Wanted Looking to buy an older 70s to 80s 35mm SLR camera. Minolta, Nikon, Olympus or Canon

[DougMen]

I used to Love the Buyer's Guide edition published once a year by Modern Photography magazine, which had a page for every SLR made, with a photo that had all the controls labeled, and text of all the specs. I'd love to see them again in pdf form. All the older cameras, like the Canon FTB, Nikkormats, Alpas, Exaktas, Beseler Topcons, Miranda Sensorex, Mamiya DTL500 and 1000 (the first with spot metering), Practica, Fuji, Pentax, Konica, Olympus, Minolta, and others I may have forgotten. This was in the era of the SRT-101 and Nikon F2, long before the more modern cameras, like the Nikon FE/FM, any Minolta X series, or Canon A1 and AE1 series existed.

 

[DougMen]

One thing I had to get used to when switching between the Minolta and Nikon cameras is that the aperture dials on the lenses are reversed. Minolta and Canon go counter clockwise to stop down and clockwise to open up, and Nikon and Pentax are the opposite clockwise to stop down and counter clockwise to open up.
I think Minolta and Nikon lenses also turned in the opposite direction to attach and remove from the bodies.

 

[porkpie]

Yes I'm on it already. I'm gonna grab these.
2 for $3.00 delivered.
View attachment 257505

Not sure if these will work to deliver exact voltage and stable output, although I hope they will work for you.

Whose got the Power? - A Guide to Classic Film Camera Batteries

For lovers of old 35mm film cameras, one of the biggest headaches is finding batteries for powering the electronics.

high5cameras.com

 

[archetype]

Thanks for reminding me. I should take those out of my X700 and X370. They've been in them for years. I hope they haven't leaked and damaged anything.

They do leak and damage, so hop to it.

 

[archetype]

Ken Rockwell, in this article, states that they were built so well that more of them are still working today than even Leicas from that era. Speaking of Leica, they chose to base their R series SLRs on Minoltas, not Nikons or Canons.

Minolta SRT-101

Ken Rockwell is a wonderful resource, compiled by someone cheerfully obsessive about cameras.

 

[Best1989]

There are some guides online to convert the SRTs to use some more modern batteries. I got a SRT201 some months ago but I still need to try it, mainly because of the battery and the light seals that need to be changed. I also got the XD11 and a X700. I kinda favor Minolta, lol

I hope those two you got work fine!

 

[DougMen]

There are some guides online to convert the SRTs to use some more modern batteries. I got a SRT201 some months ago but I still need to try it, mainly because of the battery and the light seals that need to be changed. I also got the XD11 and a X700. I kinda favor Minolta, lol

I hope those two you got work fine!

I always wanted an XD11. I don't know why, 'cause I' d never use the shutter priority mode, as I pretty much live on aperture priority all the time. It's the most convenient and easiest way to have complete control over both aperture and shutter speed. But, it just always looked like a very nice camera. So nice that it's the platform that Leica first used to base their R series SLRs on. However, at this point it's a moot point anyway, since I can barely make it down to the lobby to get my mail, and riding my bike to the park or beach to shoot photos is out of the question.

 

[DougMen]

They do leak and damage, so hop to it.

