lisa_canino_dymbort Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I've recently purchased a Nikon D200, but am a "film-girl" at heart. I'm wondering if I will need any of my SLR film cameras any longer? I'm completely new to the digital world and am basically asking: Is there anything my Minolta XK will do that my Nikon cannot? Performance is most likely the better aspect. And does my XK have any value any longer? Thanks, Lisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Time will answer the 1st question. For the last, check ebay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 They use film, a Good Thing. :) Also not subject to drive/computer crashes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_bellayr Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 AS it has been explained to me over & over again (though I can not verify it) that film is 24 megapixls equivalent. Whatever true or false, I do not know. But, I can say that I did buy a Nikon digital D1 & was not happy with digital as I had expected to be. I have gone back and continued to shoot with film. I would not dispose of a film camera as soon as you have purchased a digital. You need to personally ascertain your personal preferences. Many people I know use both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralf_j. Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Keep both or return the D300 if you must. My D70s looks fabulous on the shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_ballard Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 The XK will operate without batteries. ;) The XK seems to hold a pretty good value on eBay, at least compared to other Minolta models. I would use it. I suspect the megapixel equivalence of film depends on the ISO and brand, but it's kind of a moot point as both are sharp enough for what they are generally used for. I've heard some photographers have switched from Medium format film cameras to 35mm form factor digital, and perhaps digital is that good, but it doesn't detract from the enduring qualities of film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Well for one thing, it can take REAL B&W photos that don't look like crap. And for a second thing it can take Velvia slide-film, which is a fair bit denser than digital sensors. Thirdly, it will mount all of your great Rokkor and Celtic glass, which your Nikon will not, and that glass has virtually NO resale value because the mount is abandoned and it can ONLY be mounted to 4/3's cameras via an expensive adapter. That price is also reflected in bodies, which means you can get an different Minolta body with a mechanical shutter that will run without batteries! Fifthly, it will manual focus easier than your new Nikon with a variety of easily interchanged screens. (The few times I have attempted to use a dSLR to maually focus I found the experience lackluster at best, and mostly a pain in the butt, with the area I desired the focus to land on being somewhere between the "clicks". Seven... film still has a much wider ladittude than digital sensors so you can easily take photos with a higher dynamic range without having to spend hours attempting to digitally fake a high dynamic range. This may change in the future, but for now it still stands. Eight... it has a built-in waist-level-finder... how awesome is THAT? A few digital cameras offer movable rear screen but it's not quite the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_hopper Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Yeah, keep the XK and any Rokkor lenses you have (even if they overlap what you have covered in digital format). Went to digital recently with the 4/3 Panasonic DMC L1 (don't laugh) and ended up keeping my older SrT Super (and some short Rokkors and an AMII) simply because it's an all mechanical tank. And will keep shooting these. Ironically, I'm using some Rokkors (and other earlier neato MF lenses) on the L1 in its easy stop-down metering mode, and challenging viewfinder in using manual focus (still like to work the machine). The XK/XM/X-1 series have sell-value nowadays only if pristine, and usually only to collectors or someone who hasn't had one before (I've had 6-or-so and have this love-hate thing for the series). But anyway, yeah, watch your XK do an automatic long-exposure with a 58/1.2 for a low-low-light exposure on fine film and see if the DSLR will match the results. And sorry Ben, the XK series is indeed battery dependent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Sell your Minolta while it still works and is worth something, and enjoy your digital camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohir_ali Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 i lusted over an xk when in high school. i could never afford one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_moseley1 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 "Is there anything my Minolta XK will do that my Nikon cannot?" ...it will take film, which has quite a different look to most digital...and which many people, including many pro's, STILL prefer on some occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_the_waste Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 These guys are all living in the past. Dispose of it while you still can!!! I'll even help you get rid of it. Send it to me, and I'll find a good home for it. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff bishop Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I'll probably draw fire for this, but it's MHO.... The value of the digital Nikon (my own personal brand of choice) will only fall. It will not 'bottom out' and then 'rebound' like film cameras do. Years from now, the Minolta will most likely still be functioning and still worth money when the D200 is long in the landfill. There is no longevity with digital, and while the D200 is still perfectly capable right now; it has already been superceeded by the D300. Finally, many film cameras will easily last for decades. Digital is disposable. Example Nikon D1, introduced in 2000 at $5,580 and now sells (usually) between $200 - $300 US. (Sales tax on this camera new in Pennsylvania would have been $334. I consider that as a complete loss). