Pentax k1000 or Minolta SRT 102?

[micah_pepper]

<p>I've always had an interest in 35mm film photography but have yet to buy an slr camera. I've researched these two a lil bit but I am open to other suggestions. Price does play an important part in the camera but i don't wanna sacrifice on quality. Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus seem to be available for reasonable prices and not stuck in the collectible price hikes like Nikon or Canon but i'm lost amongst the variations. Your recommendations would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[mark_medin]

<p>I own an SRT 102 and am thus biased. It's a very good camera and sells cheaply, but it requires a 1.35v battery. You can make a zinc-oxide battery work, but they don't last that long. I owned a different Pentax years ago (an MX) and liked it very much. A K1000 isn't as good as a KX (no MLU, which most SRT 102s have and the viewfinder info is way better on an SRT 102), and I don't know how the prices of Pentax K-mount lenses are going. I think a Minolta will be cheaper overall simply because of the lenses being less expensive. Olympus cameras are another good choice as well. A Canon like the FTb wouldn't be that expensive, either, and the FD-mount lenses are sometimes even less expensive than Minoltas. You may have more options than you think.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Canon FD system > Minolta SRT 102 > K1000.</p>

<p>I like Pentax but the K1000 is a basic budget camera that is no match for the fit and finish and engineering of a good Canon or Minolta mount. The only reason I put the Canon higher than Minolta is that the FD lenses are superb, cheap and pretty available.</p>

<p>Have you considered a Konica T3? Great cameras and lens systems -- forever underrated. Pretty cheap as well. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>The K1000's price can be a bit out of proportion to its usefulness because it's so popular for students, and I don't find it any better than a good Minolta, but it's been made more recently and if you find a good sample on the used market it's a very good camera. Personally I like the Minolta because I like the lenses, and the SRT series has a really good feeling solid construction. The Olympus OM series is a quality smaller camera, which many people prefer. When they were first introduced they were significantly smaller and lighter than other commonly available 35mm SLRs. (The later Minolta XD series cameras are about the same size but are sometimes a bit more expensive.) You wouldn't be going wrong with any of the options mentioned already.</p>

<p>Are any of the lenses of particular interest to you?</p>

[micah_pepper]

<p>Your suggestions are helpful. I mainly mentioned the K1000 because its one i've commonly heard for starting photography. I'm not really locked between those two, but mainly searching for good camera suggestions so the more recommendations the better. The lenses i'll mainly plan on using is the general multiuse lenses like the 50mm but i would enjoy an affordable variety eventually.</p>

[machts gut]

<p>The main advantage of the K1000 is that you still get batteries for it. For the Minolta, like the Canon Ftb or the Olympus OM-1, you have to look for replacements. Possible but not convenient. Another advantage can be that you can use K-mount lenses on Pentax DSLRs. But this may not be important for you. All of these cameras and the lenses of these brands are very good.</p>

[mark_medin]

<p>I didn't understand if you were looking for a basic, match-needle mechanical camera, or is something with electronic control acceptable? Personally, for a first camera I'd go all mechanical, but if you don't mind electronics (it simplifies the battery issue tremendously), then the Olympus cameras from the OM-2 on look better, as do some later Canons (A series) and Minoltas (XE and XD series, the XE-7 being a lovely chunk of metal and having tailed off in price lately). Since cost is a factor, I'd suggest you look at the price of lenses you intend to get (look at completed auctions to get an idea of this) and let that drive your decision, rather than the camera body.</p>

[micah_pepper]

<p>I didn't really have pure mechanical as a limitation, as long as its fully manual. I think i'd probably prefer purely mechanical but if that plays a big factor its not a big deal either way. I dont really know how big an issue the battery thing is, if i have to replace an obscure battery a lot then that might not be ideal. What lenses go with each type of camera? I know the Minolta has Rokkor lenses but i dunno about the rest?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>For the Minolta, MC or MD type lenses. (MD lenses are newer and if you get a newer camera that has S or P mode, MD is needed to use S or P.) Pentax uses K mount lenses and the Canon uses FD lenses. There are older Pentaxes that use M42 "thread mount" lenses that are compatible with a few camera brands. There are also Nikons, which use F mount lenses but they're a bit more expensive and a bit more complicated as they changed some parts on the mount and older (pre-AI) equipment is not necessarily compatible with newer (AI/AIS) equipment.</p>

[maderik]

<p>The replacement batteries for the older mechanical SLRS are not that obscure - you can get the Wien cell version in many photo stores. They just don't last as long for casual use.</p>

<p>All of the brands and models really only have slight differences for most uses so buy the one that you can find in the best condition in your price range. Almost any 70's or 80's SLR you buy will probably need the foam seals replaced on the back and in the mirror box, so if you can find one where this has been done, you'll be better off. Canon FD and Minolta MD bodies and lenses tend to be less expensive because the lenses are difficult to adapt to digital.</p>

<p>Some models to avoid: since you want metered manual, skip the Minolta XG-[1-9] but the later X-370/X-700 are OK. The Canon A-series is notorious for a squeal in the mirror assembly and broken battery compartment doors. The electronics of the late 70's cameras can be iffy as well (e.g. Olympus OM-2 before the OM-2n, Canon A-1). The low-end mechanical cameras (e.g., Pentax K1000, Minolta SRT-100 and 101, Canon TL/TX) only have center microprism focus screens instead of split image. </p>

