I got a Minolta SRT 101 (and my first telephoto lens)

[lonnie_paulson3]

<p>Just wanted to tell you there is no difference in exposure when switching to different lens focal lengths. The reason why is the f/stop number. The physical diameter of an f/8 on your 135mm lens is larger than the physical diameter of your 50mm lens. So when your light meter says 1/125 at f/16 you can use that same exposure for any focal length lens. 8mm fisheye to 2000mm lens, it does not matter. The f/stop is the ratio or fraction of the focal length of your lens. If you have a 50mm f/2 lens it would take two diameters of f/2 to equal the 50mm focal length. So the physical size of f/2 on a 50mm lens would be 25mm.<br>

I also collect cameras. I have three Minolta SRT-101 and also have a 201.<br>

Stop by my website sometime. <a href="http://www.lonniepaulson.com">www.lonniepaulson.com</a></p>

 

[david_barts2]

<p>When thinking about apertures and f/ numbers, it's good to think of the relationship between field-of-view and light-gathering ability. A wide-angle lens gathers light from a broader field of view than a telephoto. Therefore, assuming an evenly-lit scene, the wide lens will map more light onto the film plane for a given aperture diameter as measured in mm.</p>

<p>Hence, aperture diameters are not expressed in mm. They are expressed in terms of ratios to lens focal lengths, to automatically compensate for this greater light-gathering ability of wide lenses. So a lens set at f/8 gathers the same amount of light in a given interval, regardless of its focal length. F/ numbers are algebraic expressions, where f is a variable that stands for the focal length.</p>

[patrick_stack]

<p>Andrew Lynn -</p>

<p>You are correct, when older cameras are acquired we do often get into them, for at least minor service and adjustment. I have found some lend themselves to adjustments/modifications better than others, the OM-1's and some others were not a consistent exposure value across the scale, when adjusted for the higher battery voltage. When adjusted to accuracy in the mid-range, the higher and lower settings were off by as much as nearly 1 stop. Not a huge amount, certainly you can chart the variation and make manual exposure corrections as you go through the scale.</p>

<p>In fairness to the SRT's, I never even had the tech check how far off the meters might be, they may well have been quite close. I simply ordered the adaptors and had the cameras final tuned with them on board. I'm probably a bit obsessive about anything mechanical, I try to make it as right as possible. My neighbors love it when I completely break down, if my lawnmower doesn't start on the first pull.</p>

<p>Meter calibration adjustment is certainly an acceptable method, when using the later battery chemistry with higher voltage. I only cited the battery adaptor as an alternative, perhaps resulting in a bit better accuracy for the meters' full range. It does seem a bit hard though, to accept spending more for the unit than the initial price of the camera. Ah, what we do for our toys, eh?</p>

<p>Patrick </p>

[mark_medin]

<p>That's truly a good price for that 101 with 2 lenses and an original case. I did as well getting a brassy XE-7 and two lenses w/bag for the same. The Vivitar should be a good lens - my brother and I used an M42 version of it for action photos years ago and it worked well enough for us to sell the results to magazines. B/W seems its forte, but it'll do pretty well w/color. If you find it not to your taste, you can find a Minolta telephoto. They really are cheap now. There's a lot of nice Minolta glass, and only when you get outside the 24/2.8 on the wide end, or some of the more exotic lenses will you even have to pay over $100. The battery thing can be a problem but I use the 675 zinc-air with good results, just adjusting ASA to compensate.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>Ok, I just shot a roll of Kodak Gold 200 this afternoon. I went out at about 3:00, but I probably should have waited a little while longer because I think the light was still too strong. The colors weren't as good as I had hoped, but I know from past experience that it's because the sun was still too high. <br /><br />It actually looks like the light meter on the camera was pretty much right on. I checked with my Weston hand held meter, and they usually were both recommending the same shutter speed and aperture settings. It also matched up pretty well with what I would have guessed if I were using the Sunny 16 rule. <br /><br />If anything, the camera's meter is <em>maybe </em>overexposing just a little bit, like maybe 1 stop. But I think it was more because I was shooting at the wrong time of day. The sun is really strong in California. I ran into this same problem last year, when I was trying to take pictures of wildflowers in the hills, and the colors came out dull. In fact, it was exactly 1 year ago...in March, 2008. I thought 3:00 would be a good time for landscape photos, but the sun was still too strong and I guess I have to wait until later, or get up early in the morning.<br>

