david_w._griffin

Unless you are trying to persuade or document, I don't see

that "authenticity" if it exists has any value at all. After

all, art is art, whether you use paint, sculpture, photography,

or some combination. We all use the medium to distort reality

to match an artistic vision. What difference does it make how

it is achieved?

 

Ok, if you're taking pictures for the Audubon society as part

of an effort to determine if the Siberian tiger is endangered,

then authenticity is important and there should be rules about

what is ok. If you're taking pictures as evidence of a crime

in a court proceeding, ditto. But unless you have a good reason

for needing authenticity, why worry about it. It seems to be

mostly an illusion anyway given the subtle ways photographers

influence their creations.

 

Indeed, rather than demanding labels on photographs when they

are "manipulated" whatever that means, why not ask for them

on photographs which proport to document reality -- why not

ask those photographers for their rules? Why not assume that

a photograph you're looking at is art unless you see some

caption indicating otherwise. At that point, whether you believe

the caption would depend on what you know about the person

who took the picture and/or wrote the caption. Isn't that as

it should be?

The Minolta XK is a ruggedly built camera, but it can have it's

electronics problems if it has been abused (much as the XE-7 and

Leica R3 can have the same kinds of problems). Given the wide range

of quite good older Minolta primes, and cheap prices on bodies

(xd-11 and XE-7 and X-570 for instance) this would seem to be a

bargain. I also use Contax lenses on occasion, and though I am not

photographing on a test bench, I often can't tell the difference in

terms of sharpness. This is on a tripod, sometimes with mirrors locked

up, though not always.

 

<p>

 

I have the vivitar ser 1 lenses 35-85 varifocal (not zoom) and the

90-180 f/4.5 Macro Zoom as well as the 90mm f/2.5. All have performed

well, but the macro zoom tends to be heavy and a little dim (at f4.5).

 

<p>

 

The only real disadvantage of the XK is weight and maybe cost. The

metering is not sophisticated, but it's decent. The exposure com-

pensation is a lever moved while your holding it, so if you want to

use it on a tripod, exposure compensation can be a problem. I think

it was originally designed as a photojournalist camera.

My Sigma 18-35 Aspherical has an 82mm filter diameter, not 86. Maybe it's a slightly different model, I don't know. It seems to have a bad reputation on the net, but both my 18-35 (for Minolta) and a friend's for Canon have given me and my friend good service and good sharpness throughout the range.

Maybe you should consider a 600si, used if necessary. It still doesn't have a mirror lock, but it has good metering, dof preview, and easy to understand controls. I think the 600si is the best camera Minolta has produced in a long time.

I have the Sigma 1-35 Aspherical in Minolta Maxxum mount. It's very light, but so far it's given me very good service. I'm not a pro

and I'm very easy on my equipment, so perhaps long use would bring out the Sigma build quality bugaboo. So far though, it's one of my favorite lenses.

When weight isn't an issue, I use Contax SLRs. But when I'm going to do any hiking, I use a Minolta 600si (very light) and a Tamron 28-200. It's a little unsharp at 200 but it's good through about 105. If I can take a little more weight, the Sigma 18-35 or my Minolta 100-300 zoom are both very light. I think the weight DOES make a difference and

it's a factor in my decision.