 

[rustys pics]

<p>I've used both. I far prefer the Minolta. Some of the later K1000 models were made in Taiwan and fall apart. They started using plastic parts. The Minolta will have mirror lock up, and the meter is more accurate. As mentioned, the Wein Cells are NOT hard to find. I just bought one at my local camera store yesterday for around $6. And I have to say the Minolta Rokkor lenses I've used have been just superb! Even the later plastic ones have amazing resolution. Pentax are great too, but the Minolta SRT series is a rugged classic. And the Minolta lenses are cheaper. The Pentax lenses can be pricey because they work on current Pentax and Canon DSLRs pretty easily.</p><div></div>

[mark_medin]

<p>The Wein cell is not obscure, just a bit expensive and slightly higher in voltage, leading to either adjusting the pots or changing film speed to compensate. I use 675 zinc-air hearing aid batteries simply because I use them in my Miranda, they're cheap and most 625 sized battery compartments can be made to fit them.</p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>Minolta SRTs are great cameras - absolute workhorses. As has been mentioned earlier, the lenses are excellent and can be had for very little on places like ebay. The Minolta CLC metering system is very reliable and accurate. I used to have an SRT-100X that I'd probably still have if it hadn't been stolen. However, if "mechanical" isn't essential, you should also consider an Olympus OM-2n - a pro-quality camera, compact and lightweight, no battery issues (uses standard silver cells), fabulous viewfinder, and when set to manual, offers a simple needle exposure readout like the classic OM-1. If/when you're ready to expand your photographic repertoire, the OM-2n will give you superb TTL flash metering and close-to-unique low light metering capability on auto. Add in full system support (screens, backs, motordrives, macro, flash) and access to a huge range of world class Zuiko optics. The only downside is that the lenses tend to be more expensive then equivalent (and equally good) Minolta MDs or Canon FDs, although, since they're "obsolete" manual focus, they're still bargains.<br /> BTW Russ Rosener - beautiful pic.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>The SR-T 102 is one of my favorite cameras and is an outstanding performer, provided everything is working properly. If it's not, it's a pretty easy camera to work on. I use Wein Cells in mine with great results and they're not hard to find. If you can't find them in a camera store then you can buy them on ebay fairly easily and cheaply in significant numbers. Another great mechanical camera choice is the Canon FTb/FTbn. It's built like a tank and also performs beautifully. For electronic manual focus, look at the Minolta XD11 and as Mark Medin suggested, the Minolta XE-7, an amazingly smooth and pleasing camera to use. Olympus's OM-2n is also a great choice for an electronic camera while their mechanical OM-1 is also a wonderful camera.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I see some serious problem here as you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'm lost amongst the variations</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and then</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the more recommendations the better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have to try them and make your choice yourself</p>

 

[capitalq]

<p>Micah: You may already know these cameras but in case you haven't seen some of them... </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Here's the gorgeous OM-1. Quirky control layout but still a design masterpiece from Olympus. But the Zuiko lenses are not as available as MD/MC or FD lenses.</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>There are several Canon FD mounts to pick from. But my favourite is the F-1. The first serious competitor to Nikon on the pro market. Now they're pretty cheap to come by -- and unlike most other FD bodies, it has a removable prism. </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Here's a black (beat-up) Konica T3. Great camera and the lenses are fairly available and cheap. </p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I'm a Nikon user in the last 35 years, and also Olympus in the last 5 years, but I highly recommend the most beautiful, small and solid film camera, the Olympus OM-1 or -2. I have 5 of them and using a OM-1(with a 35mm Zuiko) and OM-2 (with a 135mm zuiko) all the time if I using film. with the motor-winder they are very comfortably and solidly fitting on my hand and working with them is a joy. Mind you, Olympus has the biggest view-finder ever designed with a camera. You has to look through the Olympus and any other cameras, then you going to realize what I'm talking about. Olympus lenses made like Zeiss lenses.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Addendum; I using the Motor-winder with the Olympus as a hand-grip, because the camera so small, in this way I can hold the camera more stable. Olympus Zuiko lenses still available plenty at eBay, -where I bought all of my Olympus, and reasonable priced. And as I said, they are make like Zeiss lenses, solid, smooth and sharp.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>And finally, the venerable Nikon F (photomic). This is the camera that established the reputation of the Japanese SLR industry post WW2 and paved the way for all that followed. The Nikkor lenses are a bit pricier but the bodies are fairly cheap. I recently picked one up (minus lens) for $50. </p>

<p>Also, don't let the battery availability issue phase you. The beauty of all -mechanical cameras is that they don't need the battery to operate, and will continue to do so for another 30 years. If the internal meter is not working, just use a handheld meter.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I must agree with Capital Q; the Canon F-1 is most certainly one of the all-time greats. It usually sells for a fairly hefty price compared to the others, but it's worth the investment in my opinion.</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>I highly recommend the Minolta XE 7 great great camera very smooth shutter cocking & much better build quality than the K 1000 or SRT,it was made when Minolta was working with Leica!</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>The old classics are just boxes to hold the film, but I always loved my Minoltas. <br>

A simple way to deal with a camera that used Mercury batteries: <br>

http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/mercurybattery.html<br>

So don't let batteries be an issue...</p>