Old Minolta MC/MD lenses on mirrorless cameras?

[johnw63]

I was revisiting my old stash of camera gear, and while most of it is Nikon film stuff, I have a few old Minoltas with a couple good lenses. I've see a few web pages that mention using full frame mirrorless cameras with adapters to get pretty good results.

Does anyone have experience with this and have a suggested camera?  It doesn't have to be a new model.

 

 

 

[howardstanbury]

A cheap entry point would be to get a full frame mirrorless camera - perhaps the original Sony A7 or the mark II, which has in-body stabilisation (you can set manually the focal length of the lens).

[SCL]

I've been using the Rokkors for several years on both micro 4/3 bodies (Olympus) and full frame mirrorless (Sony A7rii). I bought both bodies used and they have and continue to serve me well. As to your question though, almost ANY full frame or m4/3  body with inexpensive adapters will be very versatile with vintage lenses of almost any popular manufacturer. In some cases with full frame bodies you can even get autofocus on vintage manual focus lenses using Techart adapters. For instance, I have a Techart autofocus adapter for Leica M mount lenses used on my Sony, and besides both Leica M and screwmount lenses, often use other adapters plugged into it, such as Canon FD->Leica  M mount, Minolta->Leica M mount, Olympus OM ->Leica M Mount, and Contax/Yashica/Zeiss->Leica M mount, allowing autofocus with a large variety of lenses. I've even gone a step further with Pentax M42 adapters->Canon FD->Leica M-Techart so I can autofocus my old Super Takumars

[Niels - NHSN]

If you intend to use lenses from 35mm and wider, I’d recommend a newer BSI sensor as they tend to perform better with adapted wide angle lenses. 
From personal experience, a Nikon Z6 is an excellent platform for adapted lenses of any focal length. The Z6II is a better camera, but not if only considering adapted lenses.

 

[johnw63]

I don't have any wide angle lenses in the small collection I have. Just a 58mm f1.2 and a 135mm f2.8. The camera and lenses also came with a Vivitar zoom from the same time period, a 35-200mm f3-4.5, but I don't expect that to me a lens I will use a lot, unless if gives surprising results.

I see KEH has Sony A7 bodies under $700, so those have my interest. My other camera gear is all somewhat older Nikon, so looking at their mirrorless offerings makes sense, if I can adapt AIS and AF lenses to a Nikon mirrorless body with good results. I don't have the newer AF stuff and use a D7000 because it works will with MF lenses. I just wish NIkon had  a more robust used market in their mirrorless full frame bodies.

 

 

[Ken Katz]

Just for fun I checked KEH mirrorless offerings, and they are selling used Nikon Z5's for just under $1K.  The Sony A7 offerings make a lot of sense for getting a platform to use MF adapted lenses at a good price.  Note that cameras with IBIS will need to be told the focal length of the attached adapted lens in order for IBIS to work correctly, so an adapted zoom would likely require you to turn IBIS off or limit the focal range used. 

[johnw63]

My D7000 lets me put in the focal range of manual lenses. Does the Z5 not have that feature?

 

[Ken Katz]

Don't use Nikon, but have 3 cameras with IBIS.  IBIS needs to know the approximate focal length, or will likely misbehave.  With native lenses, or lenses that electronically communicate with the camera, the info IBIS needs is automatically provided, including zoom settings.  For manual adaptive lenses you will likely need to inform the camera the focal length you are using.

[Niels - NHSN]

16 hours ago, johnw63 said:

 Does the Z5 not have that feature?

 

The Z6 has provision for storing information for up to 20 lenses - that can be assigned to a custom menu and easily be accessed when changing lenses. Take a look in the Z5 manual, I'd imagine it would have the same functionality.

Let me just note that in my experience, the two first generations of SONY mirrorless cameras were not very good with adapted wide angle lenses and best avoided if going wider than 35mm.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 3/5/2023 at 6:02 AM, johnw63 said:

Does anyone have experience with this and have a suggested camera?

Experience yes, as below. Suggested camera? Mirrorless and full-frame? That's going to be expensive, even used. How much do you want to spend? 

I've accumulated quite a collection of 50 to 58mm lenses over the years, and recently decided to find the 'best' one to use on my Mirrorless Sony A7r4. Sadly, not many of them stood up to the test of a 60 megapixel full-frame digital sensor. 

A Minolta P-F 58mm f/1.4 was about the weakest performer - hardly surprising since Minolta tried to squeeze an f/1.4 maximum aperture out of only a 6 element design, when every other maker uses 7 elements. 

So if you want sharpness corner to corner, don't expect to get it from an old film-era lens. Expect 'characterful' and a bit (or a lot!) soft round the edges, and maybe with some colour-fringing thrown in for good measure. 

Here's one of the better examples: A West German Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 Planar (7 element) made for Rollei's venture into the 35mm camera market.

Corner resolution shown top, and centre resolution shown below. 

That's at f/4. Wide open the corners are much softer and a fair bit darker due to vignetting.

The Minolta P-F lens is much, much worse, despite it having quite a few online fans. They must like 'characterful' quite a lot! 

[johnw63]

Rodeo_Joe1,

Thanks for the examples. I hadn't thought about color fringing or how soft old lenses might be at the edges. The Sony A7II is only 24MP, so this may not show up quite as much.  I like the 58mm f1.2 for the wide open or nearly wide open look, so that lens would be soft at the edges on film in that use.

I don't have an issue using the old film Minoltas I have, but the cost of developing and and scanning to digital media.  How many rolls would it take to pay for a $700 mirrorless body would be the logical question, I supposed.

 

Thanks to all for the insights.

 

 

 

[Gary Naka]

On 3/5/2023 at 8:43 AM, johnw63 said:

On 3/5/2023 at 8:43 AM, johnw63 said:

I don't have any wide angle lenses in the small collection I have. Just a 58mm f1.2 and a 135mm f2.8. The camera and lenses also came with a Vivitar zoom from the same time period, a 35-200mm f3-4.5, but I don't expect that to me a lens I will use a lot, unless if gives surprising results.

I see KEH has Sony A7 bodies under $700, so those have my interest. My other camera gear is all somewhat older Nikon, so looking at their mirrorless offerings makes sense, if I can adapt AIS and AF lenses to a Nikon mirrorless body with good results. I don't have the newer AF stuff and use a D7000 because it works will with MF lenses. I just wish NIkon had  a more robust used market in their mirrorless full frame bodies.

 

 

 

The used market comes with time.
You will find the older Z6 and Z7, but less so the newer Z5, Z6-II and Z7-II.

[SCL]

While I don't dispute the edge softness, I'd ask how critical sharpness is to the OP....does he want to merely view on a computer screen, or produce prints  8x12" or even up to 30x40" but viewed from a distance? And most modern software programs have the capability to produce perceived sharpness. As to the cost vis-a-vis film and developing, self scanning to digital...well that's a personal thing, some like it, some don't. I do it for B&W but use my digital bodies for color. Furthermore, I think digital helps many photographers more readily solve the issues they have with taking photographs which meet their criteria as "keepers" than film does (I've been using film since the 1950s). So, yes, I'd encourage the OP to secure a good used digital mirrorless body and get renewed  excitement reusing his Minolta lenses in the digital age. I admit to having done so initially with a M4/3 body and then a newer full frame mirrorless body. While I don't produce exhibition prints, but rather larger canvas prints for decoration.