The Mighty Minolta XK

[capitalq]

<p>I finally acquired one of my dream cameras. I've been lusting after these for quite a while but they're hard to come by and usually very expensive. But I was successful on a bid early this month and just recently got my hands of this significant (and highly underrated) piece of SLR history. </p>

<p>First introduced in 1973, the XK (X-1 in Japan and XM in Europe) was Minolta's answer to Nikon's F2 and the Canon F-1. This was the first (and alas, the last) attempt for Minolta to develop a system camera that could compete with Nikon and Canon in the professional space. And Minolta was serious. The camera offered rugged construction and a titanium shutter with a top speed of 1/2000s. It offered interchangeable finders (I believe the first and last of its kind for Minolta) and multiple prisms. So far so good but materially not too different from the the F2 and the F-1. Where Minolta stole the show was in offering a very innovative aperture-priority AE capability through an electronically governed shutter. This was clearly something Nikon and Canon were unable to offer on their 'professional grade' cameras. The Pentax ES (also introduced in 1973) claimed to be the first camera with a full electronic AE but it wasn't designed as a system camera and was wrongly maligned because of its m42 mount.</p>

<p>So why didn't this innovative camera establish Minolta in the top tier? Because Minolta's engineers and product designers made a critical mistake: they didn't allow for a motor drive in the first iteration. Frankly, it escapes me how the sharp minds at Minolta could have overlooked such an obvious requirement for a system camera designed for professionals (sheesh, Topcon had nailed this concept back in 1963 with the RE Super). But for whatever reason, Minolta missed this point and it really hurt them. To make matters worse, when they did a redesign and introduced a motor drive in 1976, they didn't make it detachable and built it into the body! Thus, this terrible oversight doomed Minolta's first and last foray into the professional market. Shame, really when you consider what might have been. </p>

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

[capitalq]

<p>The XK feels as solid and hefty as the F2 and F-1. Side by side, it is about the same size as the F2 (with the Photomic prism) and larger than the F-1 (with the plain prism). Like the F2, metering is done inside the prism and without the AE-finder, it is simply a meter-less camera. The AE function may not seem like much now but was radically different in 1973. There was a special "sensi-switch" built into the front of the camera beside the timer lever (where your hand would naturally go) which turned the meter on when depressed (see photo above). Interesting ergonomic idea but it was much criticized in its day because if you depressed the shutter button without pressing the sensi-switch the mirror would lock up and would require you to move the shutter dial to X to lower the mirror. Frankly, I don't see it as a huge problem.</p>

<p> </p>

<div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>The XK has the SR-mount so it could use all of the older MC and MD lenses from the past (as well as introducing the new Rokkor-X lenses for use with the new AE capability). The shot above is of the lens release button. For all of you who are familiar with the dinky little lens release button on the SRT bodies, this was a huge improvement. </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>The shot above shows the battery check button and the mount for the accessory hotshoe which fits in above the rewind crank. Unlike the F-1 but like the F2, the XK takes "modern" SR44 alkaline batteries that fit into the base of the camera. And unlike the awkward meter/battery check button placement of the SRT bodies, the battery check button has been moved to the side. Depress the switch and if it lights up red, you're good to go. </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>The shot above shows the prism release button (in silver) and two additional switches. On the finder, the button to the left is the meter switch which can be turned on to override the sensi-switch (but this will drain the battery if left on). The other switch mecahnically closes a curtain over the viewfinder peephole if desired.</p><div></div>

[john_shriver]

<p>Also, copying the ergnomic issues of the Nikon Photomic metered finders wasn't a great idea. Canon F-1 had a better idea with the half-silvered mirror in the focusing screen to take off light for the light meter. Topcon had the in-mirror meter, so they always metered with any finder.<br>

Nikon solved the Photomic problem with the F3 in 1980, where they used a variant on Topcon's mirror-meter idea to get the meter in the camera body. Pentax did the same on the LX.</p>

 

[capitalq]

