Minolta: way ahead of its time

[belgiumreporter]

When in 1973 i decided to buy my first nikon, this was the brochure i got from our local camera store:







Because of financial reasons i went for the nikon F wich was still available wile the F2 was already there, the F could do the job, the extra's on the F2 where an expensive luxury i couldn't afford.
But back on the brochure, in the same brochure not only the F was advertised but also the minolta XM.

When i went (after all these years) back through the pages it struck me just how advanced minolta's XM was in that day. I knew it co- existet with the F2 but have forgotten it did with the F as well. Anyway when finances allowed i switced from the F to the XM but didn't like it and switched back to nikon ( this time the F2) never looked back and from then on stayed faithfull to nikon up to the present day.


Browsing through the brochure :











And here they are after all those years next to one another wich one would you choose?

[daveh]

The answer is, of course, neither. However I did buy a Topcon Super D about that time: open aperture metering retained whatever viewfinder or screen is in place rather than one of those bulky and limited photomic heads

[raybar]

None of the above for me. I bought a Canon F-1 in June 1972. Still have it. And a few lenses.



How did a Vivitar macro get in there? And what's on the bellows?

[cooltouch]

Neither of the above for me either. By the time I got involved in photography, auto technology was well established. My first camera was a Canon AE-1. I continued on that road for a while, buying an A-1 about a year later, but found I wasn't enjoying the lack of control I had with these cameras. So I took a step backward and bought an FTb. And I LOVED it. Simple, yet highly effective. Shortly after that I learned of the original F-1 and soon added a well-used copy to my growing collection of Canon FD gear. About a year later, just for safe measure, I added a second rather beat-up, but perfectly functioning F-1.

In the subsequent years I have had the opportunity to own and to use a great many 35mm cameras. And of all the ones I've used, I've developed a few favorites. Including the Nikon F2, Pentax KX and LX, and Minolta XD11. But the one camera I keep coming back to for its look and feel and its accuracy and ruggedness and just its general layout, is the original Canon F-1. Well, F-1n to be specific.

I owned a Minolta XM (XK here in the States) for a while, and I was rather impressed with the camera. By the time I acquired it, which was in the early 90s, it was definitely old tech. But I could still appreciate it for what it must have been in its heyday. I realized the leap of faith it must have required, switching to a battery-dependent camera back in the early 70s, but it wasn't an unsurmountable obstcacle. So I've wondered why Minolta didn't stick it out with that camera. But it seems that they did make a few tactical errors with it, probably the biggest being the XK Motor with its dedicated, but gorgeous integral motor drive. They should have been thinking about modularity a bit more. It never made sense to me why they would produce a modular camera like the XK, but with a non-moular motor drive option. Oh well, now clean XK's are worth a fair chunk of change and XK motors are worth some serious coin.

[lesdmess]

I like the Minolta XK pretty well . . . 

[galenk]

My first was a Minolta XGa followed by an X700. I have always wanted an XK but way to pricey.

[lesdmess]

The Minolta XK was so far ahead of the pack.



Not only is Minolta leading edge, but they were also only one of two Japanese companies - and one of a few worldwide, that actually made their own optical glass and lenses.