|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 6, 2007 18:21:40 GMT -5
Dear Minoltaman,
I have to confess that You are the first person I got in contact with, that was in favour of the X-700's P-mode. If You need to freeze movement and You're better off with the shutter priority mode of the XD series. Against that that P-mode is a bit of a strange beast...
Wrt to lighting tips of byuphoto... well, You should surf a bit more on the board here ;-)
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 6, 2007 4:40:33 GMT -5
Minoltaman,
TTL flash control is a great thing - therefore I always use the X-700 when shooting family snaps indoors. I use a big Metz 45 CL-5 flash, which got a small fill flash and a adjustable large main flash, that I usually direct to the ceiling. (I will however acquire a remote cord to try out the lighting technique byuphoto tried his best to teach us... then of course without TTL) Over the X-700 I would however once again recommend the XD-5 (or XD-7/11 if the additional cost is no concern). The feeling of the X-700 is a bit plasticy, against that the XD is way smoother. And I like the soft leather of the XD's.
Sid,
the three lenses You mention all got a very good reputation - probably the 100mm does outperform the other two. It is a very good complement to the 35-70mm zoom, as the zoom is know to become a bit soft at the long end (it is near perfect in the normal and the wide angle range). I got a MC Rokkor copy of the 100mm lens, which is of the older 6/5 design, and this lens has one of the silkiest focus rings I ever saw. The newer ones are however a bit more resistant to flare thanks to improved coatings. (I got the big original lens shade with the lens, so I don't care too much).
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jan 31, 2007 17:28:57 GMT -5
Dear John,
I did - but I sold it to buy some more lenses ;-) . I found the XG-M to be too similar to the X-700, which is a essential Minolta due to the TTL flash option. At the moment I have a SR-T 303 here, but the meter is stuck. I wonder whether I should transplant the meter from a SR-T 101 that doesn't run the slow times anymore.
Luckily enough I got a SR-T 101 fully working, and I love that one, too. It gives me more consistently good results than the more modern cameras. I seem to work more carefully (and slower) with the old camera.
The only strange thing: I never fell in love with the XE-1 - but wait, I now made my mind up to load a film into it. We got foggy weather here. This is good for a few pictures, too. In a week or two I'll report! :-)
Best regards Peter
And Thank You for triggering the XE-1 idea (although that was not exactely what You did propose)
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jan 31, 2007 15:41:11 GMT -5
Minoltaman,
You should try a XD-5 (if You don't want to spend the bucks for the XD-7/11). But be aware: It might infect You (as it did for me). It shares the soft leather (which is joy to use and pain due to its tendency to shrink) and the metal feeling with the XG-1. For me the haptic feeling of a camera is important. I got a Olympus 8080WZ to have a digital option faster than scanning film - but I simply don't like it.
But now back to the topic (I wonder how I managed to keep silent on this topic - it is so seductive to talk on one's prefered camera brand...),
Well I am a confessing Minoltian, and thanks to the Bay of Evil my collection of Minolta glass is spreading here. The dislike of the affiliate should be generally known. Well. I swear I will sell three lenses (to buy four others, keep the finger crossed ;-) - but don't say it loud). At present I got ca. 60 lenses (over 50 being original Minolta ones) all for the SR bayonet. I could not resist in hunting down those Varisoft and shift lenses, and only very few left (big hint: anyone from You want to sell a 4/17 or 2.8/21 Rokkor??).
Everything started two years ago, when I decided to start photography to supplement my water color attempts, because I am a slow painter. It was thought to assist my memory for finishing the water colors - but it immediately outgrew that. Now I am hopelessly infected. I came to Minolta as I didn't like the Leica prices as much as their reputation. A friend (who is a Minoltian, too) convinced me to try Minolta, and I soon understood, that a decent range of lenses (it was not meant to grow out to a collection, what it happened to be :-( ) at a much lower price edge than Canon or Nikon would have implied.
And as I want to photograph scenic views and landscape rather than wildlife, or sports I am happy with the Minolta stuff. And as I like that solid feeling of true precision mechanics I won't ever touch any autofocus gear. You need to know that I am an electrical engineer - and I dislike all that consumer electronics anyway.
