warren_colligan

John,

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

Like you, I have a Minolta 16-2; and a regular 16; a 16Ps; and a QT.

Also like you, I've never exposed a shot with a Minolta 16, because the film wasn't available until Goat Hill started bringing in the old style Kiev cassettes. I've got an order into Goat Hill Photography for 3 rolls of Minolta film right now. In any event, I can tell you that these cameras work similar to a lot of Minox cameras, in that they use depth of field for focusing just like the earliest Kodak roll film cameras did. You need to get a depth of field chart for your Minolta 16-2 and you can get one by going back on subclub.org. Here's the way to get a depth of field chart:

 

1. Go back to Subclub.org

2. Go on their Camera Shop.

3. Go to the Camera Counter.

4. Go to The List.

5. Go to 16mm.

6. Go to Minolta.

7. On the Minolta page go to the 16-2 location and it provides you with

an explanation on how to use the camera and a link to the depth of

field chart.

 

Depth of field is used for focusing on all but the last model of the Minolta 16 cameras, but you will still need to determine the aperture and shutter speed and this is a completely manual camera. I've concluded there are a few ways to do this. First, you could use a more modern camera with a built in exposure meter and transfer the settings to the Minolta. Second, you could use a hand held exposure meter, I've got an old Vivitar that works great and is pretty small. Third, you could use the old Sunny 16 rule. Fourth, you could copy the exposure table from an old Minolta 16-2 camera manual like the one found on Mike Butkis's site (I may have spelled his name wrong) and then laminate it, and put it in your wallet like a credit card, that's what I'm planning to do when my film arrives. These cameras take a bit of thought to make them work properly, and I'm kind of glad that I had a Minox before I got my first Minolta. I hope this helps. Warren Colligan

Er, this is kind off of the subject; but bolt action rifles aren't completely dead in military use. In some recent news photos of the Indian troops in Kashmir some of them had very nice Lee Enfields, and just recently I saw a photo of a Nepalese Rebel carrying a British Snider (England's first single shot breech loading cartridge rifle). I bet that guy in Nepal with the Snider would just love to have had a nice 6.5mm Cacarno or a 7.35mm Terni. Old guns still filter down. Best Wishes, Warren

Richard, Make a tool? Are you aware that a company named Inland makes a glass cutting band saw that I believe sells for less than $200.00? I inherited one of their saws about 5 years ago, and it works fine for cutting screens so long as you make some kind of a fence for it since it is primarily designed for free-hand stained glass cutting. Regards, Warren

Marcus; two thoughts. You might want to try to find an 80mm. F3.7 lens for your Mamiya. I've got two normal lens sets for my Mamiya C220, a regular 80mm. F2.8, and a 80mm. F3.7; the F3.7 Sekor lens with its Copal shutter seems to perform much like a later Rolleiflex with a Tessar. The 80mm. F3.7 was advertised as a "budget lens", but it performs well and doesn't seem cheap. Second, you might want to consider a late Ikoflex instead of a Rollei. Later Ikoflexes are normally cheaper than a Rolleis, but they have the same lenses (Zeiss coated Tessars) and shutters (Synchro-Compurs) as most of the normal pre-1960 Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords. Ikoflexes do have a pretty strange film loading and film transport sequence, but if you can live with it, they are somewhat superior to a Rolleicord. IMHO, the good Ikoflexes are the 1C, 2A, and Favorit. Good luck.

No one has mentioned my latest thrift shop find, a 6x4.5 Minolta Semi P from the early 1950s. It has a seven speed Konan shutter (I believe Minolta later purchased Konan), and a Promar.sII f3.5 lens. It is supposed to be one of the last Minoltas that did not have a Minolta lens. It seems like a nice camera and it fits nicely in a pocket; I'm still working on my first roll of Superia.

I actually used an XA professionally about 20 years ago. I was doing photos of real estate "comparables" for a bank and a government agency and my Pentax SLR was too slow to use on busy streets, so I started using an XA. I always took the Pentax along with me to any meetings with the bank and the federal agency so they knew their photos were taken with a "real camera". No one ever noticed the difference between the XA and the Pentax photos! Now that I'm retired, so is my XA (I wore it out). I now have a Rollei 35 that I often use like I used to use the XA, and I personally think the Rollei Tessar is even better than the Zuiko lens was in the XA.