michael_moon2

<p>I can't say I ever loved a camera, that's not so much too strong a word as much as it's inexact. I gathered quite a few of them, thanks to great pricing at B&H and Adorama, and of course some lucky catches on ebay. When it came time to go digital it only made sense to me to unload the lot of them, except for one 35mm kit with a handful of good zooms. I had enough gear to raise the purchase price of my current digital system, a better film scanner, and a 13" printer.<br>

The gear I sold included Pentax, including a K1000 and a ZX-M, my first cameras and a few lenses, a system I abandoned because I thought I'd be happier with Maxxums when it came time to go AF. The Maxxums all went too, to fund the migration to digital.<br>

My regret was that I kept a Maxxum kit based around a 7 and sold my 9000. I had a 9000 that I sold, for no good reason I can remember now, and I had replaced it, so the one I sold when I retained the 7 was the second one. If I'd thought for just a moment, I'd have remembered that the 9000 was the best darn camera I ever had. Solid, no-nonsense, a good heft without sacrificing compactness, not fast AF but all I needed, perfect exposures all the time, and probably the best feature in an AF SLR - it took AAs.<br>

I regret selling the 9000 instead of the 7, but it isn't something that rises to the level of being engraved on my tombstone.</p>

 

<p>I bought a GF1 on the strength of reviews, to replace 35mm. Prior experience with an upmarket Panasonic p&s with 12 MP had convinced me I was likely to meet and usually beat the IQ I had been used to with Maxxum lenses.<br>

Your question is about lenses so here's the answer: using a combination of 7-14, 14-45 and 45-200 Panasonic lenses I have better IQ, shooting RAW, than I got from 35mm. The 7-14 is a tad slow but it is a fantastic lens. You could say the same about the kit lens but again, it is a wonderful lens. No complaints about the 45-200 either. For landscape work I stop them down anyway.<br>

I sell prints from my Canon 9000, so I print full frame up to 12x16. If I make a "panoramic" crop to print 12x26 (printer limit) I'm using ~8 MP and I think that's stretching things just a bit, except for the saving factor known as viewing distance. The point is however, that the three lenses, shooting RAW with 12MP are giving me results that I am very happy with.</p>

 

<p>My digital cameras are the Panasonic FX580 with 12 MP compact size chip, and the M43 GF-1 also with 12 MP chip (a somewhat different one to be sure). I have no problem printing to 11" x14" from the compact, and to A3+ from the M43 - but in both cases, with optimal capture parameters and conditions. How this relates to your question I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Canon models you mention, except that if as I suspect the chips are 1/2.33" then your results should not differ from what I get from the FX580. If I'm wrong and the Canon's chips are larger but not M43-sized, then you should be very happy with your results <br>

The GF-1 captures print up to the 13" x 26" paper size limit of my Canon Pixma Pro 9000 Mk II so well in fact that I doubt I can justify moving up to a Lumix GX-1; but I would like to see how well a 25mm Panny- Leica would perform on the GF-1 and aforesaid printer.</p>

<p>My XK used to do the exact same thing when battery voltage was low. Compared with cameras of similar age, they do seem quickly to deplete batteries below critical voltage. The battery check light seems to mean very little except that either there is (light shines) or isn't (light doesn't shine) a battery in the camera. But ... great camera!</p>

<p>This is easy, because I did in fact just unload almost my entire inventory so as to irrevocably shift to my chosen digital system.<br>

I sold a veritable miscellany of film stuff - but kept one system, reduced to a sensible minimum: Maxxum 7, Maxxum 20-35, 35-105, 100-300 and 50 macro, plus a Sigma 300/4 with 2x and 1.4x. I sold 4 bodies and oh, I guess about 18 or 19 lenses.<br>

One of the reasons for keeping some of these lenses - the 35-105 and 50 macro - is that with a Novoflex adapter ($292) they become 100 macro and 70-210 on the next system: GF1. Which I chose because, after shedding my deepseated reluctance, I finally became a late adopter and was very pleasantly surprised and not a little impressed over the past year with the handling qualities and results from my Lumix DMC FX 580.</p>

 

<p>I live in NH and I've been out a lot with & without cameras this fall. Compared with last fall, colors are great. Lack of frosts has allowed many more leaves than usual to stay on the trees in spite of some windy weather. Upper elevation leaves have fallen, as expected, but lower elevation trees are carrying plenty of leaves and as I say, they are very colorful this year. Many greens still, with an abundance of reds this year - a great color palette in my book at least.<br>

"Peak" has passed in the Great North Woods and most of the White Mountains although plenty of color endures. The seacoast is not yet at peak. Leaf-spotting in the rest is better than usual.<br>

