OT: In case your Minolta camera quit

[Joerg]

Hello Folks,

Sorry for multi-post but it initially went to the wrong NG.

We have a Minolta X-300 film camera. Long story short this spring it
quit. The meter circuit was ok but no shutter and when pressing the
shutter the meter display would disappear.

Well, it was an electrolytic cap in the bottom of the camera, 220uF/4V
and really tiny. It actually leaked out. Took a while to find one that
would fit into the small cavity. Since some of you may experience the
same problem here is the part number:
United Chemicon APXC4R0ARA221MF60G (220uF/4V)

Mouser has these. I bent up the leads and slipped off the plastic SMT
carrier, then soldered it to the little flex. Be careful with those tiny
screws for the bottom lid (two different types). Don't lose them.

Now this old X300 contains a RoHS compliant capacitor

Regards, Joerg

 

[Jim Thompson]

Hello Folks,

Sorry for multi-post but it initially went to the wrong NG.

We have a Minolta X-300 film camera. Long story short this spring it
quit. The meter circuit was ok but no shutter and when pressing the
shutter the meter display would disappear.

Well, it was an electrolytic cap in the bottom of the camera, 220uF/4V
and really tiny. It actually leaked out. Took a while to find one that
would fit into the small cavity. Since some of you may experience the
same problem here is the part number:
United Chemicon APXC4R0ARA221MF60G (220uF/4V)

Mouser has these. I bent up the leads and slipped off the plastic SMT
carrier, then soldered it to the little flex. Be careful with those tiny
screws for the bottom lid (two different types). Don't lose them.

Now this old X300 contains a RoHS compliant capacitor

Regards, Joerg

FILM? What's that ?

I have an old Argus C4 in my artifact display ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Joerg]

Hello Jim,

FILM? What's that ?

I have an old Argus C4 in my artifact display ;-)

We donated our really old ones and sold a few at a garage sale. But
digital cameras aren't quite up to snuff for serious photography. Low
sensitivity film still beats resolution and dynamic range, even versus
the highest megapixel digital cameras. Ever seen an Ansel Adams B/W
photography up close? Now go to Yosemite in winter and try to emulate
one of those with a digital camera. There will be about 70 years of R&D
between Adam's photo gear and yours.

The other downside is that on all but the extremely expensive digital
cameras you cannot swap lenses. On the ones where you can they seem to
have made sure that the lens mount is incompatible so you have to buy
new lenses, can't use legacy stock. Why not use what works? After all, I
am still operating the old Dolch 50MHz logic analyzer. Because it
suffices in over 95% of cases.

The most important upside for wildlife photography is the immediate
shutter action of film cameras. Digital doesn't have that. You can't
tell a fox kit to hold still. At least not while there are other kits
around.

Oh, and 3x digital zoom just ain't cutting it.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Jim Thompson]

Hello Jim,


We donated our really old ones and sold a few at a garage sale. But
digital cameras aren't quite up to snuff for serious photography. Low
sensitivity film still beats resolution and dynamic range, even versus
the highest megapixel digital cameras. Ever seen an Ansel Adams B/W
photography up close? Now go to Yosemite in winter and try to emulate
one of those with a digital camera. There will be about 70 years of R&D
between Adam's photo gear and yours.

The other downside is that on all but the extremely expensive digital
cameras you cannot swap lenses. On the ones where you can they seem to
have made sure that the lens mount is incompatible so you have to buy
new lenses, can't use legacy stock. Why not use what works? After all, I
am still operating the old Dolch 50MHz logic analyzer. Because it
suffices in over 95% of cases.

The most important upside for wildlife photography is the immediate
shutter action of film cameras. Digital doesn't have that. You can't
tell a fox kit to hold still. At least not while there are other kits
around.

Oh, and 3x digital zoom just ain't cutting it.

Mine is part physical and part digital zoom.

Regards, Joerg

My Sony has two power choices, on and ready, or power up on slight
depression of "shutter" button.

For wildlife, particularly grandchildren, I always use "on and ready"
;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Rich Grise]

FILM? What's that ?

I have an old Argus C4 in my artifact display ;-)

I still have a film camera - it was ten bucks at the drugstore, with free
film for the rest of your life - just bring the camera in and pay for the
processing, and they'll reload it for you with a new 24-shot roll. I
realized that this kind of a deal is a HEXX of a lot cheaper than a
newspaper coupon, and gets people into the store much more reliably.

Took a BUNCH of pictures - a 24-shot roll is kind of inconvenient when
you're anxious to see a particular shot.

I set it aside when digital cameras hit $139.00.

