Minolta SRT vs Pentax K1000

[phil_prater]

Am looking of a low end camera to use for nature, birds, ect. in my

boat. Not really interested in exposing my EOS stuff to the salt

water environment in the Texas bay system. The SRT Minoltas and the

Pentax K1000 seem to be the most readily available, and lenses are

not hard to come by for either one. Any comments on which of these

cameras might do a better job, take rough treatment better, etc.etc.

Thanks for all comments

Phil Prater

[don_baccus]

Well, the old Minolta SRTs might well sink your boat. They're rugged, well-built, mechanical cameras. The Pentax K1000 seems like fluff in comparison.

 

Still, I don't think you can necessarily presume that such old cameras will do better in salt water than your modern stuff. Corrosion on salt water is a serious problem, and you need to be careful and ready to clean your gear no matter what you have.

 

Of course, perhaps you're looking at the older stuff as being disposable. Well, perhaps for the bodies and common, shorter-length lenses. But if you're serious about shooting birds, lenses you can buy for these systems won't fall into the disposable income range (where you actually expect to dispose of the item as well as the income!)

[bobatkins]

You might want to check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0001EB">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0001EB</a> which is about older equipment.

<p>

Really you might be better off getting "all risks" insurance on your EOS stuff and using that, especially if you have any of the longer IS lenses to use when shooting from the boat.

[bill_horn2]

I have been in similar situations where my equipment was in peril due to existing conditions. Bob, could you elaborate on "all risks" insurance? Adding my (considerable investment) photo gear as a rider to my home-owners policy is cost prohibitive. Or, possibly an old thread which I missed addresses this issue? BTW Phil, I keep a Nikon FE-2 on hand for the "dangerous" assignments. It's manual, reliable and has endured 16 years of use.

[Hector Javkin]

<i>Adding my (considerable investment) photo gear as a rider to my home-owners policy is cost prohibitive.</i>

<p>

Prohibitive? The last time I checked, we were paying about $20 per thousand per year for an all-risk rider to our home-owner's policy.

[craig_gillette]

I carried and used an SRT-102 for three years on sea duty while in the Navy. It worked well without any particularly care beyond keeping it out of direct spray as much as possible and drying as quickly as possible. It is isn't weatherproof by any means and won't take immersion. However it seemed to go for years with no special care. It now, after about 20 years of intermitent use, needs some cleaning, adjustments, and possibly shutter repairs but other than battery issues, if I shake loose the bucks to rehab it, I would expect it to go back to being very reliable.

[larry h.]

I love my SRT-102. It has mirror-lockup, multiple exposure and depth-of-field preview (the last being very user-friendly -- you depress the button and the lens locks in stopped down mode -- later models and some competing models require you to keep holding down the DOF button). I use it for astrophotography, mostly.

 

That being said, you mostly need to decide on what lenses you need/want. Bob's link will tell you most everything you will need to know. But consider that Minolta's longest, fastest MC/MD lenses were a 200mm/2.8 and a 300mm/4.5, I think. By contrast, there's a Canon FD 300mm/2.8 for sale in the classified section right now for $800 and the Canon FTb's are roughly equivalent to the Minolta SRTs, Nikkormats, OM1s, and K1000s out there. So buy the camera based mostly on what lenses you may need. But also consider battery availability and other factors. Still, I agree with Bob -- all risk insurance may be your best bet, but on the other hand, you may want to just keep the older system locked up in the boat all the time.

[bobatkins]

I'm not sure exactly what "all risks" coverage covers. It certainly covers you if you drop the camera overboad. If it slowly degrades due to sea spray and eventually you have to get it repaired, I'm not so sure you'd be covered. Check with your insurance company/agent.

[bill_oneill]

The Minolta SRT line has some really nice cameras. The Pentax K1000 is a very basic item indeed. The older K1000's (made in Japan) are better built and should easily last as long as the very well built SRT's. I would avoid a newer K1000 and then make my decision based on what lenses I could find and afford. Also note that Pentax K series lenses will work on their latest bodies so there may be a better chance of being able to sell the Pentax stuff in the future. In that vein, there are some very fine Pentax SLR's other (and better) than the K1000 that you might consider (MX, ME Super, K2, Super Program, the A series, the P series) that all have compatibility with both the newer bodies and glass and the older stuff. All can be had at very reasonable prices used. The K1000 tends to have a relatively inflated price as it is used as the standard camera by so many photography schools.

[christian deichert]

"The K1000 tends to have a relatively inflated price as it is used as the standard camera by so many photography schools."

<BR><BR>

Bill is right on the money. The rest of the story is that the SR-T is an excellent product, as is the Minolta manual focus product overall. However, it doesn't have an inflated value (one might even call it a deflated value), and there's three reasons why:

<BR><BR>

1. Minolta changed the mount when it introduced AF. As a result, many manual focus Minolta users dumped their gear in lieu of AF gear, be it Minolta or otherwise.