But I think, considering the lighting conditions, it looks like the light meter on the camera is pretty close. <br /><br />I got the film developed at Walmart (yeah, I know!)...but they actually did a pretty good job this time. It really depends on who is working in the photo lab. There is one guy working there that does a great job, and my pictures always seem to come out better when he's there. The negatives look super clean, with no scratches or spots. I had them scan the pictures onto a cd. I mainly was just playing around with the camera anyway, just to test it.<br /><br />Here are a few of the pictures I took, just some of the ones that I thought were better. Like I said, the colors are a little bit washed out I think because of the harsh lighting. But overall, it seems like the camera is working fine.<br /><br />I think I've posted pictures of this before. But this is the famous Arrowhead landmark on the slope of the San Bernardino Mountains (in southern California). Believe it or not, it's actually a natural formation! There's a plaque in a park neaby. You can actually see the arrowhead mark on the mountain in the distance.<br /><br /> <img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/045489-R1-18-6A.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="432" /> <br /><br /><br />If you drive up into the mountains, you can actually get fairly close to the arrowhead. You can see it from the highway...<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/045489-R1-15-9A.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="432" /> <br /><br /> <br />And I took this next picture with the 135mm lens. I've never used a telephoto lens before, so this was pretty cool!<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/045489-R1-08-16A.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="432" /><br /><br /><br />I took this next picture while I still had the telephoto lens on. I was just experimenting with selective focus. I could have used the 58mm lens and a wide aperture, but I was just curious what this would look like.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/gatewaycityca/045489-R1-00-24A.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="432" /><br /><br /><br />So yup, so far I'm having a lot of fun with this camera! I love it! I'm going to take some more pictures later this week, with better light. Also, I think I'm going to have to practice some more with holding the camera with the telephoto lens on. It's a lot heavier and harder to hold steady than I thought! I tried hand holding it a couple of times, but then I used a tripod for most of the pictures. </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Alright! Good shots! Chris the sun doesn't really wash out colors but you are right that it can flatten a landscape at certain times of the day and a lower angle of the sun gives more texture to the scene. A couple things many contribute to your washed out look. There is a fair amount of haze in the SB mountains. I lived in LA for many years and had a cabin in Big Bear. A haze filter will help cut through some of that but a polarizer will cut even more. Make sure your lens is well shielded with a hood (or hat) from the sun and all the bounce light that can occur. Often when images are scanned by a lab, they take a "safe" approach and provide scans where the digital file contains all the scene information, which is good, but it's not optimized. Looking at the histogram at your Arrowhead shot, there is plenty of room left to tighten up the histogram both on the highlight and shadow side to improve contrast and saturation. I took the liberty with your image and posted it below, I hope you don't mind. As you discovered, the 135mm will give great isolation to subjects. The flower shot is very nice.</p><div></div>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Nice shots, Chris! Isn't it a fun camera to use? I've just put another roll in one of my SRT-102s and stuck it in my camera bag with my DSLR (and my Ricoh 500 G) so I can shoot with it on the way to work tomorrow. I'm looking forward to seeing more from your new camera! Nice job Louis!</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>The results from that 135 are very nice. It seems that 135/2.8 is one of those lenses that a number of manufacturers did well. </p>

<p>Just one last remark on meter calibration. Well, all right, two remarks.... First of all, if the meter appears to be overexposing slightly using an alkaline battery, then I would definitely try a silver-oxide, which is just a hair higher, because it might turn out to be dead-on then.</p>

<p>Second, although it's true that recalibration sometimes gives poor results in the outer ranges, if you calibrate your meter for correct exposure using medium speed film somewhere in the middle of your expected daylight exposure value, you'll be so close most of the time that it will hardly matter. You'll be lucky if a meter of that vintage is accurate to better than a half stop, and on a camera that uses stepped shutter and aperture settings, you're always working in full-stop increments. If you're shooting print film, you should probably just relax and enjoy the ride.</p>

<p> </p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Patrick,<br>

I've heard good things about the CRIS adapters... I'm just cheap... I'd actually love to find a way to use the hearing aid batteries in my cameras that require expensive 1.5 silver cells! ;) BTW, the XA is designed for 1.5v batteries if I remember correctly, but since it uses a bridge circuit, it will work with weak batteries and I think I tested running mine with 1.35v batteries and it worked fine as well. It's amazing how quickly electronics changed in just those 6 years!</p>

[danielle_visco]

<p>Hi!<br>

Ok so I am relatively new to 35 mm film cameras and I am in the market of purchasing one. I currently am shooting with digital and I am really looking for a more intimate experience. I want a camera that is older, heavy and fully manual. I have been looking at two that I am especially interested in and I wanted the opinion of more experienced people as to which one I should get. The two I am looking at are the Leica Leitz III (3c) and the Nikon F2. Please help!<br>

I am also fully open to any other suggestions regarding older cameras (a.k.a. which you think are the best, and also I need recommendations for lenses for whichever you choose)<br>

Thank you so much!<br>

p.s. my price range for the camera max. out at 350 dollars.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Leica makes excllent stuff but expensive to collectors and I doubt you can get one with a lens in good working condition for $350. Also it's the last generation of the Leica screwmount so be aware that it's not compatible with the lenses for the M series.</p>

<p>Aside from that, between those two I'd personally go with the Nikon. I find an SLR to be a more useful camera and there are a ton of lenses out there. (Here is where I get yelled at by a Leica fan.) But I still say an SRT if you find one in good condition.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>My battery solution: first buy the Wein cell 625 exact voltage replacement. It is really a 675 zinc air cell mounted in a spacer ring. When this cell is exhausted, gently tap the outer ring until it slips off the cell. Then insert a new 675 zinc air hearing aid battery (cheap in mulitpacks) until it looks like the original Wein cell. Works great. In using one in my SRT 100 right now and it is spot on. You could skip the Wein cell and simply find a #9 size metal ring to go around the 675. Some users of this cell use the #9 O-ring, but I've never tried it with an SRT.</p>

[colby_lamb]

<p>I also have an SRT101, which I just obtained from my deceased father-in-law. I've been inspecting it, and see that it needs a new light seal, but more importantly, the rear curtain is not going all the way up- it stops about halfway. I'm wondering if anyone here could give me some advise about that.<br>

The camera came with a 28MM 3.5 , a 55MM 1.7 (both MC ROKKOR), a 135MM 3.5 AETNA-COLIGON, and a Vivitar Auto 3X.<br>

I'm eager to get this up and running and see how it does against my EOS 7E</p>