Problem - Minolta X-700 stopped down when advancing frame

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Zero2K000, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. Zero2K000

    Alan Browne Guest


    Yes: Photons
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. What are you talking about?

    Leitz glass is in general the best on the planet, and costs the most.
    If it could be done cheaper, it wouuld be. It can't.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Zero2K000

    PGG Guest

    I am not doubting that Leitz glass is the best on the planet.

    Since you tell people that the equipment they buy is crap, I'd like to
    know if you believe that everybody should buy Leitz/Leica instead of
    Canon, Nikon, and Minolta. I'd like to hear if you think that all of
    Canon, Nikon, and Minolta is crap and that all photographers should shoot
    Leica. Because that is the impression I get when you tell people that the
    cameries they buy are pieces of junk.
     
    PGG, Dec 20, 2004
    #23
  4. I used to work in photo retailing. I have seen guys drive up in
    Mercedes and wearing Rolexes buy cheap junk. Many of them regretted it
    later. A few listened to me when I told them to do it right the first
    time. A lot of the people who bought Leica products from me were not
    the wealthiest customers we had. Many were anything but! They simply
    wanted the best available.

    People who CAN afford Leica (and are serious about 35mm) and don't are
    fools. Take this fellow John Shaw, for example. I cannot believe he
    takes his work seriously if he's using Nikon zooms. That's simply the
    stupidest thing I ever heard of. He must be a pimp for Nikon.

    "I'd like to hear if you think that all of Canon, Nikon, and Minolta is
    crap and that all photographers should shoot Leica."

    My Leicaflex equipment is 20-30 years old and functions virtually
    flawlessly. It costs LESS to own the best when the stuff lasts that
    long. My Leicaflex SL2's was made in 1975. I have spent a total of $250
    on maintenance on this camera, and that was only recently. The camera
    sold new for $1200 in 1975. $1200 divided by 30 years is $40 per year.

    Are you telling me that people can't afford $40 a year?

    When Leica releases a new lens, it is generally state of the art for
    that focal length and speed, and usually remains so for many years. So,
    even though Nikon or Canon may release a lens in 10 years that's as
    good as the Leica is now, by that time Leica will have an even better
    one. Look at the history of the 180mm f/2,8 Elmarit-R for example. It
    is now in its third incarnation and is an APO lens of superb quality.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #24
  5. Zero2K000

    PGG Guest

    Call him stupid, but he seems like a successful photographer. My guess is
    that at least 3/4 of successful 35mm photographers in the last 15 years
    were _not_ Leica shooters.

    And if zooms are that bad, then why does your precious LEICA SELL THEM?
    My Minolta SRT101 was handed down to me from a relative. It has been
    CLAed once in 35 years and works flawlessly! Must be crap, huh?
    I'm telling you that Leica equipment is overpriced and buyers aren't
    amortising the cost over 30 years. Please spec out a 35mm SLR Leica
    outfit with 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 135mm, and 200mm prime lenses. I did it for
    less than $800, and I'm guessing that this gives me 85% or more of your
    precious Leica quality.

    Besides, with the bargain in used 35mm equipment from the big 4 (Pentax,
    Nikon, Minolta, and Canon), who in there right mind would spend that much
    money on a miniature format that is quickly being superceded by digital?

    I am quite pleased with my 35mm setup. These days, my money is going into
    large-format.

    I believe you when you say that Leica makes the best glass period. I
    really do. But I don't like it when you tell people that they bought crap
    if it ain't Leica.
     
    PGG, Dec 20, 2004
    #25
  6. "I'm telling you that Leica equipment is overpriced and buyers aren't
    amortising the cost over 30 years. Please spec out a 35mm SLR Leica
    outfit with 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 135mm, and 200mm prime lenses. I did it
    for
    less than $800, and I'm guessing that this gives me 85% or more of your
    precious Leica quality. "

    But I want 100% now AND for 30 years...

    R9 with 24, 35, 50, (no 135 any more, but you can get them used;
    APO-ASPH 90 would be my choice) and 180 APO-Elmarit-R. Yeah, just do
    it, baby!

    It's not 'overpriced' at all. It cannot be done for less. If it could
    be (and it can't) THEN it would be 'overpriced'.

    "... who in there right mind would spend that much money on a miniature
    format that is quickly being superceded by digital? "

    Leica just brought out a digital back for the R8 and R9, but in any
    event digital is not equal to film and probably never will be. If you
    buy obne of these you can have it both ways....

    http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmodul/index_e.html

    Consider what the high-end canon and Kodak cameras cost, the Leica is
    cheaper...
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #26
  7. By that reasoning, every photographer should buy the Mt. Palomar, or the
    Hubble telescope. After all, if you are, "serious" about your photography,
    you should buy the best there is, right? To buy something less expensive
    that will still do the job, is just not an option.........
     
    William Graham, Dec 20, 2004
    #27
  8. "I'd rather listen to a photographer than some goof who used to be in
    photo retailing in the 60's and 70's."

