juan_c.

<p>Hi<br>

I'm interested in getting a MD-1 for my X-570. Honestly, I don't care for the motorized film advance that much. I enjoy the feel of manually advancing every frame and rewinding the camera myself. That being said, I seem to always have a hard time properly holding the camera. I struggle with this one, yet no problems at all with my D40. Anyway, the MD-1 has a rather nice grip that is more similar to the D40 and to me I think it would work great.<br>

However, the only downside I have seen is that it takes 8AA batteries. No matter how you slice it, that is a lot of extra weight to haul around. My biggest question (especially to those who have used it in the past): Can the touch switches on the grip be used WITHOUT the 8 AA batteries? I mean, I just want to use the switches on the grip and that is it. I can't find a whole lot of info on the motor drive on google, so I thought I'd ask the pros here. Btw, I'm referring to the function where you place your finger on the shutter release (both on the camera and the buttons on the grip), and the meter powers up and takes its readings. <br>

Thanks for the help!</p>

 

<p>Wow, so much info!! I will try that suggestion Robert Lee gave. Guess I should figure that out first and foremost. Other than the metering, I have LOVED this camera!! So much better than my old XG-1 in almost every way (the XG looked better IMO, lol). <br>

Mark: are you saying the frame of the camera is mostly metal?</p>

<p>Mattheiw: Maybe it is my lack of understanding, but that makes the center weighed system (at least on the Minoltas) almost a bit of guesswork. Maybe it is time to invest in a light meter for when I use the Minolta, then. Center weighed almost seems like a very primitive form of matrix metering...</p>

<p>Jason: that is very interesting to know about the X's and XG's! Always wondered why, for being a plastic body, they were still a bit on the heavy side. </p>

<p>Hi<br>

I am loving my X-570, but have a question about the metering in the camera. According to the manual, it is center weighed metering. I still have a hard time grasping that concept. From what I understand, most of the focus of the metering is aimed at the center of the viewfinder. Part I don't get is how much? Is there a visual indicator as to what "center weighed" encompasses? Did a little research, and it never seems to be a consistent amount. For the record, I prefer the spot metering of my Nikon D40, so going back to center weighed has screwed me up a couple of times, lol. <br>

And for a really random question while I have the attention of the pros here, I know the 570 is mostly plastic, especially compared to the beauties of the past. But does it have any kind of metal in the frame at all? Mine has a little bit of, I guess, brassing around the top corners. Instead of looking like scratched plastic, it looks like paint that got rubbed off of metal. Honestly, it kinda looks like brass or copper. This is just a curiosity. For a plastic camera, it is rather sturdy...</p>

<p>Thanks!!</p>

<p>Oh, it's a 3.5 that came with with my X570. It was crap from the beginning, but I figured I'd give it a shot and try and get it working. Glass seems to be in good shape, so why not. I already have a MC 2.8 135 that I use, so this is more of a learning experience:o)</p>

<p>Yeah, I finally got it taken care off. Took off the back, the aperture ring, and unscrewed the helicoid. I didn't disassemble the glass since it was still super clean. I did clean up a lot of the helicoid, which had metal/paint flakes, little pieces of wood and metal, and grit in general. Hardest part was putting the lens back together since I didn't take into account the original position of the inner helicoid. Just finally reassembled it a couple of hours ago after about 20 tries trying to get the correct position I needed. <br>

I have an old 135mm Celtic lens that'll Ill be playing with now. It needs to be dismantled as well, and now with this I have some experience to deal with that one:o)</p>

<p>Well, biggest reason I feel it is a piece of glass (or could be dirt for all I know), is that it happens randomly. Been playing with it for the last hour or so. I would say about 90% of the time, it focuses smoothly (not as smooth as my other Rokkors, but no problems). The other 10%, it feels like something gets caught and grinds a little. Needs a bit of motivation to dislodge it. My reasoning was that is something was really wrong, I should have more trouble than it gives me. Currently, it is just a pain in the butt. </p>

<p>Thought Id ask the best way to proceed. I'm rather fond of this particular lens:o) Will look for that MC lens breakdown, though!</p>