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_ballard Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Re: battery dependence, I was assuming like my XE-7, the XK can fire the shutter at one speed without batteries. But, I realize aside from that it is an electronic shutter. Still, you can shoot in a pinch whereas with digital you can't do anything without power. Jeff, that's a great point. While the old Minolta gear is cheap, the values can pretty much only go up from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMWright Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The XK does have a single mechanical shutter speed: 1/100 http://www.rokkorfiles.com/XK.html http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/index.htm Great camera system, enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMWright Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Lisa, Another consideration for you. The XK is great... the Minolta MC/MD lenses are superb. But the Nikon D200 can use most older lenses including Nikon AI and AI/S, which would work on Nikon film bodies... you could even go all-mechanical with an FM and just share lenses. It might save you some space in your bags should you want both digital and film on the same trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Does the XK have any value? If you still enjoy using it and like the images it produces, then YES, it does have value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterson Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I used a minolta XE-7 for many years. It ws a fantastic camera for those of us who couldn't afford the XK. These were great cameras, with great glass that have now been orphaned, and hence is available relatively inexpensively on the used racks of a decent camera store. The greatest of digital cameras will still produce images limited by the technology that they employ. Keep the film camera, and consider picking up a nice scanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_anders_dyvik Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 It does. It's one of legendary cameras. And it shoots film. With film, you have an original that will last if taken care of. Forget the digital camera, get a superb scanner instead and continue with film. Film has a depth and a quality that I don't see with anything digital. The digital images may be sharp and with clear colours, but they lack the artistic value that film gets, for example deep colours, shadows etc. I've got two scanners: one Nikon Coolscan V ED and one Nikon Supercoolscan 9000 ED. Both have an optical resolution of 4000 pixels per inch. The latter cost ?2100, the first a third of that. Their performance is as far as know identical, the differenc is the large one also can do medium format. And as someone stated above, digitals will not last (function) many years into the future, whereas your XK most likely will. And the Rokkor lenses are great.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_anders_dyvik Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 The foto was done with my srt303b and a MC Rokkor 135 mm, from 1974 and 1976 respectively, on Fuji Provia 100 Film (colour slides)(pushed to 400 ASA). Both have been scanned using my Nikon 35 mm film scanner. Attached is another photograph of the same lioness, captured near Lobe just after sunrise ... I could also add some "philosophical" thoughts about the difference between film and digital, what you loose when changing to digital, but I won't. I've realised it's not popular ... so instead keep with facts. For one, with film you have an original, not just a file with zeros and ones.... If you have two files, which is the original? If someone steels your photo and claims it's his, where is your proof? With film, well.. Also I think a lot of today's photographers have misunderstood a bit of what photography really is. To me, it is about authenticity. Film has that: firstly, it was "there" physically. Secondly, it's hard to manipulate a slide or a negative (except maybe with polarizing filters etc). Today I see so many pictures posted, here on this site included, which are manipulated. It seems like the majority are manipulated in fact. People are combining supertelelens shots of the moon with a closeup wideangle shot of ancient Egyptian buildings, for example, and proudly present it as a photo! Or they take several shots and combine them into one image. However this kind of manipulation is utter nonsense in photographic terms in my view. Some would call it art, personally I don't really know what to call these kinds of images. There is also all this talk about all these functions the digital cameras have. But what is left then to the photographer and his/her skill? You can shoot a thousand foto on one mem-chip, and you can shoot 5 frames per second or whatever. Then you can run through your 150 or so frames from that sequence and choose the one image "best moment". But where did your photographers skill go, the ability to capture the moment, that magic moment when all things come together ... On top of that, good luck storing and sorting out all the images. Hopefully not deleting anything wrong by accident. A friend came back from safari in Tanzania and accidently deleted 200 of her shots... By the way, I've just myself (today in fact) purchased a mint condition Minolta XK (without finder) for 375 british pounds. The finder is the next, it may cost up to GBP 100-150 if in good condition. So that gives you an idea of what your camera might be worth..., even without a lens.. Enjoy it! Knut<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonicstep Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 <a href="mailto:minoltaxk@yahoogroups.com">Minoltaxk</a> Yahoo group is a good forum to join for those particulary interested in the XK, XM, X-1 including AES/non-AES finder and motor drive type variant series cameras.<p> <a href= "http://www.rokkorfiles.com/index.html">Rokkorfiles</a> is a related site dedicated to Minolta manual focus classic cameras.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_obrien1664883024 Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Anyone state side care to buy my Minolta XK? Worked great when I put it away (in favor of a Nikon D300;-) Has a Rokkor f/1.6-16 55mm, Vivitar f/3.8-22 85-205 zoom telephoto, Albinar f/2.8-22 28mm macro, Vivitar 2800 flash, manuals, and lots of filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastien_pourcel Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 <p>Your Minolta XK is "full-frame", is beautiful, shoots film, will never be obsolete because a newer model has been introduced… and will probably never give up on you. Oh, your Minolta XK will never do digital pictures, of course<br> ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now