    Why? Photographers don't have access to a whole store full of photo
    products to try out. What the hell do they know? Have you shot with an
    Alpa, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Hasselblad, Contarex, Leica, and
    Leicaflex? Very few pros have had that kind of wealth of products to
    play with over a long period of time. I actually had a much greater
    chance to experiment than the typical pro does. I took stuff home all
    the time to play with and experiment. I also experimented with films,
    developers, and papers.

    I would often run critical tests and show the results to others. It was
    usually easy to tell what was the best. Pros don't have the time for
    this. Most of them couldn't care less, and bought just on reputation or
    the suggestions of friends.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #28
  9. "By that reasoning, every photographer should buy the Mt. Palomar, or
    the
    Hubble telescope. After all, if you are, "serious" about your
    photography,
    you should buy the best there is, right? To buy something less
    expensive
    that will still do the job, is just not an option......... "

    It's not more expensive, it's cheaper....
    I figure my Leicaflex cost me $40 a year. Is that too much?
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #29
  10. Zero2K000

    McLeod Guest

    I'd rather listen to a photographer than some goof who used to be in
    photo retailing in the 60's and 70's.
     
    McLeod, Dec 20, 2004
    #30
  11. I might go along with that only if amended to say "...in the 90's and
    Having sat on both sides of the counter, I'd have to agree. A camera
    store owner may (some were just bean counters) have the best
    perspective of all.

    Not only was I able to personally evaluate most of the products I
    carried, I got input from MANY pros as to what worked for them and what
    didn't.

    By and large, professional photographers are a superstitous lot. They
    generally used whatever had worked for them in the past, even in the
    face of overwhelming contrary evidence. I had one guy who swore by
    Miranda cameras - because that was what he used for the first picture
    he ever sold. But if you listen to enough of 'em, you see trends.
     
    Scott Schuckert, Dec 20, 2004
    #31
  12. I don't know.....I would have to do the same analysis on Canon and Nikon
    equipment for the same photographic use before I could adequately answer
    that question. As for me, I bought the camera I did, for different reasons
    than you bought yours. My camera suits my purposes very well, and I doubt
    that I would be happier with either a cheaper one, or a more expensive one.
    I have a lot of lenses that suit me just fine, and didn't cost me too much.
    Had I purchased a Leica, the body would have worked about the same, but the
    same lens set would have cost me much more, and I wouldn't be able to tell
    the difference in the final photographs. So, "to each his own" as they say.
    I certainly couldn't make the blanket statement that everyone should buy
    what I have, and anything else is a waste of money, because eventually, they
    will be unhappy not having the "best". Not everyone thinks any particular
    camera is the, "best". That's what makes life interesting. My rough,
    uninformed opinion is that Leica makes the best rangefinder camera on the
    market, but when it comes to SLR's there are several others that are better
    buys. IOW, if I wanted a rangefinder outfit, I would aspire to owning an M
    series Leica, but otherwise, I would be perfectly happy with several other
    brands, particularly, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta......
     
    William Graham, Dec 20, 2004
    #32
  13. "Had I purchased a Leica, the body would have worked about the same,
    but the
    same lens set would have cost me much more, and I wouldn't be able to
    tell
    the difference in the final photographs."

    HUH? Why? Are you blind?
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #33
  14. Zero2K000

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : : > "By that reasoning, every photographer should buy the Mt. Palomar, or
    : > the
    : > Hubble telescope. After all, if you are, "serious" about your
    : > photography,
    : > you should buy the best there is, right? To buy something less
    : > expensive
    : > that will still do the job, is just not an option......... "
    : >
    : > It's not more expensive, it's cheaper....
    : > I figure my Leicaflex cost me $40 a year. Is that too much?
    : >
    : I don't know.....I would have to do the same analysis on Canon and Nikon
    : equipment for the same photographic use before I could adequately answer
    : that question. As for me, I bought the camera I did, for different reasons
    : than you bought yours. My camera suits my purposes very well, and I doubt
    : that I would be happier with either a cheaper one, or a more expensive one.
    : I have a lot of lenses that suit me just fine, and didn't cost me too much.
    : Had I purchased a Leica, the body would have worked about the same, but the
    : same lens set would have cost me much more, and I wouldn't be able to tell
    : the difference in the final photographs. So, "to each his own" as they say.
    : I certainly couldn't make the blanket statement that everyone should buy
    : what I have, and anything else is a waste of money, because eventually, they
    : will be unhappy not having the "best". Not everyone thinks any particular
    : camera is the, "best". That's what makes life interesting. My rough,
    : uninformed opinion is that Leica makes the best rangefinder camera on the
    : market, but when it comes to SLR's there are several others that are better
    : buys. IOW, if I wanted a rangefinder outfit, I would aspire to owning an M
    : series Leica, but otherwise, I would be perfectly happy with several other
    : brands, particularly, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta......


