robert_paul1

<p>Peter B, I'll respect your preference, if you'll stop being so inconsiderate of others with your innane posts. If yu can't see that numerous posters on this forum find your posts to be self-absorded, then I guess you have a problem dealing with people.</p>

<p>"Get the camera, Warren, and select a better support group!"</p>

<p>Yes, select a support group that doesn't have a long winded, self absorded poster like PBM. : )</p>

<p>So, Pete, all that you require is full-frame and built-in flash? How about pixel count?</p>

<p>As for 'Pete', isn't 'Pete' short for Peter? I find only people who are stuck-up, or have people issues, don't care for nicknames.</p>

<p>Pete, what do you think? What will it take for you to finally buy a Sony DSLR? Try and keep your answer short.</p>

<p>Peter, when you talk about your "Minolta Alpha" purchases, are you talking about an AF Minolta <strong>film</strong> camera, or a Digital one? And which which model do you own? You've shown a picture of yourself with a X-700 in your hand, but it is not an Alpha. Please enlighten us, as to which AF Alpha you own.</p>

<p>How can you try and pass on your experiences with a digital DSLR, when you don't own/use one? The OP is talking about a DSLR and you're trying to talk about film.</p>

<p>Jared, even though the 50mm is a good lens, whether it's a f/1.4 or f/1.7, you'd still be able to only use the lens in stop-down mode, if it's not an A-mount lems. I'm sure you'll have better things to do on your honeymoon, then to be screwing around with a lens that wasn't designed for your modern camera. If you were going by yourself, rather than going there with your new spouse, you might find taking pictures in stop-down mode fun, but odds are your new wife with be ticked off, that you're spending more time taking a single picture than you are with her. You don't want your first argument to be that you love the camera more than you do her.</p>

<p>Do yourself, and your marriage a favor, and go get a couple of A-mount lenses to take with you on your honeymoon.</p>

<p>Peter, you went from a <strong>slightly incomplete</strong> answer to one that contained more information that was required. Try and cut all the none SLR junk and you would have more than enough info.</p>

<p>Howard, you forget that the SSM lenses have a motor in the lenses and are useable with older Minolta bodies.</p>

<p>Peter, you are getting too predicatable. I was waiting for you to hijack this topic and turn it into a Minolta history lesson. Do you have an OFF switch?</p>

<p>"... or have 3 options for focus:</p>

<ol>

<li>manual</li>

<li>in-camera motor</li>

<li>in-lens motor"</li>

</ol>

<p>Doesn't Sony have these options on their DSLRs?</p>

<p>Starvy, the new lenses would be SSM lenses that aren't dependent on the in-body motor, unlike the current kit lenses that don't have SSM. And the new kit lenses would not be able auto-focus on the older AF Minolta bodies that don't support SSM.</p>

<p>Juan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that your camera has a shutter that travels horizontally across the opening, rather than vertically. If your second problem (bad foam) was causing your light leak, the image would be bunched towards the edge, rather than across the negative. Your shutter is made of two cloth strips (the curtains). When you release the shutter, the first curtain opens, and then after a split second, the second shutter trips to shut off the light. I suspect that your camera's second curtain may be bouncing after it closes and is dragging the first shutter curtain part of the way back, until the second curtain releases it, and the second shutter opens a little more, and this is causing the leak. Or, the second curtain may be slightly slowed down causing an overexposure then quickly closing.</p>

<p>The bad foam may have dropped onto the edge (track) of the shutter and is the reason why the problem started. It is possibly that this gunk may come off if you trip the shutter several times. You'll need to have the foam replaced, and if the shutter problem hasn't cleared on it's own, you'll have to have the shutter cleaned.</p>

<p>Jonas, your question is too broad to really give good advice. First, you've decided on a camera, so that's good, but now how much do you want to spend (or more precisely, how much do you have to spend) on your system? What type of pictures would be your main area of interest? Do you plan on being a serious shooter or will you be someone who is more interested in casual photography?</p>

<p>You could just buy the camera with the kit lenses and be satisfied, but if you're looking to more fully exploit the capabilities of your camera, better lenses are better. However, the most important factor is the capabilities of the person taking the pictures. You can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't know how to take a good picture, your pictures will not be worth the cost of the equipment.</p>

