XD-11 result

The XD-11 has terrific metering. I'm almost always satisfied with its exposures. This shot was taken with

Minolta's 70-200 F4 MD zoom. I believe I was at 70mm. Kodak Ektar.

 

<a href="http://imgbox.com/aceyst20" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgbox.com/aceyst20.jpg" alt="image

host"/></a><br/></a>

<p>Excellent street shot Royall</p>

<p>I know it as the XD-7, last of the metal-bodied Minoltas, and a fine camera. I'd agree with you about the metering, <strong>Royall</strong>; the Minolta SLR's were all pretty good in that respect. Nice pic; a moment well-captured.</p>

<i>"The XD-11 has terrific metering."</i><br>Aperture and shutterspeed priority modes driving an electronic shutter, just like in any typical Classic Manual Camera. ;-)

Also in shutter priority mode it takes a last instant reading at shooting aperture to compensate for lenses that fail to close

down to aperture selected by camera.

<blockquote>

<p>Also in shutter priority mode it takes a last instant reading at shooting aperture to compensate for lenses that fail to close down to aperture selected by camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is the reason I would never use the XD-11 in shutter priority mode. </p>

Les,<br>Can't help but wonder now: do you understand <i>"[...] encompass all cameras up to the electronic/autofocus era"</i>? An electronic, camera, with automation driving an electronic shutter? How do you reconcile "shutter priority mode" with "manual"?<br>And that's not even touching on the "Classic" bit.<br><br>I propose once more to rename this forum to "Any Old Crap". That, or expect people to heed the description and intend it expresses. You can quote the bit perfectly fine. But can you also stop ignoring it?<br><br>If anyone thinks this camera is an exception, please do explain, at length, why it would be a Classic camera that has a place here despite being an embodiment of the electronic cameras the forum description says this forum is not for. That would be interesting indeed.

Les,<br>You caught me, trousers down... ;-)<br>So you <i>do</i> acknowledge that machines like the XD-11 and the OM-40 do not belong here. Good. Even though you managed to quote the rule that explains why not, yet failed and again fail to see what it says. <i>"<b>up to the</b> electronic/autofocus era"</i>. The XD-11 is an electronic camera from that era excluded by the bit you repeatedly quote. The comments made about it are about it's electronic modes that drive its electronic shutter. Very CMC, that.<br>So not a "classic" (or if you think it is, explain why you think it is. That would be at home here.)<br>Not "manual" (having a manual mode itself is already proof that it is not a manual camera.)<br>A camera, true. A camera. Like so many.<br>It's not difficult. A Minolta XD-11 is "Any Old [Thing]" needing batteries to run the thing. Not a CMC.

<p>I agree with Les because otherwise we would need another forum for the XD-11, Pentax LX etc... I don't think they belong in the modern film camera as they are not modern. </p>

Les,<br>The mods have seen fit to set the rules you quote, then proceed to flout as if you not just quoted them.<br><br>We don't need to be overly strict.<br>But we shouldn't also lose focus to the degree that Chinons and Minolta XD-11 are discussed in this forum. There are plenty CMCs that do qualify.<br>So leave out the millions of uninteresting also-rans that don't even make it through the filter the mods have set. Uninteresting, banal, electronic cameras are not CMS by anyone's definition. Even though you can show pictures that prove they are cameras.<br>If you think otherwise, don't discuss it with me. Ask the forum operator to change the scope of this forum.<br><br>BeBu<br>The Modern Film Cameras forum is exactly <i>the</I> place for these cameras.<br>Does anyone ever read the "about this forum" bits and not think they are something of no consequence, just there to ignore?

<p>I've recently put my posts on the XD7 (11) and XE1 in the Modern Film Cameras forum. I'm the last person to nitpick about definitions, bur despite their classic look and feel these are clearly complex electronic devices and should not by the accepted definitions be in the CMC forum - although I tend to prefer this forum as it seems more active and sympathetic.</p>

There was a time when the MFC didn't exist as a forum. But as we all have experienced and seen this is a tolerant and sympathetic forum and we're not going to to let a the few misplaced posts spoil our continental breakfast. I use this model and when I get around to making a post I will probably put it in the "other" forum, even though all my buddies are here. I just came into aYashica FX-D Quartz thanks to this Forum and when I take delivery I will likely do a VS post with this XD 11 . which btw is the best SLR I own; best shutter ( quiet ) best screen ( brightest ) most intutive to use etc .... I do love that opening shot the red is great!!

<p>Les as for the OM there is only the OM-1 and the rare OM-3 that would fit Q.G. definition all other OM's are not manual. They all have at least aperture priority AE. </p>

<p>While I don't think the XD-11 is a great camera and have one and don't like it very much but I do think it's an important milestone in the Minolta line of cameras and for that it's certainly a classic to me. </p>

Les, Bebu,<br>I can imagine that you like to imagine what other people may think. But be so polite and don't assume that because you imagine it it is true.<br><br>Re the OMs and Classics: the true classic among the OMs is the OM-2. It is one of those exceptions that the rules you quote and then ignore talks about.<br>It can be argued why it is a classic, matching the rules you quote and [etc.]. And it (argue the case) could be done and would be perfectly at home in CMC, and be interesting. So if you feel that the XD-11 should be at home here, please do argue the case, Bebu. Turn a "look how an inconsequential camera can actually take a photo!" thread into something at home in this part of PNet.<br><br>But no. Search PNet (you felt moved to do that, but talk about drums beating in <i>my</i> head, Les? :-)) for samples of me not being as strict as you say i should not be? :-) Why is it so hard, Les, to accept that an XD-11 is not a CMC? That the MFC forum is the place to discuss that camera?<br>(And that one of the many picture threads/forums is the place to show pictures, if all that is said about the camera is what brand and model it is and that it works?)