Well and I am pretty perfectionistic. I carry the tripod with me most of the time. And I hardly use any zoom lens, just because the feeling of the primes is far superior. And I got the paranoic fear, a zoom might spoil an otherwise good picture...
I will try out an Arca Swiss in spring (I wait for better weather to do so). This is so imteresting...
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 13, 2008 12:54:19 GMT -5
I never got the chance to see an XK in reality. I presume it is just as big as the XE - and then I have to say, that I much prefer the smaller XD. Smoothness of operation and precision of machining are about equal between XD and XE (presumeable also holds for the XK).
And yes, Rokkor glass is very good - and heavily underrated. And there is no serious option to go digital with it.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Dec 7, 2007 12:37:42 GMT -5
Dear Roy,
These are very interesting shots. And it is a very good series. And the last one is the clear climax. And I envy You for Your ability to focus that fast moving target.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jun 28, 2007 13:32:53 GMT -5
Hi Michael, You mean You bought that 3/3 construction lens with that M39 mount, that might fit to the Leica, You won't never own?? OK, You could buy some FDU clone. You might run into troubles with such a camera - but that will trigger a lot of assistance here. The price for the 2.8/135 is OK for a shop. It might even be acceptable for a private trade - but only if the think is nice, and the 4/4 construction. And if the shipment is inexpensive. Given Your NZ constraints I would try to control my lens envy (so stop reading here - it might be that I feed it even more...). If You are wise enough not starting bird shooting (it will be more inexpensive doing this with an airgun rather than with a SLR), then You are well served with that fantastic 4/200 Tele Rokkor. Or even with a 75-200/4.5 Minolta zoom. Both are pretty inexpensive (at least here in Europe) and readily available. Longer lenses are typically not needed. Some time ago I bought a fine Tamron SP 5.6/300 Adaptall-2 lens, which is pretty nice. My tripod can support this (on contrary to that 400 and 600mm lenses). Besides it focusses down to 1.4m, which makes it a pretty useful macro lens. On the wide side I find 35 and 24mm indispensible. The 35mm can be substituted by any of the 35-70/105/135mm Minolta zooms. If You need constant aperture the 3.5/35-70 is the way to go. This zoom is on par with the primes. It is hard to believe how good it is. There is however no way for a Minoltian to avoid the 24mm prime. It is a hell of a lens. 17mm give a stunning view through the finder. But as Anthony on rokkorfiles.com notes, those are pretty limited in their use. But tell me more on that Agfa... disgression is a defining factor of this board (and quite a fun one - because one can learn that much). Best regards Peter PS: I decided to have the aim to reduce the number of my Rokkor glass to fifty lenses. Er, OK, say to sixty. I got a small list. Just in case anybody is interested. There are a few cost efficient, and a few rare ones.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jun 27, 2007 3:16:14 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I like the coal train - and the bush detail. The unsharpness rendition is very good - in the end, that is the very point, where the Rokkor glass shines. I know this wasn't made by Rokkor glas at all. Quite often the best blurry backgrounds are obtained by lenses that tend to be not pretty sharp (say that Jupiter-9 for example). The unique thing on very gool lenses (as the Rokkors, but of course not limited to them) is that those combine smoth backgrounds with sharp focus planes.
But I do disgress... You told, You were hunting down some Rokkor glas. I think this is a good idea. Especially since that manual focus Minolta stuff seems to be highly underrated, with the notable exception of the short telephotos and the extreme lenses, i.e. very wideangle, very fast apertures, or special function as shift lenses. But that should not bother You.
I would recommend You getting a MC or MD Rokkor 1.7/50, which is a very, very good lens, that sometimes sells for less than 5 € here in Germany. There is no bad Rokkor prime at all. So keep looking on the bargains. Btw the 3.5/135 and a Minolta close-up lens No. 0 make up a pretty decent macro setup.
Best regards Peter (confessing Rokkor collector ;-) - and a hopelessly lost in lens envy, now since I got allmost every Rokkor it started in Zeiss C for Hasselblad. Arghh. )
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on May 4, 2007 15:46:53 GMT -5
Peter,
it was a M42 lens, 35mm at F/2.4. I have a hard time to believe it were substantially better than, say, my MC W.Rokkor 2.8/35. As long as I scan the Hasselblad lenses, I hardly saw any below 200 €. As a matter of fact, this is about the same money I have to invest in two of my acquisition to get them in a fully working state again :-(
But back to M42 - I got the impression, the prices for that glass is high these days, as a lot of folks got those lenses for their DSLRs (mainly Canon).