<p>Juan, it sounds like you'v e got two problems now- 1) the defective shutter 2) the light leaking into your viewfinder.</p>

<p>Looks like you have a shutter problem. Try opening the back of your camer and point the camera towards a strong light source, while standing in a darken room. Try different shutter speeds and look at the shutter. If you see something unusual, you know your problem.</p>

<p>Hold on there Jeroen. While I can understand your anger at many of Peter's posting, I cannot condone your last sentence. It might be you who will be sanctioned by photo.net, rather than Peter.</p>

<p>I think that Peter's frequent posting that make this forum into a trip down the history of Minolta drives away many posters. If you look at the number of new posters that never return after the long diatribes of Peter, the owners of photo.net should look into limiting this type of topic hijacking. If Peter wants to start his own topic about the history of Minolta, that's fine. This way those that want to talk about Minolta history can join in, and it will leave those that have come here looking for answers about their equipment or techniques can do so without fear that the discussion will become a history lesson.</p>

<p>Once again Peter has hijacked the forum topic and made it a Peter rant. He is out of order and out of control.</p>

<p>Peter, why would I be interested in the website you posted a link to? It has nothing to do with the Maxxum 3xi, and I'm not interested in knowing about the 3xi. Once again, this is an example of you going off on a tangent, hijacking the original post.</p>

<p>I guess your statement you made in another forum topic, that you would stick to answering the original is down the drain.</p>

<p>Peter wrote "Re-read the DX post..."</p>

<p>I might have done so if you would write in a more compact manner. As it is now, you posts are generally un-readable to read as a whole. Life is too short to be wasted with wading thru the muck to find the pearl. You might try and cut down on your verbage, and cut to the chase.</p>

<p>Peter has suggested scraping the DX encoding on the film cartridge as a way to ""put off" rewind noises until you decide (pulling battery and or scraping DX can)". However, I examined the manual for the Maxxum 3xi, and it does not appear that the user can manually set the ISO setting in the camera. The manual states that if a non-DX coded film (canister) is put into the camera the ISO is set at 100. There isn't any information on how to manually set the ISO.</p>

<p>Therefore, Peter's suggestion on 'scraping' the DX encoding doesn't do any good unless you use ISO 100 film. Also, Peter suggested using 'tin foil' to cover the DX contacts in the camera. The manual says the DX contacts should not be touched. So, there is a possibility that shorting out contacts with 'tin foil' might not be the best idea. It is best to use tape so the contacts do not feel the bare metal.</p>

<p>Peter, for your amusement-</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DX_encoding</p>

<p>And Peter, please don't don't post the contents of the link. If anyone wants to see the information on DX coding, they can click on it themselves.</p>

<p>Peter, covering the whole DX code with tape disables the function. If you load your own film in a reuseable canister, there isn't any exposed metal and the camera will have no idea what film is loaded into the camera. When DX coded film canisters came out, this trick was well known.</p>

<p>I would have thought that you would know this. However, if you want to do things the hard way, be my guest.</p>

<p>Hey Peter, what does your post regarding "Setting DX Film For More Than 24 or 36 Frames" have to do with the original question? Why are you trying to hijack the topic? Didn't you recently apologize to everyone about side remarks, and pledging to stick with the original question?</p>

<p>Besides, if you want to defeat the DX function, why bother scraping the paint? Why not just covering the DX code with black tape? Why do you have to make everything so difficult?</p>

<p>"Alternatively, "dippng" the camera in UseThis / Plasti Dip or equivalent (rubber handle goo for tools):"</p>

<p>Peter, please tell me you're joking. Have you tried using this on any of your equipment? Do you suggest Eden dip his whole camera into the can? And if so, should he have a lens on the body? Maybe, you should try it out on your stuff first, before making suggestions.</p>

<p>Just read more posts on dpreview, and apparently it WAS a hoax.</p>

<p>I don't know about Rich, but someone posted the link at dpreview. This is the age of the internet, and information spreads quickly.</p>