<p>The shot above shows the ASA dial and the unusual shutter speed dial. As you will note, the shutter speeds range from X to 1/2000s. In Auto mode the camera behaves smoothly. The full-display viewfinder shows the aperture you have manually set on the lens (via the plastic window at the top corner of the prism) and a needle arcs up to the shutter speed the camera decides is appropriate. I understand that in the automatic mode the camera-selected shutter speed is step-less and can use in-between speeds, i.e., 1/350s. In non-auto mode, you turn the shutter speed dial and the user-selected speed will display in the viewfinder and you can use the camera much the same way as a match-needle metered camera. In-between speeds are not possible. </p>

<p>One interesting quirk is the small toggle lever below the shutter speed dial. In auto-mode, the user can toggle the switch left or right to over or under expose by one stop. If more bracketing is necessary, presumably you have to take it off auto-mode.</p>

<p>All very nifty stuff (especially for 1973) but my biggest complaint with the XK is not the lack of a motor winder or the sensi-switch peculiarities. Alas, I simply wish it had more mechanical speeds that are available if the batteries fail. As it is, your only choice is the flash sync speed at X. In this regard, I certainly prefer the F2 and F-1 and even my EF. </p>

<p><br /></p>

<p> </p>

[capitalq]

<p>I agree, John. I've never been a fan of the photomic head (for ergonomic and quality reasons) and prefer Canon's system. But the Topcon/Miranda mirror metering system from the mid-60s was clearly superior to both. I don't know much about the Olympus OM2 but I understand that its off-the-film metering system was the best ever. </p>

[capitalq]

<p>So my first opportunity to test the XK came about a few weeks ago when I was invited to the Maharaja exhibit at the Art Gallery of Ontario. For those who have the opportunity, I highly recommend it. It's large and comprehensive and provides a detailed glimpse into an opulent lifestyle from a bygone era. My only complaint (and I've said this before) is the AGO's policy of not allowing photographs. Well, I brought the camera in anyway and snuck these few shots before they caught up with me... </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>As you can see, the light was very dim and/or concentrated. I used Agfa APX 400 and pushed it two stops to 1600 using D-76. The XK's meter worked accurately without issues and I saw no difference between the auto and non-auto modes. </p>

<p>This next shot is of a fancy carriage used by one of the kings. By this time, the influence of the British raj was being felt and travel by elephant was falling out of favour.</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Later still, horses were replaced by these custom-built decadent machines...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Another view...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>And another...I just fell in love with this car. Funny thing but while the chassis is very long, the passenger compartment is probably smaller than a typical Lincoln Town car. But what it lacks in space is made up with gorgeous wood panels and creamy leather on every surface. </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>We were also treated to a Kathak dance performance...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Here's a shot of where we had cocktails...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>And finally, a shot on the subway after they shooed me away from taking any more photos... </p><div></div>

[david_carroll4]

<p>I agree - what a cool camera. It's up there with my mental list of "cool Pro SLRs - the F-1, F-1N, F2, F3 and LX. As I understand it, Minolta weren't convinced that the mechanical drive linkage between a bolt-on motordrive and the camera body could reliably withstand the stress of motorised film transport, so they punted until they came up with the permanently attached motor version. I don't know why they didn't simply dismantle any of the other available SLRs to see how it was done, but, as you say, a tremendous blunder on their part. I have to question your reference to the F-1 with a "plain finder" - I'm not sure that the F-1 ('71) or the F-1n ('76) used a "plain finder", as in the DE-1 meterless finder in the F2. Although the standard F-1 finder was as compact as the DE-1, the F-1 in this form was equivalent to the F2A, with a match-needle center weighted coupled meter, displaying aperture and shutter speed. While I think the F2/DE-1 is the best looking camera ever, the F-1/F-1n was in many ways a more evolved machine - built-in metering, a combination self timer/DOF/MLU control that has yet to be improved on, and the ability to open the back from the top, rather than from the turn-key on the base plate.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I think the cameras from this era of Minolta House were very handsome. Thanks for sharing.</p>

[howardstanbury]

<p>Another fine presentation of a classic Monolta camera - thanks! I'd love to try out one of these cameras one day, but I'd be surprised if I ever get the opportunity. Also, I never really warmed to the look of the camera; clearly it's a master of function over form. Even so, the brass showing through gives the camera a good workhorse feel.</p>