Btw. I never heard of a Flek for the Hasselblad (sorry for my incompetence in MF topics). Can it be, that some of the Kiev stuff were compatible to the Hasselblad? That would be a pretty interesting thing for me, as I still have a lust for a wider WA than that 50mm lens I have in the repair shop right now.
Best regards Peter
PS: sorry for getting OT here...
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on May 4, 2007 13:31:06 GMT -5
Dear Bob,
I heared that the people around are going mad for those Flektogons... but today I watched the first one in the bay of evil. It went away for 91 € (ca. 75 $)! Hell, this for shure has to be a damn good lens, that I'd invest that much money. Considering the load of Rokkor glass I got here already. I think I'll keep my money together in order to buy a MF film scanner sooner or later to get the best out of my Hassie stuff. Btw, I just acquired a 3.5/100 together with a black 500c/m...
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on May 4, 2007 1:44:44 GMT -5
Dear John, dear Bob,
Thank You very much: That was exactly the kind of advice I was looking for!
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on May 2, 2007 14:10:28 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors, It was not difficult (nor expensive) to hunt down a M42 body. I found this one: cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=011&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&viewitem=&item=320107887442&rd=1&rd=1I hope, I got something, which is in the range You recommended! (A big sorry to Randy, I would have preferred to buy from him, but I think it is not practical for being in quite a different part of this blue marble...) Now the next question gets important - a good normal lens. I do formulate it like this right now, since I feel, that when I talked of "cost effectivity" in my original post, this was translated into "cheap", which is not directly what I thought of. I thought of good value for the money, rather than cheap. OK, at the moment I would not be able to buy a Bessaflex - this extremely nice M42 camera Cosina makes to still the classical camera disease of its CEO (the same as Volkswagen developed that fancy 1000PS Bugatti). My first idea would have been the 1.4/50 Supertak, but this seems to be less readily available than I thought. And it seems to be more expensive than I speculated based on the MC Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 (which is a terrific lens sold for ridiculous 20..30$). I don't need the speed of the Super Takumar, as I got all these Minolta big guns. But I am very reluctant to buy a lens, that is not in the same league as my Minolta glass. I am very curious, what Your tips are - and would like to thank You in advance! Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 23, 2007 13:38:43 GMT -5
Dear Randy,
Of course I would rather buy one of Your cameras than one in the Bay of Evil - But last time I bought from the US, I were charged 30 $ for shipment to Germany, and the one before it was 50!
While I would be glad to give the money to You, I am not happy to spend that much money on shipment. If I am mistaken by that, we should switch to personal mail...
W.r.t. lenses I heard a lot of good things on the SMC 1.4/50 Super Takumar. This is a M42 lens, right?
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 23, 2007 13:09:04 GMT -5
Heck - I need to hunt down a M42 camera with a decent normal lens. What were Your camera experts hottest tips for a cost effective and reliable M42 camera?
Any tips are welcome - and I swear, I will even read every line of a ten pages monster thread!
Best regards & Thank You in advance Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on May 2, 2007 14:22:02 GMT -5
Dear Edward,
I would go the seller who sold You the lens with the fungus, and start to lamment. The lens is very capable, and chances are good, that You don't notice the effects of the fungus in the early state. Having it fixed will cost twice the amount You spent for the lens, minimum. Hence such a common lens has no commercial value any more.
The MC Rokkor-PF 1.4/58 is often affected by stuck aperture blades. The lens itself is however pretty shought after, as it is said to behave a bit like its big cousin the 1.2/58. You might want to find someone that disassembles and cleans it. It is possible to disassemble it only partly (i.e. to remove the aperture unit without completely disassembling it) and this is less expensive than a complete CLA. So don't throw it away (if it is OK otherwise).
You can also do some hunting in the bay of evil. I bought a MD Rokkor 1.7/50 for only 5.- €, and it is perfect in all respects.
But I second Your idea to first run a test film - You could assess how much You like the results. And the handling of that old camera.
Best regards Peter
|
|