Manual focus cameras; about the X-700 and the T90?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by p2pjunky, Apr 21, 2007.

  1. p2pjunky

    p2pjunky Guest

    I'm a newbie photographer and I was looking into bying a manual focus
    film camera to learn the basics. I've narrowed the search down to the
    Minolta X-700 and the T90. I'm looking for the bes value for my money,
    but since both are availible under for under $200 price isn't the the
    issue. Since I plan to keep the camera and build from it (ie not just
    use as a starter) I'm considering:

    Lenses-which have a wider range availible for good prices;
    All-round quality of build, ergonomics, durablity, etc.

    Thanks,

    p2pjunky
     
    p2pjunky, Apr 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. p2pjunky

    Flavius Guest

    no contest .... get the X-700

    sure you want to set exposures manually for learning purposes ... but,
    ... when you must take a photo QUICK the P mode makes great automatic
    exposure decisions, I have NEVER had mine miss ....
     
    Flavius, Apr 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. p2pjunky

    Joel Guest

    I have been enjoying digital camera for too long (over a decade I think)
    to have any time thinking about film to give you any advice about film.
    Except for the extra cost and others.

    - $200 for the camera isn't so bad, but isn't the end of story. Cuz you
    will have to buy FILM to take photo, extra money for film developing

    - It will cost you around $5-7 everytime you want to see the result of what
    you photograph, and usually end up don't use the camera often.

    - And your capture will depend on the hand of photolab not yours. IOW, the
    photo may not turn out what you have in mind or what you want

    So, for learning and more, faster, cheaper learning etc. I would think
    good enough DSLR is the best way to learn to professional level. I wouldn't
    suggest P&S because it only allow you to shoot more, but won't force you to
    learn more like DSLR does. And if you want to go for DSLR then I would
    suggest to prepare to spend at least 1-2 years on post processing, and 5-10
    years to start enjoying what you have learned.
     
    Joel, Apr 21, 2007
    #3
  4. p2pjunky

    Ric Trexell Guest

    ****************************************************************************
    **
    Dear P2pjunky: I have used the X-700 for 20+ years and still have my
    original camera. (Used it the other day too.) I have three of them but one
    is jammed. Anyway, I think it is an excellant camera. As for those that
    say to get a digital, while film developing is going to cost more than a
    digital, you also have to remember that any good digital of at least 10
    megapixals is going to run you close to $800-$900. Also remember that in
    two years, that camera will be worth about $300. So you are going to lose a
    lot with a digital. The X-700 went out of production about 3 years ago or
    more and the day will come when parts are no longer available for it. I
    looked up fixing my jammed X-700 on the KEH website and they consider that
    camera to have a value of $0. So if you get a good one, my original has
    been in the repair shop once and I consider that it has paid for itself many
    times over, and that shows that it has not cost me anything really. So when
    someone tells you that a digital is cheaper, ask if they have taken in to
    consideration the fact that it will devalue by about 75% in the first three
    years. For now I would go with a film camera, even a top of the line Nikon
    F6 would be a better deal I would think. Have fun whatever you do. Ric in
    Wisconsin.
     
    Ric Trexell, Apr 27, 2007
    #4
  5. p2pjunky

    Joel Guest

    Well, if you ask me than I would say I have taken hundreds of thousands of
    photos with digital camera (and around 25-30+ years? with film). I don't
    print them all, but if I take that many with film then I dunno what else to
    answer your question <bg>

    And I paid around $1400-1500 for the body only (and it costs around
    $800-900 now), but that doesn't mean $500-600 to cover the film and
    develope. I paid $800-900+ (can't remember) a pop for my film camera, and
    you may find them in eBay with great lens for $30-60
     
    Joel, Apr 27, 2007
    #5
  6. p2pjunky

    jeremy Guest


    A couple of observations:

    1: Advanced amateurs somehow managed to get by for decades by taking less
    than "hundreds of thousands of pictures." I cannot understand how one
    benefits from taking 1000 shots in a single weekend.

    2: How many digital shooters just snap away, with no real thought behind
    their photos, and end up with a very low number of "keepers?"