I just took out the X700 and X370, and batteries in the X370 were dead, but there was no leakage or damage, and the batteries in the X700 were still good, so I used them to run both cameras through their paces.
Everything on both seems to be perfect still. All shutter speeds seem so be accurate when I run through all of them in manual mode on both cameras. Meters on both work perfectly, as does the depth of field preview and exp. compensation on the 700 (the 370 doesn't have those two functions).
Program, AP, and manual all work on the 700, and AP and manual work on the 370 (it doesn't have program mode). I have no way to test TTL flash metering on the 700.
All lenses are amazingly clean and clear, with no fungus or haze at all. All zoom functions and aperture blades are smooth and stick free. I have two 28-80s, a one touch Kalimar, and a two touch Vivitar, and the Kalimar is mounted on the 370, which doesn't have depth of field preview, so I didn't remove it from the body to test its blades, but I'm sure they're fine.
Both bodies and all lenses are so clean that they all look brand new. Even the mirrors and focusing screens on both look brand new, and don't show a single speck of dust when I look through their viewfinders.
I'd love to take them out and run a roll of film through both, but I don't think the battery in my portable oxygen machine would last long enough for me to make it to the park and back, even though it's only a few blocks away.
Besides that I hate print film, because the prints that you get from Walmart, Walgreens, Target, etc., are always so crappy, and a single roll of Fujichrome or Ektachrome that used to cost around $6-8 is now $20 for Ektachrome 100 and $33(!) for Fujichrome, both 36 exposures, at least at B&H.
I was reading last night at Ken Rockwell's site that Tokina made a 17mm 3.5 that was only $230 new, and could be found for $150 used! If I had known about that I would have bought one in a NY minute!
The 19-35mm zoom I have that I said is a Vivitar is actually labeled Kalimar, but the same exact lens was sold with the Vivitar name, and another too, but I don't remember what the other brand was.
B&H has mailers from Fuji for processing one roll of 35mm or 120 slide film for $12.99, which seems reasonable. Fuji used to have a processing lab here on Oahu, but IDK if it's still there or not.

 

[duceditor]

I’m enjoying this thread. For its evident appreciation of these older, very fine, film cameras, and as an update for my own ‘past its sell by date’ knowledge.

Ektachrome is really that much? Ouch! Is Cibachrome (printing material) still available? I’ve not thought about any of this - once my daily bread and butter - for now years!

When I packed away my gear it just went out of mind. The camera systems perfectly preserved - batteries, of course, removed - but the darkroom gear less so. (It is now better stored).

I suppose guys like me are like retired blacksmiths after the car and tractor replaced the horse.

Glad there are folks like you keeping at least the remnants of that earlier time and technology alive!

-don

 

[DougMen]

I’m enjoying this thread. For its evident appreciation of these older, very fine, film cameras, and as an update for my own ‘past its sell by date’ knowledge.

Ektachrome is really that much? Ouch! Is Cibachrome (printing material) still available? I’ve not thought about any of this - once my daily bread and butter - for now years!

When I packed away my gear it just went out of mind. The camera systems perfectly preserved - batteries, of course, removed - but the darkroom gear less so. (It is now better stored).

I suppose guys like me are like retired blacksmiths after the car and tractor replaced the horse.

Glad there are folks like you keeping at least the remnants of that earlier time and technology alive!

