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

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

p2pjunky@gmail.com - 21 Apr 2007 05:58 GMT

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

Reply to this Message

Flavius - 21 Apr 2007 16:09 GMT

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 ....

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> p2pjunky

Reply to this Message

Joel - 21 Apr 2007 16:26 GMT

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Lenses-which have a wider range availible for good prices;
> All-round quality of build, ergonomics, durablity, etc.

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.

> Thanks,
>
> p2pjunky

Reply to this Message

Ric Trexell - 27 Apr 2007 00:50 GMT

> 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.

****************************************************************************
**
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.

Reply to this Message

Joel - 27 Apr 2007 02:48 GMT

<snip>

> 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.

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

Reply to this Message

jeremy - 27 Apr 2007 16:24 GMT

>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.

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.

Reply to this Message

Joel - 27 Apr 2007 18:51 GMT

> >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
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> than "hundreds of thousands of pictures." I cannot understand how one
> benefits from taking 1000 shots in a single weekend.

    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.

    But that are few stories you may not understand <kidding>

> 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?"

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Don't forget the original poster mentioned about learning photography. I
hope this is the same thread I read

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply to this Message

Richard Polhill - 30 Apr 2007 08:20 GMT

> 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

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.

Reply to this Message