jeroen_b1

<p>Dan: maybe this Braun clone is something for you?</p>

<p>http://www.braun-phototechnik.de/E/Products/Cameras/sr2000/2000md.htm</p>

<p>The manual of the A200 tells me there is a shift button for controlling aperture and shutter in M mode, it's the AV +/- button.</p>

<p>Flash compensation only in the menu, it's a shame you can't use the flash button on the left side! This is possible with the minolta 800SI, press it and use the control wheel to adjust the power of the flash.</p>

<p>Tough decision, for me it's the A200 or the Epson V700 flatbed scanner for scanning my negatives and slides..... I still like film and film camera's very much, and don't like post-processing. A simple DSLR will force me to keep using the film camera's. </p>

<p>A700, really don't know, haven't found (a new) one for a good price yet!</p>

<p>hello group,</p>

<p>I am a fanatic film shooter (Dynax 7, 800SI, XE, XD, X-500, SRT), but since our baby boy is born two weeks ago I am looking for a simple DSLR. I have used the A230 this weekend from a friend (without reading the manual, only on intuition), but I don't like it very much because:</p>

<p>- flash pops up automatically even in A and S mode<br>

- in manual mode only aperture or shutterspeed, difficult to control both at the same time? no shift button? I had to go deep in the menu structure to control both.<br>

- no AE lock<br>

- flash compensation deep down in menu structure.</p>

<p>From what I read from reviews, the A230 doesn't allow choosing any of the focus points, only the center points can be controlled. I understand that the A200:<br>

- no pop-up flash in A or S mode, all AF points can be selected with the control wheel on the back, AE lock, and a steady shot knob.</p>

<p>- Don't know about M mode, is there a shift button for the control of the shutterspeed? And is there a direct way for flash compensation?</p>

<p>I guess the A200 is the better camera. I admit it's not a A700, but I see some similarities between A200/230 and the 800SI, a hidden door with extra functions (spotmeter, ISO, flash mode, etc.), for me that's the same as the A200/230 menu structure <br>

A new A200 body still can be found for a nice price, aprox. 300 euro. The A700 is out of my range because I need some budget for a proper flash (I love my HS5400 for film!) and a descent lens like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Is there someone who can confirm the above, or has some good advice? I really need an easy way for flash compenstation, I can accept only aperture or shutterspeed in M mode. <br>

bye, Jeroen</p>

<p > <br>

<p> </p>

</p>

<p>Manual focus: MD rokkor 50mm f/1.4, MD rokkor 100mm f/2.5<br>

Auto Focus (film): Minolta 28-135 zoom, Minolta 135mm f/2.8</p>

<p>I admit this is is not 2 but 4 lenses, for two systems......</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had the same problem with the Dynax 7. Turned out some internal gearbox, axis, or wheel is broken.<br>

The problem is that the aperture lever would stay in down position when I used large apertures. The lever would not move up again, causes the camera to lock up. After turning the camera off and on the camera came to live again, but after a while that didn't help any more. I had to move the lever by hand to get the camera working, and this problem showed up really often, between every 4-5 shots.<br>

In my case repairing was too expensive, so I bought an other Dynax 7.</p>

<p>old topics:</p>

<p>http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00QCfZ<br>

http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00L6E6</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Sorry I pulled a Peter B Monahon with this one.</em></p>

<p>Only for this time, don't make it a habbit :-)</p>

<p>One Pete "Bloody" Monahon is already way-too-much here!</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p>I use the Maxxum 7 film camera too. I do a lot of portraits and people shots (family, birthdays, pick-nick, children, etc.), indoor and outdoor. I <strong>always</strong> use my Minolta 5400HS flash. Gives great and consistent results.<br>

Outdoor as fill flash, indoor with Omni bounce, when there are white walls or a white ceiling. I have this flash for a couple of years now, didn't use it much, now I feel dumb I didn't used it more. Pictures look natural and have a sparkle.<br>

I don't use the Maxxum 7internal flash, it's too weak. Minolta 5400HS flash can be found cheap these days.</p>

<p>Robert, Richard, guys, I don't know anymore....<br>

Peter Blaise Monahon is such a big idiot, they guy is totally blind for the havoc he is creating here and other places related to Minolta. I thougt he is already banned on some other forums, in my opinion he should be banned here too. Delete all the crap-messages too he has ever posted.</p>

<p>I can't stand any longer his hippy b*lshit way of thinking: Share some pictures! Let us know how it works out for you! Thank's for the insight! He is totally full of shit. The guy is an incredible blind stupid dick! If there is any way to stop this moron, let me know. Maybe start a petition or something. He is the only reason I will sell my Minolta gear and never look back here. Others sections of this site are very interesting, with normal people talking normally. Indeed only this Sony/Minolta section is a pain to follow, because of PBH.</p>