-don

This got me really excited tonight, because I love cameras as much as guitars, but I can't get as excited about autofocus cameras and lenses with no aperture rings and tiny manual focusing rings, even if I could afford them, or my health was good enough to go out and shoot. I've also read that the optical viewfinders on DSLRs that still have mirrors and optical finders are very dim compared to those on our old manual focus bodies.
I was looking at used gear at B&H, and the only bodies they had were a couple of giant F5s with built-in motor drives for $500, an FM3A for $1200, a manual exposure Pentax K1000, which is fine for portraits and landscapes, but is a PITA for trying to catch little kids running around, an athlete in motion, or a bird in flight.
The only other bodies they had were a couple of Canon Rebel autofocus ones for $100, and a lot of very expensive Leica rangefinders.
None of the great manual focus bodies from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Ricoh, and others.
Lenses were a little better. They had more for Nikon AI than any others (both from Nikon and third party makers), and Nikon was better to their loyalists than Minolta, because they just modified their F mount for autofocus use, so people could use their manual focus glass on the new bodies, and the older autofocus glass had manual aperture rings and focusing rings so they could be used on manual focus bodies.
Minolta changed to a whole new mount when they went autofocus (which is still used by Sony). I'm not sure about Canon, and whether their FD lenses could be used on autofocus bodies, or if the newer lenses would work on manual focus bodies.
I know a lot of newer Nikon lenses don't even have aperture rings!
I saw next to no manual focus glass in the Minolta MD mount, the Canon FD mount, the Pentax K mount, or the Olympus OM mount. They did have a couple of Soligors for Minolta, and a Kiron 28-70 for Olympus, which was a good little affordable lens.
They also had several manual focus Tokinas and Tamrons for Nikon, as well as Nikkor lenses. They had an autofocus version of my 19-35 for Nikon with the Tokina name on it for $99 (with an aperture ring). When I got my two Minoltas I couldn't find anything like that in a Nikon AI mount that I could afford, which is why I got the Minoltas. If anyone had that Tokina 19-35 back then I would have gotten an FE or FE2, with that lens and a 28-80 or 28-70, and a 70-210 or 80-200 in a Nikon mount.
I guess since you did your own prints, you weren't at the mercy of the lousy mass market printers, and didn't have to turn to slide film like I did.
I always liked Ektachrome or Fujichrome more than Kodachrome, because Kodachrome had a red cast that was flattering for skin tones, but wasn't so good for landscapes and seascapes, where the others really made the blues and greens pop. Fuji was more saturated than Ektachrome.
And, even thirty years ago there were only about three Kodak labs left in the whole country that processed Kodachrome, because it was so dangerous, and the chemicals used in its processing were so toxic.
It was actually a B&W film that had color added during the processing stage. You probably knew that, but I don't think most people did.
I always wanted a Mamiya or similar 645, or a 4x5 camera with a Schneider 90mm wide angle, which made the highest quality transparency landscapes ever. The coffee table books with those images were mind boggling, with amazing depth of field from those large wide angle 4x5 lenses.
I doubt anyone still makes 4x5 slide film.
I didn't look at used medium and large format stuff at B&H, so maybe I'll go do that now, just for fun, lol.

 

[duceditor]

I guess since you did your own prints, you weren't at the mercy of the lousy mass market printers, and didn't have to turn to slide film like I did.
I always liked Ektachrome or Fujichrome more than Kodachrome, because Kodachrome had a red cast that was flattering for skin tones, but wasn't so good for landscapes and seascapes, where the others really made the blues and greens pop. Fuji was more saturated than Ektachrome.
And, even thirty years ago there were only about three Kodak labs left in the whole country that processed Kodachrome, because it was so dangerous, and the chemicals used in its processing were so toxic.
It was actually a B&W film that had color added during the processing stage.

I started doing my own developing -- b/w originally -- when I was 12 years old, so I was never stuck with 'drugstore' prints.

Most all my color stuff was done on transparency film -- slides. Commercially processed originally, then, starting in the `80s, I was doing that myself, with, eventually, a fully automatic processor in my Harvard Med provided (on site) lab, and with Jobo semi-auto processors in my home-based (basemen) lab.

Most all my color printing was done with the high quality "Cibachrome" process. Fade free color. Gorgeous.

From Wikipedia...



Back in the late `90s, when Jan and I first purchased our property in Peterborough, there was a public showing of my work and the framed prints made for that exhibition still look as good now as they did back then, with colors that truly glow when called for, and subtle shades totally unexaggerated (an equal problem for serious work), when such was called for.

* * * *

Funny, though, how that all happened...

When I was only about 9 or 10 an older cousin, son of a wealthy father (my uncle -- a truly wonderful, kind-hearted, man) took an interest in photography only to find that he was allergic to the chemicals involved. So my uncle gave all the basic needed darkroom gear to my dad for me.

I was too young then to use it -- nor was there a place for such in my parent then quite small home -- but when I was approaching my 13th year my dad gave me my first "real" camera -- a Taron 35mm rangefinder -- and the conciderably larger home my parents had by then purchased had an extra bathroom I could set up for use for a darkroom of sorts. So all that gear got put into use.

My still photography, then, was secondary to my other interests. Music for one, Motion picture T/V production being he other. (It was that which I studied in college.)

But in 1968 I was assigned to do "alternative service" -- part of the then still active military draft system -- and thus I started a two year stint doing drudge labor at a Harvard Teaching Hospital (Boston Childrens).