When I retired the film camera, I asked the guy, "So, when you process
this, you reload a roll of film into the camera, right?" "Right." "So,
what if, instead of putting the new roll of film into the camera, you just
hand it to me?" "Uhh, yeah, I guess I can do that." I think I gave the
roll of film away, and the cam is still in some box - "one of these days"
I'm going to take it apart and dick around with the flash thingie.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Hello Jim,

Mine is part physical and part digital zoom.

Same here with the little Nikon. 3x optical and another 3x digital. But
the old Minolta runs circles around it with a 500mm on there and it sure
looks more intimidating. The quality of some of those aftermarket lenses
is so superb, the little digicam lenses just can't do that. Take a shot
of a structure with many vertical and horizontal lines plus sun
reflections off of them. Then do the same with a film camera and a top
notch architect's lens.

My Sony has two power choices, on and ready, or power up on slight
depression of "shutter" button.

For wildlife, particularly grandchildren, I always use "on and ready"
;-)

Ours can be kept in movie mode. Still doesn't react as fast as the
Minolta but the main problem is that it'll eat batteries like chocolate
cake.

Regards, Joerg

 

[martin griffith]

Hello Jim,
snip
The most important upside for wildlife photography is the immediate
shutter action of film cameras. Digital doesn't have that. You can't
tell a fox kit to hold still. At least not while there are other kits
around.

Oh, and 3x digital zoom just ain't cutting it.

Regards, Joerg

Hi Joerg I can still get 25ASA BW AGFA 35mm stock around here. Them
black and white pictures can be stunning. I just get the negs xfered
to CD.



martin

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Hello Jim,


We donated our really old ones and sold a few at a garage sale. But
digital cameras aren't quite up to snuff for serious photography. Low
sensitivity film still beats resolution and dynamic range, even versus
the highest megapixel digital cameras. Ever seen an Ansel Adams B/W
photography up close? Now go to Yosemite in winter and try to emulate
one of those with a digital camera. There will be about 70 years of R&D
between Adam's photo gear and yours.

Ansel Adams didn't use a 35mm film SLR either. He used an enormous
view camera that exposed a single huge frame of film at a time and
allowed manipulations obviously impossible in a typical SLR. Plus, and
probably more important, he had more talent for photography than most
of us. And patience.

The other downside is that on all but the extremely expensive digital
cameras you cannot swap lenses. On the ones where you can they seem to
have made sure that the lens mount is incompatible so you have to buy
new lenses, can't use legacy stock. Why not use what works? After all, I
am still operating the old Dolch 50MHz logic analyzer. Because it
suffices in over 95% of cases.

In most cases they can make the lenses cheaper for the digital SLR
cameras since the sensor size at the focal plane is much smaller than
a frame of 35mm film. But the better ones are compatible with film
cameras so you can leverage your existing investment, assuming you own
a collection of good AF lenses (and if they're not AF you can use
them, but you might not want to).

The most important upside for wildlife photography is the immediate
shutter action of film cameras. Digital doesn't have that. You can't
tell a fox kit to hold still. At least not while there are other kits
around.

Modern digital SLRs have no perceptible shutter delay and almost no
startup delay. You need to upgrade your system. ;-)

Seriously, next time you're in a decent camera store try out one or
two of the newer models in the US ~$1.5K range, with a high
performance flash card. You'll be surprised how really good they are.
That sort of thing was $30K only a few years ago (and probably not as
good). Sure, I'd like to see 10fps with a 25 frame buffer in RAW mode
for super-clear sports action shots, but it's getting pretty close to
perfection at a fraction of that, and available and quite affordable
now.

Oh, and 3x digital zoom just ain't cutting it.

"Digital" zoom is garbage.

Regards, Joerg

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Ours can be kept in movie mode. Still doesn't react as fast as the
Minolta but the main problem is that it'll eat batteries like chocolate
cake.

Another reason to upgrade. Modern cameras are *much* better. I didn't
even bother taking the charger for C.'s mini-snappy last trip I took,
expecting to take fewer than 100 photos. And the Li-ion cells don't
self discharge nearly as badly as the old heavy NiMH cells.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Joerg]

Hello Spehro,

Ansel Adams didn't use a 35mm film SLR either. He used an enormous
view camera that exposed a single huge frame of film at a time and
allowed manipulations obviously impossible in a typical SLR. Plus, and
probably more important, he had more talent for photography than most
of us. And patience.

IIRC there was no 35mm yet at his time. Mostly 60*60 and 60*90. I
started out with 60*60mm. We had a voluntary afternoon class at school
and there a professional showed us the tricks. Long exposure, waving and
all that.

In most cases they can make the lenses cheaper for the digital SLR
cameras since the sensor size at the focal plane is much smaller than
a frame of 35mm film. But the better ones are compatible with film
cameras so you can leverage your existing investment, assuming you own
a collection of good AF lenses (and if they're not AF you can use
them, but you might not want to).