    3: It seems to me that digital equipment tends to encourage taking lots of
    shots, at the expense of well-composed ones. Whether that is good or bad is
    for each individual photographer to decide.

    4: For those of us that have significant investments in legacy gear, and who
    don't shoot large numbers of images per session, the question is whether to
    dump/trade/sell our current equipment--probably at pennies on the
    dollar--and buy in to digital technology, with camera bodies that will
    become technologically obsolete in 18 months. Not everybody needs digital
    cameras.

    5: For me, the solution has been to keep the film investment, and to buy a
    film scanner. I get to digitally edit my shots, without the need to capture
    the images digitally. Call it a "middle way," but it works for me, and
    probably for lots of others that already have all the (film) cameras and
    lenses that they could ever need.

    I admit that if I didn't already have such a large inventory of film gear,
    I'd just go digital right from the beginning. But I have grown very
    comfortable with my older, but excellent, equipment. It is not so easy to
    just get rid of it and to start over with "plasticky" equipment that feels
    like toys.
     
    jeremy, Apr 27, 2007
    #6
  7. p2pjunky

    Joel Guest

    I don't know if it will make you any happier if you can understand how one
    benefits from taking 1000 shots in single weekend.

    Well, I'm no longer do it because of age and health, but I was martial
    arts tournament photographer, and I often used brust mode. And I read one
    photographer has his camera auto-shoot 24 hrs/day (almost like recording)
    and his captures tens of thousand of shots, and then he converts into video.

    This you have to ask them and comparing their snaps with your real
    thought. I do photograph for money, and how to make client happy, capturing
    the best art to make me happy etc. those are usually my real though <bg>

    And I do believe most if not all photographers do have some thought before
    pressing the shuttle. And I spend time monitor group like this to learn
    more about what real thought others may have that I still don't.
    Lot of shot that I agree, and that's my point when I suggest someone wants
    to learn photography skill.

    - Practicing and practicing and practicing (or trying different settings,
    different angles, different situations etc..) and it usually end up with lot
    of images to study.

    - With digital cemera they can shoot and view their homeworks on monitor
    without having to but and develope the film. Especially they can explode
    the photography more without hanving to worry about the cost of dfilm
    eveloping.
    Don't forget the original poster mentioned about learning photography. I
    hope this is the same thread I read
    My suggestion wasn't for everyone but for some especially one who starts
    to learn more about photography, so with digital camera they will have more
    chance to use and view the result comparing to film.
    Here, I have realized that I will lose lot of money on digital cameras (I
    started way back from something like 320-240 (??) and just the P&Ses alone
    cost me nearly 10K, DSLR doesn't cost me much except just the BODY cuz the
    lens and studio equipments can be used with any newer body.

    And same with most people, I came from film world, and it cost me some
    grands when Canon switched their FD lens system to AF that I can't use all
    the FD lens with current model.
     
    Joel, Apr 27, 2007
    #7
  8. T90 is a lovely camera, if you can put up with the noise.

    The downside is (for me) that it uses FD lenses which Canon turned its back on
    in the early '90s so they cannot be used on any newer Canon equipment.

    I have an investment in Canon FD lenses that I'd have to dump when I do, as I
    will, move to a digital body.

    Now I'm not sure about the lens mounts of Minolta lenses but I believe
    (please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that they will still attach to
    current Sony bodies, giving you a digital upgrade path that allows you to keep
    your existing lenses. As I said, I may be mistaken on this.

    Of course buying Nikon or Pentax kit also allows you to upgrade to their
    digital bodies in the same way. I'm not sure what is going to happen to Pentax
    small format bodies now they've been bought; they may concentrate on the
    medium format.

    So my advice: although I have one and it really is lovely, the T90 does not
    give you an upgrade path. If manual Minolta lenses fit on new Sony bodies then
    that'd be a good path, or get Nikon kit.

    If you don't care about the upgrade path and don't mind a very noisy camera
    then get the Canon T-90.
     
    Richard Polhill, Apr 30, 2007
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.