<p>It is a pity I don't live in his neighbourhood, I would drive by and beat him up with a baseball bat...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Peter, man, it seems you always want to defend yourself, you want to have the last word in any discussion. Why is that? From your posts I get the idea you really are egocentric, obsessive, compulsive and blind for reality. You even have your own Yahoo group!?<br>

Get yourself together man, stick to the question, PLEASE stop with unnecessary information dumps, shut off your computer for a couple of days, ignore Photo.net from time to time and give others some space. Go out and shoot great pictures. In my opinion that's a better contribution to the Minolta discussion than that endless, repeating, self-indulgent crap you post.<br>

Sorry man, I don't want to be rude, but with your behaviour and history you don't give people an other choice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Got a roll of film back. The MD 75-200mm gives great results! Compared it also with photo's taken with the MD rokkor 50-135mm, shots were not taken with same light conditions so I am not really sure, but I think the 75-200 gives sharper results.</p>

<p>Thanks guys.<br>

Just won a MD 75-200 in good shape for 21 dollar (aprox 16 euro's) on eb*y. That's a nice price. No sun-hood, but a generic rubber hood will do. Will let you know if I like it.</p>

<p>hello group,<br>

From a collectors point of view I want to get a tele-zoom for my Minolta manual focus gear. I own a lot of prime lenses in the range 24mm - 135mm, and one zoom lens, the 50-135.</p>

<p>I have been searching the databases of Yahoo Minolta Maual Forcus groups, but I still don't know what to do: get the MD 70-210 f/4, or MD rokkor 75-200 f/4.5 ? They both have a good reputation.</p>

<p>I think any of these lenses can be found cheap these days. I don't want to buy both because I know I will keep them.</p>

<p>I already own a Minolta 70-210 f/4 for AF, I have the idea the MF version might be the same and produces the same pictures?</p>

<p>The 75-200 is more compact and heavy, the 70-210 is a little bit faster.</p>

<p>I want the get the lens that produces the best overall image (I shoot mainly color film and a little bit B&W and slides). I know taste is something very personal, I hope you all know what I mean. If the AF and MF versions of the 70-210 are the same, I will go for the 75-200, I like it when a lens has it's own character.</p>

<p>Any advice is welcome.<br>

bye, Jeroen</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don't forget the Minolta XE and XD camera's. They are very close family to Leica R3 and R4.<br>

MD Rokkor lenses are pretty good too! Lenses like the MD Rokkor 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm d/1.7 and f/2 and 100mm f/2.5 are truly great performers. Actually most MC and MD Rokkor primes are good.<br>

I own two SRT-101's, one XE, two XD's and a X-500, all great camera's.</p>

<p>Check www.rokkorfiles.com for more information.</p>

<p> </p>

Well said Robert , PBM is an annoying constant factor at this forum. I guess this guy lacks self reflection. He

likes to see this forum as a table at a bar, where people have entertaining discussions. He is the type of guy

that only talks and never listens.

If you ask me: He should be banned for life from photo.net, and any other photo site as well.....

I finally have found the 132X manual:

http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/minolta_auto_128_132x.pdf

The manual explains everything. "Wide" is anything beyond 35mm. The extra marks (coloured arrows) on the rotating

disk are for the wide angle diffuser, when the diffuser is attached, the flash range will be a little bit lower,

so aperture compensation is needed for correct exposure.

Rich, you lost me, I lost you too.... my comment was also not aimed at you, just something general. I am sorry if I was unclear about that.

I really thought I was talking about end-results, not lenses, certainly not about money, and also not about pots and pans. My brothers in law are chef's too, both d*mn good ones, Michelin star quality. I have never wondered about there pans too. I hope that counts... :-)

Rich, come on, I know you own quality glass (28/f2, 50/f.14, 200G?). I already admitted when a lens has it's

value, a UV filter is a wise decision. Don't you think it's a bit ironic to say you don't need quality glass when

you own it yourself :-) ? (I am walking on my toes here...) I think a quality lens can make a difference in the

final result, that extra "pop". Still the photographer has to do most of the work: be there outside, see the

potential in a certain situation, and is technically skilled enough to capture that split second moment. But I

don't think effect filters will help that much. Only CP and graduated ND filters do have a practical function.

There is a strong connection between gear and taking photographs, if we like it or not. We all should remember

that all the photo gear that exist are just tools, like a hammer or a screwdriver, no objects of desire. In the

end the results on paper are the only things that counts.

I still think that for a 18-70mm kit lens no UV filter is needed, maybe only in a sandstorm in Sahara dessert.

In my opinion you have to be very careful with (Cokin) effect filters A few shot's are nice, but too much of them

is a overkill real soon. Anyway, please do try it by yourself, the long and winding road of photo gear is a very

interesting and inspiring one.

Well, my answer for filter style: you already have CP filters. UV has no function in digital photography. (UV light has no influence on the image), only for protection. No need (sorry...) for ND filters, only if there is so much light available and you have reached lowest ISO value on camera and a really small aperture and you still don't have a slow shutterspeed.