The higher peaks got snow this weekend, so there are plenty of opportunities for landscape shots with both foliage and snow. Decent to good weather forecast for this entire week.<br>

Web sites can only tell you so much. Ask a resident!</p>

<p>My preferred response (as lomg as I'm confident it won't offend) is along the lines of the foregoing.<br>

"Thank you, I do. But this photo was actually made with the one I happened to have with me at the time."<br>

Then I talk about the image, not the gear.</p>

<p>You posted on the Sony forum so presumably you're looking for a film camera that will use your Sony Alpha lenses. When you buy them, that is.<br>

Maxxum 7 - available in excellent condition at KEH for 1/3 or less than its original selling price. Or if you have a bit more money and want the best-built camera in the Minolta stable, Maxxum 9.</p>

<p>Must be someone else out there who shares my high opinion of the Maxxum 7?</p>

<p><em>It's interesting how system lock-in and brand loyalty are tested (and sometimes lost) at the switch from crop to full-frame.</em><br>

Yes indeed - just like when we (well, I at least) made the swich to AF. For me, it made me rethink my manual focus choice, Pentax, because it seemed that Minolta would give me a better interface than the then-available Pentax choices. Since I had no AF lenses at all, it semed a good time to re-evaluate the various systems.<br>

Now, having invested money in Minolta 35mm AF lenses to the tune of maybe four to five thousand dollars, I waited for a full frame Sony at a price I can afford, and thanks to the A850's pricing, I am in a FF system without having to buy a single lens - and cover focal lengths 20mm to 300 mm with quality glass.</p>

<p>I have dropped more than enough cameras and lenses over the years, and thereby taken the economic consequences of simple failure to use the strap, any strap. Come to think of it, I have always used the strap supplied with the camera (if bought new); straps of recent vintage don't look too bad as a rule and tend to work pretty well. Straps provided with the earlier SLRs were pretty cheesy, and I found the Op-tech strap worked well and looked fine on my older model K1000 (still in service, in fact). The manufacturer's strap supplied with a 600si tended to slip, however I installed/re-installed it, so in this one case I stitched the edge of the strap near the buckle to the extra strap beyond it. Looked iffy, but never slipped again.<br>

Thinking back, all the bodies I've bought secondhand came with aftermarket straps - but to a man they were all either unsightly or so smelly I doubted if it was even a threat to health to let then contact my skin, so those bodies tooo were graced one by one with straps by Op-tech or Domke. </p>

<p>At present - and for the past 5 years of self-restraint - I'm reduced to 6 bodies, all film. I've disposed of all the remnants of past dalliances with Yashica, Contaflex, Mamiya 645, and probably others that I'd still recall if I hadn't done such a great job of self-denial. The question becomes, if I sell my Minolta XK and its handful of lenses & accessories (can't give a good reasom for ever getting into that, or for still possessing it) and my original Pentax K set-up (2 bodies, 8 lenses, last used by daughter in Photo 101) and sell all my Maxxum stuff (2 bodies, 15 lenses) except for the one lens, a 28-75 f/2.8, that can easily be justified as the core of a full-frame Sony Alpha digital system, could I raise enough for an Alpha 850?<br>

Don't answer. I'm not selling anything; I'm squirrelling away change until I've saved that $1,995.</p>

Yeah, April fool ... but you all knew, didn't you?

 

Hard to believe that efilm died over 6 years ago. Or that the Leica digital backs cost way more than the bodies they fit, and IIRC had only 6mp. Neither has the potential information yield of 100 ASA film.

 

Like many photonetters, I have one foot planted firmly in the past, and will not give up my XK, 9000 and (non-D) 7 until the world runs out of film. But it has to be said that Minolta and Sony have made, are making, the inevitable segue into full digital a reality for those of us who do it on a hobbyist's budget.

Sony is about to announce a digital insert that will go on sale sometime after

the A900. Predicting limited sales of the A900 due to the low level of

acceptance among pros of the Sony Alpha line, even though its MSRP will be

considerably less than the Canon competitor, Sony is looking to conserve market

share, particularly among Minolta users that Sony may otherwise lose to the

competition unless they are able to put their existing

Minolta/Maxxum/Dynax/Rokkor equipment to use. Noting that (unnamed) competitors

offer the advantage of various levels of backwards compatibility between lenses

and newer bodies, Sony will apparently offer a choice of packages, to be named

(tentatively) Digitizer-Rokkor XK and Digitizer-Alpha 9000.

 

Sony's first hints as to exactly what these products are is contained in a

reference to the digital back sold by Leica for some R bodies, and the allure

of backwards compatibility for MF lenses. No word yet as to crop factor, but

since there will be little need to take up mirror box space, crop factor could

be absent or minimal. The Digital inserts will work only on the rugged, all-

metal pro-level XK and 9000 bodies, which will require newly designed

(unnannounced as of April 1) i-foot adapters for flash compatibility.