Our lenses are non-AF. The best performer is a super clean 250mm that
doesn't even have a selectable f-stop. This is the lens we use for most
of our wildlife photography. It was a present from my sister and she
ought to know. She is the mathematician behind many of the lenses used
by the real pros.

The investment isn't in the camera bodies. It's in the lenses and I'm
not willing to give that up just because they decided to make the mounts
incompatible. I am quite certain that the industry could have enjoyed
much better revenue from high-end digital SLRs had they chosen not to
force users to dump their lens investments.

Modern digital SLRs have no perceptible shutter delay and almost no
startup delay. You need to upgrade your system. ;-)

Some day, maybe when I retire.

"Digital" zoom is garbage.

Yes. The only time I use it is when I find a bug in a client's system
and have to send them a report right away. But I usually also snap a
photo with the film camera if a formal report needs to be issued.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Joerg]

Hello Martin,

Hi Joerg I can still get 25ASA BW AGFA 35mm stock around here. Them
black and white pictures can be stunning. I just get the negs xfered
to CD.

25 ASA is the good stuff. CCD is still miles away from that (and this
comes from a guy who designed a CCD camera from scratch).

Regards, Joerg

 

[mc]

Dear Joerg,

I think your knowledge of digital cameras is about 5 years out of date

We donated our really old ones and sold a few at a garage sale. But
digital cameras aren't quite up to snuff for serious photography. Low
sensitivity film still beats resolution and dynamic range, even versus the
highest megapixel digital cameras. Ever seen an Ansel Adams B/W
photography up close? Now go to Yosemite in winter and try to emulate one
of those with a digital camera. There will be about 70 years of R&D
between Adams' photo gear and yours.

Ansel Adams was an inspired artist, not just a good technician. But let's
do the math.

A 35-mm photo is considered sharp if it resolves 40 l/mm and the very best
lenses hit 80 l/mm. Allowing 2 pixels per line per mm, that's 40 x 2 x 24 x
40 x 2 x 36 = 6 megapixels for "sharp" and 24 megapixels for "very best."

Current DSLRs, comparable in inflation-adjusted price to good film SLRs of
20 years ago, have 8 to 20 megapixels.

As for dynamic range, digital beats the socks off of film. Ask any
astrophotographer. (I am one.) Until digital came along, we couldn't get
pictures of globular clusters that showed stars from center to edge, the way
the eye sees them; the center was always overexposed. Film has *much* less
useful dynamic range than digital sensors. Also, film is nonlinear, so sky
fog can't be subtracted out.

The other downside is that on all but the extremely expensive digital
cameras you cannot swap lenses.

if $500 is "extremely expensive"...

On the ones where you can they seem to have made sure that the lens mount
is incompatible so you have to buy new lenses, can't use legacy stock.

Nikon AF lenses work on Nikon DSLRs. Canon EF lenses work on Canon DSLRs.
Canon DSLRs will also take Nikon lenses (in manual mode) with an adapter,
and Pentax screw mount lenses with another adapter. (I sometimes use a
vintage Zeiss lens on mine.) Maxxum/Sony take the same lenses on DSLRs as
on film SLRs. I don't know the status of Pentax or Olympus.

The most important upside for wildlife photography is the immediate
shutter action of film cameras. Digital doesn't have that. You can't tell
a fox kit to hold still. At least not while there are other kits around.

Eh? It seems to me the DSLR is, if anything, a tad faster than the film
one; certainly not appreciably different. You can turn off autofocusing in
order to avoid the autofocus delay.

Oh, and 3x digital zoom just ain't cutting it.

Agreed!

 

[mc]

Hello Martin,

25 ASA is the good stuff. CCD is still miles away from that (and this
comes from a guy who designed a CCD camera from scratch).

Note that Agfa Photo is out of business. One of their fine-grain materials
may, however, survive as a microfilm product (their printing-industry
product line is still alive). Rollei, also, is or was going to market a
super-fine-grain b&w film.

Nothing against film -- but only in very unusual situations is it still
superior to digital. In particular, you'll have a hard time getting lenses
that are good enough to reveal detail finer than an 8 MP sensor can record.

 

[mc]

Our lenses are non-AF. The best performer is a super clean 250mm that

doesn't even have a selectable f-stop. This is the lens we use for most of
our wildlife photography. It was a present from my sister and she ought to
know. She is the mathematician behind many of the lenses used by the real
pros.

What lens is that? Sounds like it might be useful for astrophotography.

 

[Joerg]

What lens is that? Sounds like it might be useful for astrophotography.

I'd have to look, it's not here in the office right now. Will post when
I know.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Joerg]

Note that Agfa Photo is out of business. One of their fine-grain materials
may, however, survive as a microfilm product (their printing-industry
product line is still alive). Rollei, also, is or was going to market a
super-fine-grain b&w film.

