Minolta XK - X1 - XM

[cadillacmike]

<p>What do you all think of the XK (AKA X1 & XM)?<br>

I think it was a very well made camera, but it had three flaws. The original AE Finder was way too bulky and they didn't offer a detachable Motor Drive. You could either get it with NO motor capability or a permanently attached motor?!?!? And it took them a while to get the motor version out. The thirs flaw was only a single no-battery shutter speed (remember F3 hadn't been introduced yet with its only 1 no battery speed - while even the new F-1 had SIX no battery speeds).<br>

As a result pros didn't adopt it in anywhere near the numbers of Canon or nikon, and I guess Minolta gave up the pro market after that.<br>

XKs seem to go for good money still, but not like a mint F-1, although that 58mm F1.2 - any version is ludicrous as far as pricing goes, and it's not even an ashperical lens!?! I prefer Canon, but am thinking of finding a nice XK and that 58/1.2 MC Rokkor-X PG.<br>

Ok - let the comments fly.</p>

[rdm]

<p>i wish more Minolta had removable or interchangeable prisms</p>

[dave_green5]

<p>I owned an XK for a while. I think that, in addition to the issues you pointed out, the camera simply wasn't that good ergonomically speaking. It was nowhere near as good on ergonomics as the XE-7 and the SRT-202 that were available during the same timeframe.</p>

<p>One of the main offenders was the auto-sensing meter switch was sort of balky and poorly located - nowhere near as good as the later implementation on the XK-motor and XD series that used the shutter button.</p>

<p>The other problem was that only the AE finders had metering - Canon already had metering in the body that was useable with the other finders, and Nikon would very shortly do the same with the F3. I think that the root of all of these problems was the fact that Minolta was not yet comfortable basing an entire new pro system around the relatively untested new SBC meter cell technology, even though they saw it coming and about to displace CdS. </p>

<p>Once SBC cells were standard, a whole range of new technologies followed immediately, that depended upon the speed of SBC cells, including off the shutter curtain metering during exposure, which also in turn led to TTL flash metering. </p>

<p>If Minolta had waited one more year, and built SBC metering into the body, and offered an interchangeable motor drive, the XK would have been a winner.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>As I recall, the reason Minolta made the XKM, rather than have a detachable motor drive for the XK, was Minolta's belief at the time that the mechanical coupling between the body and a separate motor drive was not strong enough to withstand the torque produced by the motor. So, rather than risk having the part break and having unhappy customers, they made a separate body with integrated motor drive.</p>

<p>You have to remember that when the XK and XKM came out, motor drives were something new. A couple of years later, Minolta felt comfortable with separate motor drives.</p>

[dave_green5]

<p>Nikon and Canon had both been producing motor-drives for their professional cameras for at least a decade prior to the XK - including motors that shot as fast as 9 FPS with either a pellicle mirror or the mirror locked up. I am aware that Minolta had that belief, but quite frankly, Nikon and Canon had long since proven that belief to be incorrect, and Minolta's stubbornness/lateness to the game on that score was one of the main reasons that they failed to become a player in the pro market. </p>

<p>It was a solid decade more before Minolta ever produced a separate motor that shot even a mere 3.5 FPS. Lack of competitiveness on motor drives was one of Minolta's fundamental product shortcomings throughout their existence.</p>

<p>That being said, I think that the Minolta philosophy of separate bodies for motorized and non-motorized use would still have been viable had Minolta brought out the XK Motor body at the same time as the base XK, rather than over a full year later. By then, the horse had left the barn, as no working pro was going to switch from Canon or Nikon to Minolta without the Motor Drive body being available. Too bad, as an XK Motor with an AES finder was, IMHO, the single most capable 35mm pro-class camera ever made. I lusted after one in the mid 1970s, although I was just a teenager, and it's > $1000 pricetag at the time was way outside my budget. Even today, they still sell for over $1000 on the used market, due to scarcity.</p>

[fmueller]

<p>From the perspective of a second hand buyer, the XK/XM/X1 series has never been very attractive to me. My fascination with the Minolta manual focus system was always that you could pick up superb cameras and lenses for very little money. While the XK/XM/X1 series does not lack in quality, it has always commanded a price far above the rest of the Minolta manual focus system. I was never prepared to pay that. But I did have three different versions of a 58/1.2 at some stage ;-)</p>

[dave_green5]

<p>There's no way to rationalize an XK body with AE finder for $250-300 nowadays when one can pick up a beautiful XE-7 or XD-11 for $60-80</p>

[timb196]

<p>I will admit to having somewhat an obsession with the xk series. I have shot with the Nikon f1 but not the Canon. Minolta did introduce some technical achievements with the XK series including the CDC exposure (ok well it came out in the SR 100+ series) and a bunch of screens. Personally I find the ergonometrics between the f1 and the xk to be insignficant. The grip switch tuned out to be a problem more in reliability than in design. Metering overall I found to be better than the Nikon with better ability to handle highlights. It was and is a very flexible camera. The AES finder was a considerable improvement and the inclusion of the waist-level finder allowed for some some interesting "covert" uses as well as differing angles. It was and is at home equally in the studio as outside.<br>

Reliability of the body was never a question. Reliability of the finder however was another question. The mirror arrangement was subject to slippage from age and general banging around.<br>

All that said, the xk motor at 4.5 FPS was capable of very good high speed photography and the shutter sound had a crispness to it. The XK motor IMO weakest link was the motor drive battery covery which is very easy to break.<br>