    I paid $100.00 for my Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm lens about 20 years ago.
    It works as well today as it did when it was new. That works out to $5 a
    year. I couldn't begin to count the rolls of film that I've put through it.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Dec 21, 2004
    #34
  15. Zero2K000

    Bob Hickey Guest

    Recently, I had an R3. The body was made in Portugal with many Japanese
    parts, the lens was made in Canada with Corning of France glass, the winder,
    which broke was from Germany. I didn't care for the camera, that much, but
    the lens was as good as the best Pentaxes I've had. The problem is: I don't
    know what I had. But Pentax collaborated with Zeiss at one point, so I'm
    not sure what I had there either. As a matter of fact, I'm not too sure
    anybody knows exactly what they're buying anymore, let alone defend the
    product as being the best. But, that's progress.
    Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Dec 21, 2004
    #35
  16. Zero2K000

    McLeod Guest

    The operative words were "goof" and "60's and 70's". I don't need to
    know how the Topcon or Miranda compares to the Contarex. By those
    lens standards Leica probably did very well. The fact is I haven't
    used 35mm film for a job for almost 2 years now. If I need original
    prints it's shot on medium format, for any other purposes it's
    digital.
     
    McLeod, Dec 21, 2004
    #36
  17. So what? The question was: What opportunities did most pros have during
    those days to compare a wide variety of products? Working in a
    well-stocked camera shop, I had access to the best stuff made.
    Contarexes were very sexy!

    If you look back to about 1966-1975, it hardly seems possible that
    Canon would emerge to become the dominant product line it is today.
    Pentax seemed more likely to make the jump to the big time than Canon,
    based on their offerings and the way they did business.

    When someone would come into the shop looking to buy some good
    equipment, we who had had access to a wide variety of equipment on a
    daily basis would be in the best position to advise him.

    In those days 35mm was really not used by pros that much aside from
    newspapers.

    For the typical wedding/portrait pro, there was little choice beyond
    Hasselblad anyway, so that was easy. There were a few who tried
    Bronica, but not many (we didn't sell them at the store where I
    worked). Those Bronicas broke down with appalling frequency, according
    to the customers who came in to buy Hasselblads to replace them.
    Commercial photgraphers used sheet film and old view cameras, so we
    didn't really get involved too much with them on the equipment end of
    things beyond sending in lenses for service to have the shutters
    cleaned and lubed.

    But the advanced amateurs were plentiful and active. Well-heeled
    amateurs bought lots of Contarexes, Alpas, Leicas, Leicaflexes, and
    even Hasselblads in those years. We sold lots of darkrooms and
    projectors. And tons of Kodachrome....

    Ah yes, the good old days.....

    Anyway, my oroginal point was that we had the best opportunity to play
    with and use a lot of equipment, abd we were in a good position to
    advise people.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 21, 2004
    #37
  18. Zero2K000

    Sander Vesik Guest

    However, they actually go out and take photos that matter, as opposed to
    teh same boring shot of people walking past teh window taken over and
    over again. They also normaly know how to make photographic usage of a
    camera beyond simply showing all teh buttons to teh clients.
    People who do that usualy either go hungry or have a different main job.
     
    Sander Vesik, Dec 21, 2004
    #38
  19. Zero2K000

    mark Guest

    It depends on the store, and the individual.

    Back in the late 70's I worked for a Mom & Pop store that was owned by
    a friend of the family. My main goal for the job was to end up owning
    great camera equipment.

    Thankfully, the store encouraged employees to borrow any of the used or
    demo equipment so they could learn about the various items we had for
    sale.
    The hitch was we still had to pay for film and processing (or supplies
    if we were doing our own developing and printing.)

    So I test drove a variety of cameras, and I wasn't just going through
    the motions because it was my film, and I wanted to make sure I'd find
    the best camera for the most important customer I'd ever have - me.

    As it happens, the best cameras for me were ones I didn't recommend too
    often to others, but I could talk about relative advantages between
    various cameras we sold because I'd tried them all, and knew what I
    liked and didn't like about each.

    Change the store to a chain where employees aren't allowed to take
    stock home for a few days, or change the employee to someone who is
    just there for a paycheck, and you have a very different story.
     
    mark, Dec 22, 2004
    #39
  20. "However, they actually go out and take photos that matter, as opposed
    to
    the same boring shot of people walking past the window taken over and
    over again. They also normaly know how to make photographic usage of a
    camera beyond simply showing all the buttons to the clients."

    Photos that matter? To whom? You mean those enormously important grip
    'n' grin shots? You mean those construction progress shots? Who do you
    think you're talking to? Most pros don't take photos that 'matter' any
    more than amateurs' do. It's just that someone else is paying. You
    haven't the faintest notion of what most 'pros' take pictures of. The
    work of most pros is even more mundane and unimportant than snapshots
    taken by 80% of the population.

    As far as technical quality, the advanced amateur with the leisure to
    do a good job often did as well or better on the technical side with
    his M-3, M-4, or M-5 (those are Leicas in case you don't know) and
    Kodachrome II on his trip to India or Italy than your so-called 'pro'.
    The ease of use of these products was a major factor, and they were
    designed for that kind of work (reportage ).
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #40
    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.