<p>What film did you use for the pictures? It looks grainy and judging by the dial on the camera it's rated at 1600 ASA. I just ran some Kodak P3200 T-max through my Dynax 7 and boy that was grainy. Of the set here, 'rolls' is very appealing. Nice work, Q!</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Excellent write-up and presentation, <strong>Capita</strong>l, on a camera I'm not at all familiar with. Certainly not the most gracious of old ladies, but obviously a good worker! Great punchy photographs, as usual, of a fascinating display. Thanks for a fine and informative post.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I thought about getting an XK but was talked out of it by my repairman. I had enough Minolta equipment that an XK made sense just on that basis. What worked against the XK for me were the difficulty in finding spare parts and accessories, the reputation for reliability and the layout. I wound up getting a Canon F-1 and then expanded my collection of Canon equipment. The F-1 has a more sleek look with its standard prism than an XK or Nikon F2. The aperture priority automation of the XK is an interesting feature but both the F-1 and the Nikon F2 had servo motors available for shutter priority automation. Neither system was very popular. I have a number of Minolta X-700s. Although the X-700 does not have a removable prism it does have interchangeable screens, TTL flash metering and a very bright viewfinder. As has been mentioned, the Canon F-1 allows you to use all shutter speeds without a battery. Minolta knew about built-in motors because the SR-M of 1970 had the feature. The F-1 will allow you to see its meter settings with the Speed Finder, albeit with lower magnification, but not with the Waist Level finder. That can be inconvenient. If you don't need to remove the prism and don't ned the 1/2000 top shutter speed then a working XE-7 is a good alternative to an XK. the F-1 also has 12 degree metering which is helpful in tricky lighting situations. if I don't need all of the F-1's features I will use an FTbN or an EF. A friend of mine has an XK. I'll see of I can borrow it it get the feel of it.<br>

I heard an interesting story about the XK or XK Motor years ago. These were never big sellers. At some point Minolta stopped making them in batches. There was a supply of new parts and an older woman who was the last person at the company who knew how to assemble the camera. The woman was semi-retired and called in to assemble cameras when there were orders. On this basis the camera remained in the catalog for quite a while. Minolta did not have another camera with the physical presence of the XK Motor until the Maxxum 9 of 1998. That was its last film camera of any consequence. If Minolta had reached an agreement with Honeywell in 1985 before the Maxxum 7000 was released, the company probably never would have merged with Konica and might still be making digital cameras today. <br>

</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>That's a big one! How much does that beast weigh? I like the car shots but the Fancy Carriage is just too cool. Thanks for showcasing the big Minolta. </p>

[riffeym]

<p>Thanks do much CQ for a write up on a great camera! I love the shots especially the car and carriage shots. Those blown highlights in the reflections give them a very dreamlike quality.</p>

<p>Mike :D</p>

[craigd]

<p>Thanks for posting! I've wanted to know more about the XK-7 for a while now, and I think you've answered many of my questions about how it works, how it's different from the Nikon and Canon pro system cameras, and why it wasn't more successful. I have no use for motor drives myself, but then again I'm not a working photojournalist.</p>

<p>The photos you took with the XK-7 are really nice. The light and contrast in the shots of the car and the cocktail lounge is just perfect, and the dance shot is wonderful -- the balance between the clear, well-lit drummer and the shadowed, motion-blurred dancer works very well. I really like the last shot, too, though I'm hard-pressed to say exactly what it is I like most about it. The hand isn't contradicting the message on the door, but somehow the two are in an interesting relationship.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>david - my mistake, i meant to say 'standard' prism for the F-1. you're quite right in stating that the F-1 had a in-body meter that wasn't in the finder. it certainly looks more handsome than the box-top designs from nikon and minolta. but as for more evolved, i'm not quite sure. i have a soft spot for FD gear but the F2 is legendary and i can see why Nikonistas still sing its praises to this day (and it has a cool cameo in 007's diamonds are forever). as for my dream-list, i'm still hunting for that elusive Pentax LX but they're even harder to find than the XK. might i suggest that you add the Topcon RE Super/Super DM to your list of cool pro-SLRs. for a camera that was released almost a decade before the F2, F-1 or XK, it can still hold its own. its angular sharp-edged design is timeless.</p><div></div>