A CP filter, with no effect dialled in also blocks 1 or 2 stops.

Graduated ND filter: a Cokin Style holder with quality square shaped filter works best. You can adjust the horizon. Get a set of 2 or 3 different ones (2 stop, 4stop?)

Don't know about drop-in-clip-in-magnetic-bayonet. I have never seen this kind of filters.

filters on photo.net: http://photo.net/equipment/filters.html

I am thinking, after checking the ND's in the filter table: with a digital camera you can set ISO speed lower to

"block" the light! No need for a ND then. Only if you reach the lowest possible value in a certain situation.

With a film camera with high-speed film, in a scene with a lot of light, a ND is used to lower shutter speeds

and/or open up the aperture.

I agree about circualr polarizer filers, I guess this anti-reflection can not be done in post-processing

ND filters: if you are able to slow down the shutterspeed on the camera for a tripod shot (let's say, a

waterfall), you don't need ND? I don't get it. ND only blocks a few stops, right? What is the use? If you want a

long shutterspeed, you don't want much available light around. Only if your aperture goes beyond f/22

(diffraction) and you need a certain shutterspeed for a dramatic result, a ND could be handy to block the light

with some stops, right?. I also thought, if you would like to shoot a portrait with, for example f/2, with a lot

of light, with a manual camera that has 1/1000 max, you need to bock the light with ND to keep a large aperture

and the shuttspeed at 1/1000 or less. My feeling tells me ND filters are something from the past.

Just my opinion, you are asking questions that could be answered with some small investigation on the web by

yourself. Lot of info is already there on photo.net or other sites.

Anyway, you don't need any filter at all.....

First, ask yourself, what is the value and quality of the lens you are using?

If these are regular lenses, don't bother about UV filters. Most stuff people use will end in a closet, shiny and

new with no using marks, because their interest has moved to something else. Use the stuff you have. It is

breaks, get new stuff. That's the way it works in this capitalist world.

If you use your brain when cleaning a lens, nothing bad will happen (I use some Vodka on an soft old badly used

towel). Maybe you get some cleaning marks after 5 years?. Nothing that will affect image quality.

If you have a really expensive lens (Zeiss 24-70, or Minolta/Sony G or Zeiss prime lenses), or a rare manaul

focus stellar performer, get a UV filter. Hoya is good, B&W is great (and has a price). Screw in is just fine.

If you want to try graduated ND filters, first get a cheap one from China. Using it is a hassle, if you still

like to use it, and the results are like you thought it will be, get a better one. I am told Tiffen is good

(article about filters on photo.net).

I guess you don't need ND filters with modern shutter speeds. If you have a manual film camera that is limited to

1/1000 shutter speed, you might need one for special occasions, if you really care about that kind of shots.

My advice: get this whole filter nonsense out of your head. If you like photography a lot, the best advice is to

invest in good glass (and maybe then get a filter).

Maybe these clone Minolta camera's from Braun are still available:

http://www.braun-phototechnik.de/E/Products/Cameras/sr2000/2000md.htm

with 2 years waranty :-)

Peter, man, I am really sorry, but I just don't get it.

The original poster just asks a simple question about a proper film camera, and he get's this whole lecture about

yourself and your personal preferences? Who wants to shoot 100's of pictures every day? How many keepers do you

have in the end?

The original question was: I have a couple of Minolta lenses, what film body do you recommend? Scott has a Pentax

digital system!

Excuse me if my tone is too aggressive, but for me it's frustrating to read your long replies every time with way too

much information and answers that are not needed....

I think, for example, an interesting question would be: Scott, what lenses do you have? Are they above average

too "justify" getting an other film body? If he has stellar performers, it would we wise, if he has just an old average kit

lens, it might not. Just a thought.

My advice is you start writing a book about the history of Minolta, or build a proper web-site to share all the

knowledge you have (you know a lot!, that's really worth something) instead of hi-jacking lot's of questions on this

forum to show us your knowledge.

Dynax/Maxxum 7 is a great camera, but the 7 and also the 9 still holds there value, so maybe it cost a bit too much compared to a new digital one.

Take a look at the 800SI also. Great camera, sturdy build, and a powerful flash too. AF system is reasonable fast. All extra options like spot-meter are hidden behind a small door at the right side. Memory function is also great for personal settings.

I love my 7 and 800SI (and my manual focus Minolta’s), I still don’t bother about going digital, the camera’s deliver what I want.

I have never used a Dynax 5. I didn't like the 600SI, too plastic, and the spot-meter button always changed by accident when carrying around my neck.

I also have a 7000, build like a brick. Very very slow AF. The 7000 has a problem, some electronic part is weak (capacitor?) and the sooner or later the aperture function will die. And my 7000 eats batteries when not in use. My first Minolta was a 500SI, it’s a plastic toy, but if you don’t care about that it’s a very cheap nice little camera.