Well, Philip's observations may be very much on the mark as far as the niche this Olympus should fill. I's got some solid selling points.

 

Here's my "however": to sing the praises of this camera's compactness as if it is in a class by itself is in my view stretching things a bit. I decided to see for myself if it really could be touted as a pocket-sized or purse-sized camera.

 

Olympus says (thanks for the link) the camera is 5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 inches, without protrusions and presumably without lens. Phil thinks it will come in a bit under a pound with its "pancake" normal lens.

 

I can't really tell it that's pocketable, so I pulled my Pentax ZX-M out of the closet (had to hunt around a bit). Why the ZX-M? because in its day it was the lightest SLR you could find, period. I think 11.7 ounces? Not sure, but 3/4 of a pound, ballpark. Throw on a 50/2 or a 28/2.8 and it would be just over a pound. Well, let me admit very quickly that you get a lot more features and capability in the new Olympus for similar weight!

 

But, as to dimensions: the ZX-M, I was a bit surprised to find, is almost identical at 5.2 x 3.5 x 2.2 inches. Plus, it has no noticeable protrusions beyond the base dimensions. Throw on a 40/2.8 pancake or one of Pentax's newer flat gems and the dimensions are certainly not much diferent from the new Olympus with its 25/2.8.

 

This is not a head to head contest, of course; two utterly different cameras, both equally praiseworthy on their respective merits.

 

But ... I never put the ZX-M in my pocket. I'm sure I have a pocket somewhere it would fit, but ... nah, I don't think so. The long and the short of it is that it's still just too bulky. My wife could probably carry it in the "purse" we call the "feed=bag" but there's no way it would fit into her date night purse with or without all the stuff ... uh, better not go there ...

 

So, the Olympus may well be in a new class of compactness, as was the ZX-M in its day, but it's not THAT compact. Neither camera broke into a new class; the pocket-size SLR.

The Maxxum 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 is second only to the 17-35G in quality and so I'm surprised that it's not on your list.

The reason fim must be loaded when checking shutter speed on Automatic (i.e. aperture priority) is that the light is metered off the film during exposure. So, you won't get a "correct" reading without film. The LX gets its ASA info from the film speed dial, not DX contacts, which Pentax did not put in its bodies until after the M, K, and L generation.

Word is that it's miles better than the 35/2 at 1.4. Otherwise you don't get much more for your money.

 

I have 15 Maxxum lenses and in my experience the 35/2 is in my top 3 - the others being the 100/2 and 50/1.7.

I am a confirmed prime-lens shooter, but the convenience of zooms is too tempting. I was happy with my 28/2.8 and 35/2 until I got my hands on a 24-50. I agree that it is a fine lens for a consumer zoom, but the bokeh leaves a lot to be desired. I routinely carry a 50/2.8 anyway so I don't need the long end of the 24-50. My last Maxxum purchase was a 20-35, and I am completely satisfied with enlargements at all focal lengths. In fact I'm debating selling the 24-50 and the 28/2.8 ... any offers?

On-camera flash is required to trigger off-camera units wirelessly, and some light is produced on-camera. Alternative: use the wireless flash trigger, which instals in the hot shoe, and fires without visible light.

 

I often set up a 3d flash, Sunpak 383 auto, on a peanut slave, to illuminate background or the further portion of a large room. Exposure is not at all accurate but results can be fudged with multiple shots with the 383 set at varying power levels.

I bought mine "as is". The shutter speed dial was disengaged, it just span around, refusing to engage the speed detents ... and the seller, a well-known long-established camera store, had no idea how to fix it. So I went on line, googled it, downloaded the manual, figured out the quick "fix", and bought a functionally perffect XK for $45. Sounds to me as if you've encountered some of this model's idiosyncrasies, just as I did. Get the manual and I expect you'll get your XK up and running.

William has it right. If you are learning photography in an unstructured setting, you should read all the photography books you can. None is perfect but many are good.

Or the Microtek Artixscan 190tf? I'm buying one this week. Didn't find any negative comments on it.

 

"With digital cameras arguably equal to or better than 35mm film ..." now that's very arguable!

Have the exact same combo. At first the 300 was DOA when mounted on the 7. Sent it in to Sigma with request to re-chip it for compatibility with the 7. Back in 10 days, functions flawlessly. Very nice lens. Will continue to use it until I have the scratch for a Maxxum 400/4.5.

The 35/2 is one of Minolta's best performing primes, and at half the weight and a lot less cost, I for one have no reason to think I need a 1.4 - which I understand to be a very fine lens too.