Until the 9000 and Maxxum 9 came out, the XK was the only series that represnted the pro-level quality, Minolta did not produce that level of camera very often and generally it was decades in between. The MLU feature was not somethng that Minolta incorporated very often</p>

[craig_h1]

<p>I had one for awhile. I didn't mind the bulk, but having the meter is the prism instead of the body was a major mistake. Also if I remember correctly when putting the AE prism back on, you had to have the shutter speed knob set correctly. If not it would not work. Nikon had that perfected in the 60's.<br>

Craig</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I would loved to have seen Minolta use the XK shutter in XE body- maybe call it an XE-9 or XE-K or whatever. As great as the XE-7, XE-5 were, it would have been awesome to have an XE with a 1/2000 second top shutter speed.<br>

BTW, the XK Motor wasn't Minolta's first venture into motor driven cameras. There was also the SR-M. Essentially it was a meterless SRT with built-in motor.</p>

[timb196]

<p>The XK was a contemporary of the both the NIKON F2 and The Canon F1<br>

F2<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F2">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F2</a><br>

F1<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_F-1">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_F-1</a></p>

<p>the similarities between the F2s and the XK ergonmetrically are obvious. All of these had detachable/removeable finders . Each of which had good points and bad points. The XK is removed by a single button but does require that you cock a lever before inserting a new finder. if you forgot this then the finder would go into a "terminal" mode until the lever was reset. Hassies can do the same thing if you forget to cock the shutter. This was something that could be recovered from. Of the three cameras , the XK had the more advanced metering and also had exposure comp. I think the Nikon had that but not sure about the Canon (exposure comp as in +/- some reduction in the stop value).It also metered to 6400.<br>

All of these cameras had 250 shot back for their motor drives. (I have one for the XK). Personally I think the finder on the Nikon was just as bulky as the xk. I think finding a mint XKmotor would be above that of a mint f1 and the f1.2 may not be aspherical but at f2 it gets blindingly sharp (I have both the 58 and the 50mm version)</p>

<p> </p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>That's not enough comments folks. <br>

I have never used an XK, but examined them in the 70s. The F-1s meter was just as capable as the XKs (acknowledging the XK AE mode). Canon's Servo EE Finder was even bulkier than the XK and needed either a battery pack or Motor Drive MF to power it, but the F-1 ergonomics were the best of the three available (Canon F-1, nikon F2, Minolta XK. we won't even get into the nikon F2 kludge of an AE add-on which actually turned the aperture ring!?!?!<br>

Nikon had the fastest MD, but only if you locked the mirror up ?!?!?!? Canon had the best expansion of motorized photography, interval timer, remotes, wireless controller, etc... I think the F-1's ergomics were slightly better than XKs which in turn was better than the F2, which at the XKs release still could not index a lens. You didn't need exposure compensation on the F-1, the circle was exactly 1 stop wide so you do it all in the finder. All F-1 versions cannot be beat for manual metering ease and information provision.<br>

But what really set Canon apart was its Booster T Finder and Speed Finder - both with metering using the built in meter. Speed Finders are GREAT.</p>

 

[dave_green5]

<p>Well, the F-1's metering may have been up to the level of an XK with an AE finder, an XK with an AES finder was the best of all.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>Try to find an XK with an AE-S finder!<br>

New F-1s had the XK beat by a mile...</p>

[dave_green5]

<p>If you are looking for a motor drive, every XK Motor I've ever seen had an AE-S finder. And frankly, I'd never buy a camera of this caliber and bulk that DIDN'T have a motor drive. The only XK I ever lusted after was an XK Motor with AE-S finder.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>If my repairman had a better opinion of the XK I might have bought one. I wanted a camera with interchangeable finders. In this category I now have two Canon F-1s, an F-1n, a Nikon F2 and eight Bronicas. Of these I use the F-1s the most. Of my many Minolta SLRs the most pleasant ones to use are probably the X-700s. Their motors and winders are fairly compact. The viewfinder is very bright, the meter is sensitive and the TTL flash tops things off. </p>

[dave_green5]

<p>The X-570/500 is even better than the X-700 - at least for serious users. It has a very well executed metered-manual mode, which the X-700 lacks. All that the X-570/500 lacks compared to the X-700 is program mode. IMHO, metered-manual is MUCH more valuable than program mode. The two cameras are otherwise feature identical.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>The XKs sensiswitch was another PITA. Most cameras at the time had a meter on - off switch. it wasn't until the late 70s that the meter switch was incorporated into the shutter release. Canon AE-1 was one of the first. I'm always leaving the meters ON on my older cameras - not good for battery life.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I've seen the X-570 and I still prefer the X-700. Most of the time when I'm shooting print film I want to add some exposure. On the X-700 I'lll either use the exposure compansation dial or I will just tilt the camera down a little, lock the reading, tilt back up and shoot.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>XK - now X-70 vs X-570. Keep the thread going. <br>

AE-S finder was pretty much made for the motor version since it was "faster" and could theoretically keep up with the motor drive on AE.<br>

Sure... I've not had much problems with an F-1 with a Motor Drive MF with match needle metering, so i don't put much credence in that, especially with the F-1's 12% central area metring. You could meter your subject in the 12% area and follow the subject with the motor and everything will turn out fine!<br>

And then i could take the motor drive off later!!!</p>