[HN Gopher] Minolta X1 (2007)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Minolta X1 (2007)
        
       Author : brudgers
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2021-11-12 19:42 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.rokkorfiles.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.rokkorfiles.com)
        
       | cannam wrote:
       | I've a great affection for Minolta, though born from retro appeal
       | because I am not old enough to have seen their best stuff first
       | time around. I'd love to know more about how the company operated
       | during the 50s to 70s.
       | 
       | Their 1970s models, the X1, XE, and XD seem technically really
       | exciting but don't appear to have held the attention of the
       | professional market - unreliable, lacking something important,
       | too expensive, or is it just about the brand? I gather that few
       | XEs and XDs (the X1 is too rare to count) have made it to the
       | present without some reliability problems, but that's not so
       | surprising given the time span.
       | 
       | Briefly - before the pandemic arrived and took away most of my
       | spare time - I had a hobby of repairing the Minolta SR-1, the
       | earlier purely mechanical camera sold from 1959 to 1971. The SR-1
       | is interesting because it was Minolta's ongoing "entry level
       | camera" rather than a single specific design - they used the same
       | designation for at least five different cameras underneath, in
       | the course of its sales life. They're surprisingly different
       | under the covers, and you can track a bit of what was going on
       | elsewhere in their product line through them.
       | 
       | So the SR-1 model A is a solid mechanical design, complicated but
       | not too difficult to understand and repair. Model B is almost
       | identical on the outside, but mechanically quite different
       | underneath and with some odd design decisions that might have
       | been a weak attempt at cost-saving or possibly about
       | synchronisation with another product (this is the sort of thing
       | that makes me wish I knew more about the company). I haven't seen
       | a model C and am not totally sure it exists. Model D I think is a
       | bit of a mess, combining the mechanicals of earlier models with
       | various new features (primarily the lightmeter, though support
       | for it existed in the model B even though the accessory didn't).
       | And model E is a serious clean-slate rebuild that is mechanically
       | simpler but less accessible and far more like what competitors
       | such as Pentax were producing at the time.
       | 
       | I use an SR-1 model A as my usual film camera, it's a bit big and
       | heavy and the winding lever carves a big channel in your forehead
       | but it's so beautiful and satisfying to use.
       | 
       | (I wrote a couple of blog posts about the SR-1 models A and B, at
       | https://thebreakfastpost.com/2019/12/21/notes-on-the-minolta...
       | and https://thebreakfastpost.com/2020/03/12/notes-on-the-
       | minolta... - I wanted to bring it up to the D and E but reality
       | intervened.)
        
       | thekid314 wrote:
       | I've been on a buying spree this last month, picking up Minolta
       | rokkor lenses for video use. They are some cheap and well made.
       | Leica even borrowed their design for their 24mm.
        
       | spacecadet wrote:
       | Big Minolta fan as well. About 10 years ago I found an RD175 at a
       | flea market and restored it to working order, it was a great
       | talking point about the history of digital cameras.
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_RD-175
       | 
       | Contax is another underdog. I still shoot 35mm with a Contax N
       | and G, both are incredible pieces of technology and product
       | design.
        
       | iveqy wrote:
       | I'd a point and shoot, minolta dimage x31. I loved it! It was
       | early to have an SD-card which meant that I could film more than
       | 5 seconds (until RAM is full) because it was fast enough to save
       | to the SD card while filming. It also had an internal optical
       | focus which meant no (few) moving parts on the outside.
        
         | mixmastamyk wrote:
         | I really liked the earlier version of that one I had in the
         | early 2000s. The quality (especially video) was atrocious by
         | today's standards but the form factor couldn't be beat. Mine
         | had a couple of bad pixels that had to be painted out in gimp.
         | Not sure why I didn't return it, but can't remember. Maybe
         | happened later.
        
       | ceearrbee wrote:
       | Minolta really feels like the underdog of classic camera brands.
       | You always hear about Canon or Nikon, but no one really talks
       | about the advantages that Minolta brought to market.
       | 
       | They brought both shutter/aperture priority in an SLR, first
       | mainstream AF cameras and some amazing lenses and bodies all
       | throughout. Its a real shame that they sold their photography
       | assets to Sony (though they have done so wonderful things with
       | that legacy - you can still see it in 2021).
       | 
       | On the other hand, as someone who shoots both MD and A mount, and
       | uses some of their film bodies, its nice that they're not
       | ridiculous expensive.
       | 
       | Except, ironically, the X1 - which is a shame because its such a
       | neat camera, a waist level view finder on 35mm would be so fun to
       | play with - I love it in medium format.
        
         | nix23 wrote:
         | >Minolta really feels like the underdog of classic camera
         | brands
         | 
         | Hasselblad ;)
        
           | frostburg wrote:
           | Very different. Hasselblad was a top choice for the pro
           | market (and used by rich amateurs, like Leica), Minolta never
           | really managed to breach that market (this camera was the
           | most significant attempt).
        
             | nix23 wrote:
             | Hasselblad was the opposite of Leica, big format vs small
             | format
        
               | frostburg wrote:
               | Medium format (large format starts from 4x5 inches in
               | modern usage), but while the professional applications
               | were different the use by wealthy amateurs was basically
               | the same.
               | 
               | (I would know: https://i.imgur.com/VpC8cJB.jpg )
        
               | aaronbrethorst wrote:
               | Using your smartphone to photograph your Hasselblad
               | focused on your Leica is certainly a flex.
        
           | ceearrbee wrote:
           | I would never consider Hasselblad to be an underdog, they're
           | a premium brand that has massive name recognition that
           | continues to today.
           | 
           | I dream of being able to afford as Hasselblad, instead I'm
           | here with my Kiev's and Minoltas!
        
             | nix23 wrote:
             | Yeah you are right, but in the mind of non photographers
             | hasselblad is a ~no name (except for the apollo mission's
             | interested),
             | 
             | BTW: My dad had more minolta's then nikon's in the
             | 80`s-90's...well and some Leica's...and one hasselblad (as
             | a child i seen that monster as a terrible thing from 1900)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-11-13 23:01 UTC)