<p>Hi<br>

Today I dropped my Minolta 570, with the 50 f 1.4. The only thing damaged was the UV filter, which was completely destroyed. The lens cap kept most of the debris in, but some of the much smaller pieces of old glass did get out a little. The lens' glass is intact, which is a good thing. Nothing seems out of order, except for turning the focusing ring. It seems like there is either a piece of glass or something that periodically makes it hard to turn. Doesnt stop the operation of the lens, but sometimes you have to give it a little more OOMPH to get it to move. Now, is this possible to clean out without disassembling the lens, or do I have to dismantle it to get it cleaned out? Other than that, the lens is sharp, and everything looks perfect through it.</p>

<p>I hope this is the right forum. The Sony/Minolta one is very slow, and they seem to focus mostly on the AF cameras anyway. </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you all for your help! Should have known it was user error, lol. I went back and looked at all the pics I took before I got the Nikon and those were very sharp. Seems like it went downhill after I got the Nikon. Im starting to think it comes down to my hand holding technique. The Nikon seems to fit better around my hand--the grip and shutter button location are very well located, and I seem to hold most of the (admittedly small) weight of the camera with my right hand while my left hand is more for stabilization. The Minolta has the standard 60-80's SLR body, so I hold all the weight (at least Im supposed to, lol) with my left hand while the right one stabilizes it. Seems Ive been holding it mostly with the right hand, which makes it get less stable when I press the shutter button. Kinda wish I could get a nice grip for it, since I LOVE that camera. <br>

But, I will be working a lot harder in getting better holding techniques:o)</p>

 

<p>Hi<br>

Im wondering is there is a difference in the shutter speeds between a film camera and a APS-C sized sensor camera. Biggest reason I ask is that when I shoot my Nikon D40 with any lens (like the 18-55mm kits lens or the 50 1.8, neither which is image stabilized), I can sometimes shoot a pics with as low a shutter speed as 1/15 or so, and still get a sharp picture. On the other hand, when I shoot with my Minolta X-570, I'm lucky if I can get something halfway sharp at 1/60 or so, using a 50mm 1.4. <br>

Im sure it has a lot to do with proper handling of the camera as well (the D40 and the Minolta are worlds apart when it comes to handling). But does the sensor/film size actually make a difference on the camera shake?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi<br>

This is something I was wondering about. For most lenses ("most" being a broad term here), f8-f11 are at their finest sharpness. After that, diffraction starts kicking in and you start losing sharpness (assuming I understand correctly). So, what are the uses for the smallest apertures? Maybe I'm missing something here...</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Well, I just shot a roll of tripod mounted pics of various things so that I can see if it is me or the camera. Getting it one hour developed so that I can see where the fault lies. Assuming it is the camera, at least it is still under warranty, lol. If iti s user error, well, I dont think I have warranty. Ugh, I hate uncertainty.</p>

<p>Dave: Thanks for explaining that! I always wondered to what point in the camera the distance reading belonged to.</p>

<p>Alright<br>

I did like you said. I got a yardstick and straightened it out on a table. Since the table was long enough, I put the camera at the very end of the yardstick, and focused on the 24" mark. I lined up a vertical lighter right at the 24" mark for extra accuracy focusing the camera. Also, I used my XG1 for comparison. Used the magnifier for it as well (forgot the name for it--the one tha goes on the viewfinder). I used the 50mm lens, as well as my 58mm 1.4 and my 28mm 2.8. Here were the results:<br>

Lens X-570 XG-1<br>

50mm 2.4ft 2.4ft<br>

58mm 2.28ft 2.27ft<br>

28mm 2.50ft 2.50ft<br>

I guess the focus is pretty good, since the XG-1 (which was fine before it got retired) matched the numbers almost perfectly with all the various lenses. I guess that rules out the screen being backwards. I guess the nexdt test is to shoot a roll of film thru the camera and either rule out or confirm user error. Probably use a tripod and shutter release so that i can theoretically get the sharpest picture possible. Is it possible to really mess up the development of a picture to the point where everything looks like it is out of focus? Id show one of the pics, but when I saw how bad they were, I just left them there.<br>