<BR><BR>

2. Minolta has neglected the manual focus market as far as promotion is concerned in favor of AF.

<BR><BR>

3. Of the three 35mm market leaders (Canon, Nikon, and Minolta), while many pros and serious amateurs will debate whether Nikon or Canon is better, they will usually agree that both are better than Minolta, primarily because Minolta tends to forsake the pro market and focus on consumers.

<BR><BR>

Is this a bad thing? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Here in the real world, all these things mean is that the market for used Minolta manual focus gear is INSANELY cheaper than Canon's or Nikon's (and Pentax's for the reasons Bill mentioned). Other than my Mamiya TLR, my system is entirely Minolta manual focus (X-series and SR-T cameras), and it's pretty sizeable. Had I chosen Canon, Nikon, or Pentax, my system would either be twice as expensive or half as big (or possibly both).

<BR><BR>

In short (too late), buy the SR-T. In the long and short run, it's a better deal.

[josh_berezin]

A little off topic --<p>

If you do end up getting an SR-T, the manual for the 200-series is <a href="http://www.snapnet.com/minolta/srt/2xxmanual/">here</a>.<p>

I bought an SR-T 201 for my sister on eBay a couple of weeks ago, and shot a roll of film through it yesterday. It's a nice, solid-feeling mechanical camera, if about twice as big as my Pentax ME Super.

[christian deichert]

One more thing -- if you end up getting the SR-T, I'd suggest an SR-T 101, 102, 202, or 203, as all of these have DOF preview and mirror lock-up (except for the XK, these were the last Minoltas to have MLU -- even the new Maxxum 9 only offers mirror pre-fire). Most if not all of these models should also have a mechanical self-timer.

[larry h.]

To elaborate on what my fellow Atlantan said, if you want mirror lockup, be careful when buying an SRT. Some of the later SRT 102s did NOT have MLU. I would presume the same was true of the 101s. I'm not sure that I can make this a blanket statement, but I think most of the 20x series did not have MLU, but I think the 303 did. So my advice is to ask the seller or check a photo of the specific camera in question: the MLU is a small silver 'knob' on the self-timer side of the camera's lens mount box.

[larry h.]

Oh yeah, some of the later SRTs (I'm not sure which ones) had a depth-of-field preview where you had to keep depressing the DOF button. With my earlier 102 (circa 1975), you press the button once to stop down the lens and you press it again to open it back up. On the 102, you also get a split-image rangefinder, aperture readout in the viewfinder and multiple exposure capability. In short, I recommend an earlier SRT 102 with MLU and user-friendly DOF preview.

[mph]

<blockquote>I'm not sure exactly what "all risks" coverage covers. It certainly covers you if you drop the camera overboad. If it slowly degrades due to sea spray and eventually you have to get it repaired, I'm not so sure you'd be covered. Check with your insurance company/agent.</blockquote>

 

Well, sounds like that would be the time to go drop the camera overboard, then.

[steven_c._gibson]

Just an interesting sidebar. I once took apart an SRT101 and was amazed to see that the aperature ring, shutter speed dial, and the match needle exposure meter were all linked together with a very thin thread routed around inside the camera using pulleys. Thus, when either the aperature or shutter speed were changed, the match needle in the viewfinder would be moved. Interesting approach in a pre electronic era.

[bob_ternes]

The keywords in most insurance policies are, "sudden and accidental"

[timothy_breihan1]

The biggest problem with the SRT, though it is a wonderful camera, is the fact that the meters tend to fail. This is due to the manner in which the metering cells are attached to the pentaprism. Minolta used a type of epoxy to glue the cells on that, with age, turns yellow or brown and therefore impedes the ability of the meter to correctly ascertain the light coming in through the lens. The other problem with the Minoltas is the fact that few long lenses were available for these systems when new, so finding them on the used market is virtually impossible. Try a Nikon F2 Photomic (cheap, though the meters are again unreliable, non-AI only) or perhaps an FM or FE (getting more expensive). There are also the Canon F1s, which have fallen considerable in price and are excellent, reliable cameras with a great selection of telephotos.

[daniel_haden]

A Minolta SRT or Pentax K1000 would be better to accidently drop off into the ocean than your EOS system. But, why on earth not consider a used EOS 1000 or early model EOS Rebel? It will not cost any more than an SRT or K1000. You can use a Rebel as a backup camera to your current EOS system, and if you drop it in the ocean, a replacement is only $99. The vertical travel Copal shutter and shock reduced mirror in the Rebel will give you sharper pictures than either SRT or K1000. If you drop an SRT or K1000 it will surely break. The meter in an SRT will go out and the K1000 will come apart. However an early EOS Rebel can be dropped, sat on, sprayed with water or champagne. You can help a camera withstand salt spray by waxing it with vinyl treatment like Formula 2001.

You can also put a ziplock over the camera body with a hole cut out for the lens and viewfinder. This will retard water sprays.