By total "coincidence" (although frankly I do not view it as such) a then youngish doctor (later an internationally respected one) got to know of my imaging background and asked if I could set up a lab to do a certain photo process needed to diagnose difficult brain tumors. And I did that using, believe it or not!, that same gear my uncle gave me as a pre teen kid.

My nature, as you may have observed even here on the forum, is never to just accept what "is" -- and so I, totally on my own, started experimenting with ways to improve that to me rather poor brain imaging technique. And to my own (and everyone else's -- including Kodak's engineers -- surprise I had notable success, and that started a cascade of requests for me to overcome various imaging problems in science and medicine.

Labs and studios naturally followed. As did having all the photo gear I could ever need or even partially justify.

When Kodak asked what I'd 'like' for them to be free to develop a special film for my process and to further spread its 'how to's I expect they thought I'd name a dollar amount. But I didn't. Instead I asked for a full set of what was called "The Kodak Library "-- all their many, many publications on photography, photo chemistry, film, etc -- that put together for corporate and educational purposes. (I was told that mine was likely the only one ever put into private hands.)

And thus started my life career as an imaging researcher and imager. Thousands and thusands of presentations, journal publications and more than a few books.

And with all that came the labs, the studios, and all the gear I could ever wish for.

Funny thing is I never myself became what you'd call "a camera nut." They -- cameras, lenses, studio and darkroom gear -- all remained for me just basic work tools. Much, as you make have observed via my comments, are my guitars.

And thus my continuing appreciation for those of you who have truly gotten into them and all the camera knowledge you thus have to share.

-don

 

[DougMen]

I started doing my own developing -- b/w originally -- when I was 12 years old, so I was never stuck with 'drugstore' prints.

Most all my color stuff was done on transparency film -- slides. Commercially processed originally, then, starting in the `80s, I was doing that myself, with, eventually, a fully automatic processor in my Harvard Med provided (on site) lab, and with Jobo semi-auto processors in my home-based (basemen) lab.

Most all my color printing was done with the high quality "Cibachrome" process. Fade free color. Gorgeous.

From Wikipedia...

View attachment 257606

Back in the late `90s, when Jan and I first purchased our property in Peterborough, there was a public showing of my work and the framed prints made for that exhibition still look as good now as they did back then, with colors that truly glow when called for, and subtle shades totally unexaggerated (an equal problem for serious work), when such was called for.

* * * *

Funny, though, how that all happened...

When I was only about 9 or 10 an older cousin, son of a wealthy father (my uncle -- a truly wonderful, kind-hearted, man) took an interest in photography only to find that he was allergic to the chemicals involved. So my uncle gave all the basic needed darkroom gear to my dad for me.

I was too young then to use it -- nor was there a place for such in my parent then quite small home -- but when I was approaching my 13th year my dad gave me my first "real" camera -- a Taron 35mm rangefinder -- and the conciderably larger home my parents had by then purchased had an extra bathroom I could set up for use for a darkroom of sorts. So all that gear got put into use.

My still photography, then, was secondary to my other interests. Music for one, Motion picture T/V production being he other. (It was that which I studied in college.)

But in 1968 I was assigned to do "alternative service" -- part of the then still active military draft system -- and thus I started a two year stint doing drudge labor at a Harvard Teaching Hospital (Boston Childrens).

By total "coincidence" (although frankly I do not view it as such) a then youngish doctor (later an internationally respected one) got to know of my imaging background and asked if I could set up a lab to do a certain photo process needed to diagnose difficult brain tumors. And I did that using, believe it or not!, that same gear my uncle gave me as a pre teen kid.

My nature, as you may have observed even here on the forum, is never to just accept what "is" -- and so I, totally on my own, started experimenting with ways to improve that to me rather poor brain imaging technique. And to my own (and everyone else's -- including Kodak's engineers -- surprise I had notable success, and that started a cascade of requests for me to overcome various imaging problems in science and medicine.

Labs and studios naturally followed. As did having all the photo gear I could ever need or even partially justify.

