this week than I paid for my last tank of gas.

Douglas: the srt101b i bought costed me, give or take, 21usd... which is a little less in euro, that is 1/3 of a tank of diesel around here!

 

It's not the cameras that are cheap... it's the other way around!

BTW, if you are paying $8 for batteries for your classic SRT/OM-1/Nikkormat/Canon FTb/TX, I have a better solution for you:

 

I use 675-size Zinc-air hearing aid batteries. They have the same discharge profile as 625 Mercury batteries, and the voltage (between 1.35 and 1.4V) is close enough so that the meters will still be within tolerance.

 

These batteries wear out quickly (a few months each once they are unsealed), but they are CHEAP (I pay $12 for an 18-pack at Costco)!

 

They are the same size as 76 button cells, so the battery chamber needs to be adapted. Fortunately, this is simple to do: Get a #9 rubber o-ring gasket at any plumbing shop (they cost about 35-40 cents at Home Depot or Lowes). This will make your battery chamber the perfect size for the 675 batteries, and the ring will fit snugly in the chamber. But, if you want to un-do the mod, all you need to do is pull the rubber ring out with a pin or a tweezer.

 

BTW, when making the mod specifically for Minolta SRTs, there is a decal on the inside of the battery chamber cap that must be removed (and the glue needs to be scraped off) to allow the top of the cap to make electrical contact with the smaller 675 cells - when larger 625-size cells are used, the edge of the battery chamber cap makes contact.

 

I use these batteries for ALL of my SRTs, OM-1s and Nikkormats, and it is a perfect solution to the 625 mercury cell problem. It has no downside, other than the shorter battery lifespan, but that is more than compensated by the extreme low cost of these Zinc-Air hearing aid batteries.

S Pence- You talk about the "hidden costs" of digital, that "printer ink and glossy paper are outrageous", well let's see. When I print an 8X10 from a roll of film shot from my Maxxum 9 it goes me about $8 per print. When I print an 8X10 (printed on letter-size Glossy Photo Paper) on my Canon 9900i it cost me about $1.50 per print. Using my Maxxum, I then have to buy another roll of film. With my Sony Cyber-Shot, I can download the pictures into my computer or burn them on to a CD for pennies per shot. Afterward I dump the images and reuse the memory card. Or I can choose not to print my pictures at all, but run them as a slide show on my computer or TV.

 

If I want 4x6 prints from my Maxxum 9, it costs me about $7 for 24 prints. Using my Cyper-Shot it costs me $0.29 per print and some places do them for $0.20 a print, so 24 prints cost me about the same or less. And don't forget, I don't need to buy another roll of film with my digital camera. Where's the "hidden costs"?

 

You also talk about "something magical" getting your prints back. I get that "something magical" feeling when I see the pictures come out of my printer, or when the clerk at the store hands my digital prints back. For a little more 'magic', I can transmit my images to the processor via internet and pick them up later at my convenience. Can your film camera do that bit of magic?

 

And I'm not worried about my digital camera falling in a mud puddle, or the ocean for that matter, as I have an underwater housing for it. And a while back I posted that digital cameras were not very durable and someone responded that their Canon DSLR was very durable.

 

I'm still waiting for KM to show their next move, before I completely move to digital, but I'm not afraid to do so, unlike some posters to this forum.

 

And for all those in the poorer countries where cameras are expensive, digital technology moves so quickly and costs keep coming down, that in a few years you'll be able to buy multi-megapixel used cameras at cheap prices.

S Pence- I forgot mention your point about batteries running $17, per 2, pack for your Nikon. That just shows that you're a bad shopper. You should have bought a camera with rechargeable batteries.

 

But, the camera manufacturers are aware of this problem and if you check the latest models the number of shots per battery is much higher.

S Pence - not mad just a bit obsessive ? I only have one which I got in 1969 and it has been frozen up mountains, baked in game parks, in dust storms, in tropical thunderstorms, on the beach etc.etc. and used by my 3 children for educational purposes. Guess what it still works like a dream.

 

Douglas - I bet it lasts longer than a tank of petrol probably even a whole oilfield's worth.

 

Richard - do I get the impression that you like your "new" old camera. Word of warning "beware addiction".

 

Sadly someone has woken the FiD Soothsayer who is off and running - anybody want to buy a 9 cheap - you know where to go.

 

Daniel - in the FiD debate do not make sensible points as the Soothsayer only ignores them.

 

S Pence - you are too old to be allowed anything "magical" it must be instant and new and all the other digital mantras.

 

Off to stick my head in the sand with all my fellow fogies !

Bill: I was acting unthercover, now i can't hide anynore! I bought the dynax and found this forum when searching for ways of emproving my shots and the past history of minolta (the main question: why everybody knows nikon and canon and not minolta?), a friend of mine has a srt101b bought new by his father in germany i believe, and i took same shots with it. I enjoyed the MF, the weight and the simplicity of it... got one 2 days ago... just MAYBE i'm starting to love my new "old" camera. (but hust MAYBE)

Hey Clint baby, you might be a "poor shopper" also. Walmart will make you an 8 x 10 for under $3. You can thank me later!

 

Jim

"And the debate rages on!"

Hey Clinton,

Isn't there a digital forum where you can go and preach???? If you hate film so much then go away! If you think you are going to convert people you are going about it in the wrong way. Insulting people for something they love only turns people completely off to your OPINION.

People in this forum aren't afraid to go digital. I bet most of us have a digital but CHOOSE to hang on to and use our film cameras.