Nice diversion, Les.<br>I could, and may, make a case for the CMC status of many cameras. But certainly not for the Minolta XD-11.<br>A thing that, quite simply, does not belong here (no matter from what oblique angle you want to look at it, i.e. not even if i would or would not make a case for any camera myself).<br><br>Now say, Les: are you proposing that PNet abandons the structure it has grown into over the years?

<p>But back to the images for a moment. I like the one w/ the selective focus on the guitar, but don't like the bokeh and the harshness between different things that are not in focus. The first shot (this is just my personal opinion, and you know what they say, opinions just like XXXXXXX, they're all different and we all have one) I don't much get. The lens IQ is quite nice, as is the color, but it's a scene I see repeated maybe 10 or 20 times a day. It's irritating to see it live, it's the same to see a photo of it.</p>

<p>I've been guilty of posting things in the wrong place more than a few times, always by accident. It would be nice to see less categories, but I've been posting here long enough that I sorta know where things go. But not always.</p>

<p>The XD-11 has one mechanical normal shutter speed, the OM-2 has none -- so as far as battery dependence goes, the XD-11 is more useful w/o a battery than an OM-2. To me the "manual" & "classic" are mostly about manual focus, manual film advance (w/o an add-on motor), and control dials instead of buttons/menus. Both the XD-11 and the OM-2 would be clearly understandable & usable to most 35mm camera users from the 30's to the 70's but the same could not be said for a Minolta Maxxum. It's the form & function and not the internals that distinguish the modern from the classic.</p>

Let's be correct, Erik: the OM-2 also has mechanical shutterspeeds. Two, if you also count B.<br>But this is not about other cameras that also (!) would not qualify as CMCs.<br><br>You think the definition as provided by PNet should be discussed, possibly changed? So do i (but Les says we may not, even though he flouts the definition himself).<br>Meanwhile, it's clear that no matter what way that discussion might be going, the XD-11 will not qualify.

<p>Let's be clear: what exactly is the mechanical speed on an OM-2 other than B? Why doesn't it work on my OM-2 where I just took the batteries out and checked. Do you have one in your hands that works? Why is this not mentioned in the OM-2 manual where only the B/Reset position is noted?</p>

<p>It's clear by my definition that the XD-11 is OK. It's also clear from the practice of the last several years, that cameras like the XD-11 and OM-2 are at least tolerated by most. There are not so many postings on such cameras that ignoring the ones you don't care for is a burden or causes other articles to go off the front page significantly quicker.</p>

<p>The OM-2 doesn't have any other mechanical shutter speed besides B. But really I don't count the 1 mechanical speed like 1/60 is ok to call it classic or manual. I don't even consider this fact. Camera like the Hasselblad 2000FC which if you don't have a metered prism it doesn't even have a meter and yet it always requires a battery to work. And sure it's a classic and manual camera. <br>

Let me say something, Minolta is one of the major camera manufacturers before it sold it business to Sony. If Q.G. doesn't agree with this then I can stop here. In the Minolta line of cameras 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. The XD-11 use a lens mount that wasn't optimized for shutter priority AE and thus it did the final check of the aperture before taking the shot. For better or worse the XD-11 was also the first(correct me if I am wrong) to use array of LED to indicate shutter speed. There was no innovation to the Minolta line until the Maxxum. I have no softspot for the XD-11 and I can't make a camera a classic. The real reason for it to be a classic is that if Minolta fans speak highly about it and you can verify that by checking website like the Rokkor files. </p>

<p><strong>BeBu</strong>, it's possible the Pentax ME beat the XD to market: both were released in 1977 so it's a quibble. The first use of LEDs instead of a meter needle or filament bulbs was in the Fujica 801 in 1972.</p>

<p>I think you're right Erik, I remember now the MX and ME were introduced at the same time and was before the XD-11. The introduction of the XD-11 made other camera makers nervous at the time. Canon rapidly introduced the A-1 the next year with the additional program mode and the digital display in the viewfinder. The XD-11 may not be a good camera but it's a classic. </p>

<p>Goodness! I just come here to see film stuff, couldn't care a gnats snot what it comes from, if you don't like..don't look!<br>

Back to original post, love the shot...captures youth well, phone in one hand, cigarette in the other..and the red works a treat.</p>

<p>Why do we have to put up with the disruptive posts from one individual who never adds anything of value to this forum.</p>

<p>We have a number of excellent posters like Rick, JDM, Tony, and others who provide us with pictures and a bit of history to the hobby we all love.</p>

<p>I doubt if Royall came expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Thanks you for your post Royall.</p>

<p>I also would like to thank the others whose posts make this my favorite forum on photo.net.</p>

<p> </p>