When Kodak asked what I'd 'like' for them to be free to develop a special film for my process and to further spread its 'how to's I expect they thought I'd name a dollar amount. But I didn't. Instead I asked for a full set of what was called "The Kodak Library "-- all their many, many publications on photography, photo chemistry, film, etc -- that put together for corporate and educational purposes. (I was told that mine was likely the only one ever put into private hands.)

And thus started my life career as an imaging researcher and imager. Thousands and thusands of presentations, journal publications and more than a few books.

And with all that came the labs, the studios, and all the gear I could ever wish for.

Funny thing is I never myself became what you'd call "a camera nut." They -- cameras, lenses, study and darkroom gear -- all remained for me just basic work tools. Much, as you make have observed via my comments, are my guitars.

And thus my continuing appreciation for those of you who have truly gotten into them and all the camera knowledge you thus have to share.

-don

Wow! That's a fascinating story Don. Looking at medium and large format used gear at B&H, they had very little medium format, a Leica DSLR, a Hasselblad body and one lens, and a Yashica TLR. There was more large format stuff, several cameras and lenses, and an Linhof copy of the old Speed Graphic that every news photographer on the planet used for many years. And, they have sheet film in all sizes, B&W, color print, and transparency types, in 4x5, 5x7 (I'd forgotten that size existed), 8x10, and 11x14, which I've never heard of before. I thought 8x10 was the largest format.

 

[duceditor]

Wow! That's a fascinating story Don. Looking at medium and large format used gear ay B&H, they had very little medium format, a Leica DSLR, a Hasselblad body and one lens, and a Yashica TLR. There was more large format stuff, several cameras and lenses, and an Ilford copy of the old Speed Graphic that every news photographer on the planet used for many years. And, they have sheet film in all sizes, B&W, color print, and transparency types, in 4x5, 5x7 (I'd forgotten that size existed), 8x10, and 11x14, which I've never heard of before. I thought 8x10 was the largest format.

I'm going to have to spend some time looking at that.

A few years ago I looked at their used prices and at the time 35mm gear -- even pro stuff -- well selling for peanuts. But medium formal like my Pentax 6/7 system was still getting pretty decent prices. (Still, though, a fraction of what originally cost new)

That made sense. 35mm has been pretty much wiped out by digital. But larger format pro level at that point at least hadn't.

Jan encourages me not to sell my gear. She expects that a passionate reinterest will come about -- much as it has for vinyl.

But in truth I pay little attention to any of this -- silly, I know! Living in a museum of sorts is to me kind'a fun.

Be it Jan, or my son, someone one day I going to have lots of fun sorting thru it all and... selling it!

-don

 

[TimTheViking]

@Angry Possum
Not sure if you've found what you're looking for yet as I only scanned the thread. I have a mid-80s Canon A1 with several lenses. It's just been sitting for years. Let me know if you have any interest. It'll run full auto to full manual. Non-AF.

 

[DougMen]

@Angry Possum
Not sure if you've found what you're looking for yet as I only scanned the thread. I have a mid-80s Canon A1 with several lenses. It's just been sitting for years. Let me know if you have any interest. It'll run full auto to full manual. Non-AF.

He already bought a couple of Minolta bodies.

 

[Best1989]

Besides that I hate print film, because the prints that you get from Walmart, Walgreens, Target, etc., are always so crappy, and a single roll of Fujichrome or Ektachrome that used to cost around $6-8 is now $20 for Ektachrome 100 and $33(!) for Fujichrome, both 36 exposures, at least at B&H.

B&H has mailers from Fuji for processing one roll of 35mm or 120 slide film for $12.99, which seems reasonable. Fuji used to have a processing lab here on Oahu, but IDK if it's still there or not.

That's an issue here too. There are no labs around me anymore, only prints for digital stuff. And you can only find Ilford rolls in one or two places. For processing, I would need to mail it and hope it will arrive, lol. What I want to do is just order one of those Paterson processing kits and start doing B&W myself.