BTW I did buy rechargeable batteries for my digital and they don't work anymore either. And if you know where I can get batteries for cheaper than Wal-Mart by all means let us know!

There was nothing more annoying to me than when I was in Germany with only my digital on hand and the freakin batteries went dead. That was the point I turned back to my Minolta's.

I am not a professional photographer, I don't pretend to be, nor do I ever want to be. I'll save that for all you talented folks. I just have a love and passion for it. Isn't that what matters?

Talk to me when you can find a digital that will last for 30 years, then I'll listen to your incessent ranting.

Also for those who assume that I am an old fogie and don't want to let go of the past. Think again. I am in my late 20's...oh and I am also a girl. BOOYAH!!!

Clinton, You forgot one thing in your lecture to us all about being smarter shoppers - I.e. the value of our time. It's true that if one is not a productive member of society (I'm guessing this might apply to you, based upon your preaching for digital) than one's time is worthless, and it can be harmlessly frittered away doing digital post-processing. However, most of us in today's world have jobs or school to attend to, and limits on our idle leisure time. The fact that we'd rather spend this scarce leisure time doing things we enjoy or find emotionally fulfilling, rather than correcting the inadequacies of the automatic everything decisions made by a plastic digicam. For some of us, that's even worth an extra $1.50 per 8x10 print.

Old Man Jim- Let's see, I live about 20 miles from the nearest Wal-Mart, so that's a 40 mile round trip. Gas goes for $2.45 a gallon, and my car gets 20 mpg, so that would mean I'd be using 2 gallons of gas. If I add the $4.90 to the $3 Wal-Mart charges that would equal $7.90 afor the 8X10, so I'll save $0.10!!!. But, then there's the time I'd spend driving back and forth, and don't forget the wear and tear on my car.

 

Hey, thanks Old Man Jim, my $8 print that I can get from the drugstore 15 minutes walking distance from my house, just turned into a $7.90+ print. Or, I can print it at home for $1.50 a print in 5 minutes.

S Pence- I hope you know that you not only have to buy the rechargeable batteries, but the recharger as well.

 

And I'm not anti-film, I still use my Maxxum 9. And just a year ago, I was pretty much like you die-hards, as I have a collection of expensive lenses that I may have to dump if KM doesn't come out with a better DSLR soon, and I didn't see digital getting better soon. But digital did get better and slowly, cheaper. I am learning to use the photo editing programs like PhotoShop.

 

Plus, it was not I who started insulting people. It was others that attacked me when I first talking about the demise of film. I just stated the facts and others jumped all over me. It is not my policy to attack first, but will respond in kind when attacked.

What is going on here :-

 

We have people coming on here not believing that film is dying !

 

We have young people coming on here telling us they use these outdated, archaic cameras !!

 

We even have a young female daring to make an appearance !!!

 

It is just great !!!!

 

(Richard, many have wondered why Minolta has never made the impact it should have, given the products it has offered. I have come to the conclusion that mainly it has been a case of abysmal PR and marketing and a decision at some stage to stop supporting the professional users who act as a flagship for a brand.)

Douglas- You DON"T have to spend time doing "post-processing" of your digital shots. You CAN just drop it off at the photo shop and they WILL print the shots just like if you dropped off the negatives. You might want to look at how digital imaging has advanced in the past few years.

Clinton, you missed my point about digital post processing - The point is, the overwhelming majority of digicams are all automatic, and they make the photographic decisions for you (and they usually make them incorrectly). With a good manual camera like an SRT, a knowledgeable photographer can make sure that the exposure, composition, and even the moment the image is taken is correct, and thus not in need of post-processing. Any digicam that can be bought for anything close to what an SRT costs does not allow this type of creative control, and thus, the need for such post-processing, which would NOT be needed when a photo was taken deliberately with a manual SLR.

Douglas- Apparently you don't realize that when you send your roll of film to be processed, the person doing the printing does make corrections. Go to any one-hour lab an watch the clerk watching your film and making corrections. They'll do the same thing when you give them a file for printing into a print. Now days you can get Pic-bridge camera that plugs directly into a Pic-bridge printer and you do the same type of correcetions the labs do without the computer.

 

And since when with a film camera do you know right after you take a shot do you know if you have the correct exposure, composition, or if you captured the right moment? That's why someone shooting with film takes a couple of shots to make sure no one closed their eyes in that group shot. With a digital camera, you see it right away. Or you can take a burst of shots and then edit out the 'bad' ones. With film you waste all that film to get that one good one. With digital, you reuse the memory card.

Bill: I did came to that detail, but here in Portugal they have been making an investement in adds (golf courses, soccer stadium adds and night lights in some places) but that is a very recent thing... and i've never seen a "pro" using a minolta around here. But things are turning around to KM favor.

Just to keep the fires: can someone show me a digital that after taking almost 100 pictures in a day can still let me do this?

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00CHcx&photo_id=3387048&photo_sel_index=0

Richard- Let's see, how about any Canon DSLR, any Nikon DSLR, any Olypus DSLR, the Pentax DSLR, and the KonicaMinolta Maxxum 7D. They all can do the same.

 

I don't see anything special about your picture. It's a little cluttered for my taste, no real 'story' being told, just a nice tourist shot.

 

But keep trying.

Clinton, I shoot transparencies (mostly Velvia). Nobody makes adjustments - it's a fixed process.

Douglas- It still doesn't disprove my response to your earlier post. And I can see my pictures in a slide show on my computer or TV, or I can get a projector and do a 'slide show'.