Of course, any suggestions are welcome!</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I recently bought a Minolta X570 to replace my damaged XG-1. I sent it in to get the capacitor replaced, and it came back fine. I think. Well, I just got some pics developed that I shot with the camera, and 99.9% of them were out of focus. Now, Im sure that Im not always gonna get everything in focus (kids and animals move, etc etc), but even static things are also out of focus. Now, from reading around the net here recently, I saw taht if the focusing screen is put in backwards, it will throw the focus totally out of whack. Does anyone have any experience with this matter? Also, assuming it is on backward, is there any way to easily tell? I'm willing to concede that I need more practice focusing, but on the other hand, I never had this problem on my old XG-1. Of course, it could have been the development itself, since the pics looked way overdone and what not. IF it matters, the lens I used the most with it was the 50mm 1.4. </p>

<p>Thanks for any help!</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I bought an old Minolta X570 a while ago, and as a bonus they threw in an old Canon FTb. From what I can tell, the Canon is working great. Only problem is that I can't get the film door open by normal means! I have opened it before, but had to use some pliers to pull on the release and finally open the door. Even when the lever is pulled out, it is VERY stiff and hard to move. Any suggestions on what I can lube up or clean to make it operate more smoothly? I dont plan on keeping the camera for long, so I wanna do this at home. If not, Ill just sell it as parts. I'd just like to be able to have it working 100%. <br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I'd suggest the 50mm 1.8D. I got my D40 second hand (less than 1K pics on it. yay!) without the 18-55, but with the 50mm. It is a great portrait lens, and really sharp as well. Comes in handy when it gets darker, since the kit lens is a bit on the slow side. OF course, the only side effect is that it is a manual lens on a D40, but I find it very easy to focus. </p>

<p>Hi<br>

Im having an issue with my D40. It's nothing serious, but it kinda bugs me. I tend to shoot RAW, and process the pics with Photoshop 7 (and the plug in to let me use the NEW files). The little quirk (to me at least), is that the RAW files or the resultant JPG's from playing with them never show any of the EXIF data. However, if I shoot straight JPG, it shows me all the EXIF data (under the pic's properties, or in the PS menu selection of File Info). Now, is there any reason that EXIF data wouldn't show up with either the RAW pics or the modified JPGs?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help!</p>

<p>Ok, I just tripped the shutter about 5 times per shutter speed, and it looked fine to me. I mean, I didnt see anything out of the ordinary. Everything seemed to be moving smoothly. I could be missing itsince I'm pretty new to this. Would you happen to have an idea what to look for?<br>

Dont relish the idea of getting rid of this camera:o(</p>

<p>About to change the mirror seal, though.</p>

<p>Um, after some closer examination, is it possible the light seal that is between the mirror and the focusing screen (when the mirror is flipped up) would cause this type of leak? I just noticed that that particular seal is a bit damaged. According the the directions I got, it said to leave the felt one (this particular seal) alone since it doesn't decay like the other foam seals, but this one looks pretty ratty. In a dark room, if I hold down the shutter in B mode and shine the flashlight into the bayonet mount, I can definitely see light (towards the right side of the viewfinder), even though the viewfinder should be totally dark. Am I right there, or am I totally of base? </p>

<p>Hi<br>

I have a Minolta XG-1 that I LOVE! It is my first SLR. In any case, I think it has a light leak. Thing is that I can't really pin point where it is located. I redid the light seal sometime last year, but the leak still remains. What makes it harder to pinpoint is that it happens VERY randomly. Sometimes I only get one pic with it, and sometimes 7 or 8. It always seems to pop up in the same spot however. Here are pics from the most recent roll:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3495176869_72e535cef0.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="342" /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3495176827_c66628f131.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="342" /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3495176755_b9a8fb4e92.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="339" /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3647/3495176791_cd716aed18.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="341" /><br>

The last one is the worst I have seen. Usually they care closer to the first 3 or fainter. Does anyone have any suggestions on where the leak might be located (assuming it is a leak)? <br>

Thanks for the help!</p>

<p>Hello<br>

I'm kinda new to DSLR's, so this question has been bugging me for a bit. Is there any reason a fast aperture lens would be any better than one with vibration reduction/image stabilization, or vice versa? The way I understand it, a VR/IS lens lets you shoot at much slower shutter speeds, right? This is something that is also a characteristic of a fast lens. I mean, I am seeing both lenses with VR and some with fast (2.8 for example) max apertures. Is there one that is inherently better than the other?<br>

Thanks!</p>