«

I realize that they have little value now but do not just want to chuck them
into the skip. I would rather give them away to someone who could still make
use of them. Any suggestions?

divoch

"news.virginmedia.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I realize that they have little value now but do not just want to chuck them
>into the skip. I would rather give them away to someone who could still make
>use of them. Any suggestions?


Get in touch with a local college that does photography classes, and
offer them to the students. Most (but by no means all) colleges still
expect students to learn using film cameras.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:12:31 +0000
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "news.virginmedia.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I realize that they have little value now but do not just want to
> >chuck them into the skip. I would rather give them away to someone
> >who could still make use of them. Any suggestions?
>
>
> Get in touch with a local college that does photography classes, and
> offer them to the students. Most (but by no means all) colleges still
> expect students to learn using film cameras.
>
City and Guilds no longer offers qualifications in wet photography.
There was a good exhibition by art students at the local college last
year, but that was shot with cameras they'd made themselves - try doing
that with digital. :-)

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:27:04 -0000
"news.virginmedia.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I realize that they have little value now but do not just want to
> chuck them into the skip. I would rather give them away to someone
> who could still make use of them. Any suggestions?
>
Don't chuck them - some of us are still using film, even buying
obsolete junk - er ... classics - on eBay (although the postage can
cost more than the cameras). My SO graduated a while ago from a point &
shoot digital to one with manual controls. She fancied having a go
with film so bought a Praktica kit the other day (it should be OK, her
reasoning went, because I have some Prakticas). I think she was a bit
surprised/intimidated by the manual-everything and considerable weight.
She'd probably appreciate something as advanced as an XD5. :-)

news.virginmedia.com <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>I realize that they have little value now but do not just want to chuck them
>into the skip. I would rather give them away to someone who could still make
>use of them. Any suggestions?

There is considerable excitement in some circles, as the new Panasonic
G1 can, with adaptors, accommodate virtually any lens from the past 50
years. Manual focus, of course, but if the lenses have any quality, they
may be worth a few bob.

I'm not a Minolta user so don't know the differences.

Mike

--
Michael J Davis
<Please note that the Reply-To: address will remain in use for at least 30
days, but the sender and from addresses are not valid.>
<><

I bought an adaptor on ebay so I could use my Minolta lens's on my Canon
camera. Works great in aperture priority mode.

My 50mm 1.2 became somewhere between a 50mm 1.4 and a 1.5.

You also have to use manual focus.

John.

"news.virginmedia.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9b4gl.212517$(E-Mail Removed)2...
>I realize that they have little value now but do not just want to chuck
>them into the skip. I would rather give them away to someone who could
>still make use of them. Any suggestions?
>
> divoch
>

John <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>I bought an adaptor on ebay so I could use my Minolta lens's on my Canon
>camera. Works great in aperture priority mode.
>
>My 50mm 1.2 became somewhere between a 50mm 1.4 and a 1.5.

Eh?

Mike

--
Michael J Davis
<Please note that the Reply-To: address will remain in use for at least 30
days, but the sender and from addresses are not valid.>
<><

"Michael J Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> John <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>>I bought an adaptor on ebay so I could use my Minolta lens's on my Canon
>>camera. Works great in aperture priority mode.
>>
>>My 50mm 1.2 became somewhere between a 50mm 1.4 and a 1.5.
>
> Eh?
>
You loose a bit though the adaptor. The images come out a little bit darker.
I open up 1 stop to compensate.

John.

John <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>
>"Michael J Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> John <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>>>I bought an adaptor on ebay so I could use my Minolta lens's on my Canon
>>>camera. Works great in aperture priority mode.
>>>
>>>My 50mm 1.2 became somewhere between a 50mm 1.4 and a 1.5.
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>You loose a bit though the adaptor. The images come out a little bit darker.
>I open up 1 stop to compensate.

You mean the adaptor has *glass* in it? (i.e. like a telephoto
adaptor.)

Otherwise the light collecting ability of the lens is the same
regardless of the camera used.

If the images come out darker, it's more likely to be sensitivity /
calibration differences between the cameras. IMHO of course.

Mike

--
Michael J Davis
<Please note that the Reply-To: address will remain in use for at least 30
days, but the sender and from addresses are not valid.>
<><

Michael J Davis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>>
>>"Michael J Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>> John <(E-Mail Removed)> was inspired to say
>>>>I bought an adaptor on ebay so I could use my Minolta lens's on my Canon
>>>>camera. Works great in aperture priority mode.
>>>>
>>>>My 50mm 1.2 became somewhere between a 50mm 1.4 and a 1.5.
>>>
>>> Eh?
>>>
>>You loose a bit though the adaptor. The images come out a little bit darker.
>>I open up 1 stop to compensate.
>
>You mean the adaptor has *glass* in it? (i.e. like a telephoto
>adaptor.)
>
>Otherwise the light collecting ability of the lens is the same
>regardless of the camera used.
>
>If the images come out darker, it's more likely to be sensitivity /
>calibration differences between the cameras. IMHO of course.


The adaptor has to have a glass element in it otherwise it would be
impossible to obtain anywhere near infinity focus. The lens would be
good for macro work only.

That's because of the difference in register between Minolta MD and
Canon EF lenses. Canon EF has one of the shorter registers, which is
why you can fit so many different types of lenses to it with an adapter.
For example, I use Contax/Yashica, Nikon AIS and AF, Pentax K and M42
mount lenses on my Canon 5D bodies. They all give correct infinity
focus, and none of the adapters needs a glass element.

Not only do adapters with a glass element reduce the light coming
through the lens, but they make the focal length longer, typically by a
factor of 1.2 or 1.3. What is worse is that they significantly degrade
image quality; the effect is far worse than an average teleconverter.

So using Minolta MD lenses on a Canon EOS body would be pretty
pointless.

On the other hand, the MD mount's short register would not prevent an
adapter being manufactured to fit them to a Four Thirds DSLR, let along
the Micro Four Thirds Panasonic G1 which has an even shorter register.

Leica M lenses have an even shorter register than Minolta MD, and an
adapter is already available to fit them to the Micro Four Thirds mount.
But I doubt there is much demand for a Minolta MD adapter.

The best route might be to have an adapter specially made by SRB-Griturn
of Luton, who specialise in such things. Their prices are surprisingly
reasonable:

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/