I was looking at used gear at B&H, and the only bodies they had were a couple of giant F5s with built-in motor drives for $500, an FM3A for $1200, a manual exposure Pentax K1000, which is fine for portraits and landscapes, but is a PITA for trying to catch little kids running around, an athlete in motion, or a bird in flight.
The only other bodies they had were a couple of Canon Rebel autofocus ones for $100, and a lot of very expensive Leica rangefinders.
None of the great manual focus bodies from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Ricoh, and others.
Lenses were a little better. They had more for Nikon AI than any others (both from Nikon and third party makers), and Nikon was better to their loyalists than Minolta, because they just modified their F mount for autofocus use, so people could use their manual focus glass on the new bodies, and the older autofocus glass had manual aperture rings and focusing rings so they could be used on manual focus bodies.
Minolta changed to a whole new mount when they went autofocus (which is still used by Sony). I'm not sure about Canon, and whether their FD lenses could be used on autofocus bodies, or if the newer lenses would work on manual focus bodies.

The used section on that site tends to run on the expensive side. You can find more variety on eBay if you want to deal with more risks of course.

I'm running old MC/MD glass on a Sony A6000 body with an adapter. There's fun in sailing in manual and checking all you can do, but yeah, it's difficult when you get in those fast scenarios where you need to shoot quickly.

 

[DougMen]

That's an issue here too. There are no labs around me anymore, only prints for digital stuff. And you can only find Ilford rolls in one or two places. For processing, I would need to mail it and hope it will arrive, lol. What I want to do is just order one of those Paterson processing kits and start doing B&W myself.


The used section on that site tends to run on the expensive side. You can find more variety on eBay if you want to deal with more risks of course.

I'm running old MC/MD glass on a Sony A6000 body with an adapter. There's fun in sailing in manual and checking all you can do, but yeah, it's difficult when you get in those fast scenarios where you need to shoot quickly.

I was just thinking of how getting into B&W would be fun, but that would absolutely require having your own darkroom to do your own prints, and a good enlarger with good glass isn't cheap!

 

[DougMen]

That's an issue here too. There are no labs around me anymore, only prints for digital stuff. And you can only find Ilford rolls in one or two places. For processing, I would need to mail it and hope it will arrive, lol. What I want to do is just order one of those Paterson processing kits and start doing B&W myself.


The used section on that site tends to run on the expensive side. You can find more variety on eBay if you want to deal with more risks of course.

I'm running old MC/MD glass on a Sony A6000 body with an adapter. There's fun in sailing in manual and checking all you can do, but yeah, it's difficult when you get in those fast scenarios where you need to shoot quickly.

I was just thinking that, since my health is so bad, and I can't go out anymore, I could just start doing some still life photography here at home. I do have a couple of nice little P&S digital cameras, an Olympus and a Nikon, both with lenses that go to 24mm on the wide end. I use the Nikon to do my guitar photos and my very poor IG videos, because I always do those late at night here without enough light, so the image quality of the videos is very poor and very dark. But, the sound quality from the tiny built-in mic is actually pretty good. Some people like them, since I get more followers and likes every day, lol. There's no accounting for some people's taste! Haha

 

[photoweborama]

I used to shoot with an Olympus OM1n . Used to freelance for the SF Examiner in those days. I also shot with a Mamiya 645... but that's a different story altogether

 

[archetype]

I was just thinking that, since my health is so bad, and I can't go out anymore, I could just start doing some still life photography here at home. I do have a couple of nice little P&S digital cameras, an Olympus and a Nikon, both with lenses that go to 24mm on the wide end. I use the Nikon to do my guitar photos and my very poor IG videos, because I always do those late at night here without enough light, so the image quality of the videos is very poor and very dark. But, the sound quality from the tiny built-in mic is actually pretty good. Some people like them, since I get more followers and likes every day, lol. There's no accounting for some people's taste! Haha

Shoot what you can, where you can, how you can. It's all good, brother.

I shoot books, exterior and interior. It's a specialized still life photography that's a PITA to do well.