Lots of lines or whole companies are out of biz. When I found that
busted capacitor my first thought was getting a spare through Minolta,
since it was so freaking small and thus hard to find. Went to the
Konica-Minolta site and was a bit non-plussed. It said "Konica Minolta
Photo Imaging, Inc. ceased the camera business on March 31, 2006". Dang,
a couple months too late.

Nothing against film -- but only in very unusual situations is it still
superior to digital. In particular, you'll have a hard time getting lenses
that are good enough to reveal detail finer than an 8 MP sensor can record.

The dynamic range of CCD can be a limiting factor in hard contrast
situations, reflections etc.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Michael]

Hello Folks,

Sorry for multi-post but it initially went to the wrong NG.

We have a Minolta X-300 film camera. Long story short this spring it
quit. The meter circuit was ok but no shutter and when pressing the
shutter the meter display would disappear.

Well, it was an electrolytic cap in the bottom of the camera, 220uF/4V
and really tiny. It actually leaked out. Took a while to find one that
would fit into the small cavity. Since some of you may experience the
same problem here is the part number:
United Chemicon APXC4R0ARA221MF60G (220uF/4V)

Mouser has these. I bent up the leads and slipped off the plastic SMT
carrier, then soldered it to the little flex. Be careful with those tiny
screws for the bottom lid (two different types). Don't lose them.

Now this old X300 contains a RoHS compliant capacitor

Regards, Joerg

Congrats on breathing life into the old shutter-box (I assume "old"). I love to
make stuff start a new life. "It's my way of sticking it to the man."

Several years ago I brought my circa 1968 Mamiya SLR back to life (crud growing
on meter switch contacts). Didn't have any luck with a 2004 Nikon though (#&$%@
plastic lens body!).

 

[Richard Henry]

Dear Joerg,

I think your knowledge of digital cameras is about 5 years out of date


Ansel Adams was an inspired artist, not just a good technician. But let's
do the math.

A 35-mm photo is considered sharp if it resolves 40 l/mm and the very best
lenses hit 80 l/mm. Allowing 2 pixels per line per mm, that's 40 x 2 x 24 x
40 x 2 x 36 = 6 megapixels for "sharp" and 24 megapixels for "very best."

Current DSLRs, comparable in inflation-adjusted price to good film SLRs of
20 years ago, have 8 to 20 megapixels.

As for dynamic range, digital beats the socks off of film. Ask any
astrophotographer. (I am one.) Until digital came along, we couldn't get
pictures of globular clusters that showed stars from center to edge, the way
the eye sees them; the center was always overexposed. Film has *much* less
useful dynamic range than digital sensors. Also, film is nonlinear, so sky
fog can't be subtracted out.


if $500 is "extremely expensive"...


Nikon AF lenses work on Nikon DSLRs. Canon EF lenses work on Canon DSLRs.
Canon DSLRs will also take Nikon lenses (in manual mode) with an adapter,
and Pentax screw mount lenses with another adapter. (I sometimes use a
vintage Zeiss lens on mine.) Maxxum/Sony take the same lenses on DSLRs as
on film SLRs. I don't know the status of Pentax or Olympus.


Eh? It seems to me the DSLR is, if anything, a tad faster than the film
one; certainly not appreciably different. You can turn off autofocusing in
order to avoid the autofocus delay.


Agreed!

Sounds like the beginning of the digital/analog camera equivalent to the
digital/analog audiofool debates.

 

[Joerg]

What lens is that? Sounds like it might be useful for astrophotography.

RF Rokkor 250mm 1:5.6

Regards, Joerg

 

[Michael]

Hello Jim, (snip)
But
digital cameras aren't quite up to snuff for serious photography. Low
sensitivity film still beats resolution and dynamic range, even versus
the highest megapixel digital cameras. Ever seen an Ansel Adams B/W
photography up close? Now go to Yosemite in winter and try to emulate
one of those with a digital camera. There will be about 70 years of R&D
between Adam's photo gear and yours.

The other downside is that on all but the extremely expensive digital
cameras you cannot swap lenses. On the ones where you can they seem to
have made sure that the lens mount is incompatible so you have to buy
new lenses, can't use legacy stock. Why not use what works? After all, I
am still operating the old Dolch 50MHz logic analyzer. Because it
suffices in over 95% of cases.
(snip)

Oh, and 3x digital zoom just ain't cutting it.

Regards, Joerg

Adams hauled around a monster-format view camera. Contact sheets, framed, would
look darn nice. And he probably needed a tripod for his tripod. ;-)

Yeah, don't you just love to sneer at [magnification] "(equivalent)" ad copy?
Sounds like getting something for nothing. It's actually getting less for
something.