Take me home!

 B&WColorHow to...equipment

Small Minolta story

Quite funny I think you will find most of the text below (lamenting, especially) on the other big photo sites, but I cannot resist :-) I just have to make confession for the use of old, mostly forgotten (and cheap) cameras/lenses. Ordinary I use Contaxes, but I lack the purity of B&W film since those lenses are great for color, while for B&W they are very contrasty - and new C-41 films are way tooooo contrasty. Thank God new Portra is ok. As concerns C-41 B&W films, only Kodak is so-so usable. Fuji and Ilford lacks middle tones completely.

Some time ago I was looking (again and again) for a small travel camera. 159MM needs carefull adjustment (probably expensive), moreover cheapest of small lenses (Tessar 45) is still a little bit expensive - and with RTS II even more expensive, plus body is still heavy. Sadly, small compacts, both new and old, are of astronomical prices without any reason. I just sold Yashica T-Zoom since results were below my expectations (although rather good) and you can be sure price/usability ratio is much better in case of Contax G1+Planar 45 combo! As for compacts of 70's, they are not so much smaller than Contax G1.

And, last, I always thought Minolta X-700 was very capable and neat small camera :-)

So, all in all, while browsing throught stuff on eBay I spotted X-500 plus two lenses (and some stuff I'm always ready to throw into the trash, like flash and UV-filters) for a few bucks, mainly about 80 including shipping charges (from France). The kit was appealing to me, since one lens was 50/1.7 (i.e. classic normal) and the other 45/2 (i.e. some sort of a pancake). I put a bid and waited. So guess, nobody speaks French and I was the winner.

Camera was like a new one, lenses about the same. To be honest, since that time I found some pluses and some cons about the camera/lenses (for a GREAT description, read RokkorFiles.com):

The *only* problem is to scan those negatives and create prints. Scanning is complicated and printing on lab from JPEGs is very different from darkroom experience. I have to wait for my children to grow up, than I can retrieve enlarger from the closet. The film grain is emphasised on scans and printed on digital lab. Good enlarger and lens would somewhat mask this, but digital print not. I have to work on this someday. The other issue is the contrast curve, which on silver prints is also quite different, be it Ilford IV or Warmtone.

Other than that, it VERY funny to use this camera. I bought also winder, which I normally don't need in case of RTS II, but when shooting children's actions it comes handy. And hey, I can remove it if necessary!

People are absolutely amazed by pictures. Meter is on the overexpose side, so I under-develop a little bit (who is using pull process these days???) and constrast is lovely. No harsh shadows, no lost highlights, no brutal color corrections after auto-leveling the signal from small chip, no sharpening, no obstacles, no artifacts. Some funny jokes like "ha, memory card is full, right?" are later replaced by sound of jaws dropping on the ground. It's really hard to admit such a camera and lens, made 30 year ago, can deliver those excellent pictures, cost a few bucks, is simple to use, *always* ready and turned on (2 LR44 batteries for half a year, try it with your digital wonder!), with no learning curve. Just grab it in hands, focus and eventually adjust aperture. That's it, and another winning snapshot is created! By the time fellow mother finally started her digital P&S to catch the same smile of her son, I'm away with more pictures, ready for a new action with pre-focused lens. No need to use lens cover, so no need to remove it. Whole lens cost the same as a lens shade for a new Canon zoom, so what? I have almost no problems with lenses not protected by filters. Did I mention AF is of no use for shooting 3 years old child? I switched Contax G1 with manual focus bodies, and Minolta fits nicely. Nice viewfinder helps a really lot. And people change VERY quickly. Some pictures I've made in 2-3 seconds apart are very different (first one better, of course). I also confirmed that good focus is better than relying on DOF - again this proves here also. Even blurred pictures, but with a proper contrast, are nice. Always focus and don't be afraid of slower shutter speeds! There is somewhere a tree/fence/table to help you, so use it properly (no, I DON'T USE FLASH and I DON'T PLAN TO USE ONE).

Ok, enough lamenting on new cameras and praising the old ones, lets see some pictures!

...the very starts with 45/2. Taken from a pub in ski resort, probably some 1/8 with table support. No pull process, so it looks like ordinary low-light-pushed-negative.

Another test (of sharpness, probably). But that swan was sooo cute :-)

To take action properly some training is needed. It pays later, as you will see. Though it is harder than with Contax RTS.
Remember, winning formula is TO BE PREPARED! This concerns pre-focussing and keeping the shutter ready.

Beer outside helps as well as beer inside. And children are occupied. This is the first film with 35/2.8 and first pull of Fuji Across. Rather huge difference. I didn't put 400ASA and faster film since that time.

Contrast curve is lovely.

Be ALWAYS ready for some action :-)

There are some flares and contrast loss, but nothing critical.

Another nice effect of pull process, steel factory and classic B&W film.I have to make more of them next time, but I'm used to shoot color and Zeiss in such places.
You can compare it to color version, but scan is much worse than actuall print (as is the case most of the time with my color snaps).

RTFM forever. Or next 100 year for sure. Even my son could show this silver negative to his grandchild. Teeshirt, car, umbrella, this JPEG, maybe this page, all the current digital stuff will be gone by that time.

Backlight watering. There is some contrast loss as I mentioned.
The only problem is that this is the best shot I can get. It takes a luck and more responsive camera to shoot this one

Who might suggest 35mm as a portrait lens?

Have you seen this before? Have you... you bet! It's hard to judge which ones are better ;-)

Blurred action shot is still better than no action shot.

The 35/2,8 lens is suprisingly sharp! I guess somewhat better at closer distances than at infinity. @4000Dpi this is really excellent. Corners are sometimes victims of curved film in scanner.Here is a center part only (1.5MB).
BTW, while I was shooting this my mom told me why I'm bothering with such a foolish subject, it's a waste of film :-D

As a lens for landscapes it has limited use, but not bad.

Three, two, one... go! (oh no, my digital P&S hasn't boot up yet!!! Can we repeat this one???)

Waiting for a mom with supporting tools to break into the box.

Another snap I've got in both B&W and color incarnations
(I wonder myself how I made both in such a short time???)

100 years of local sport club!

Action is not a problem, but courage is right the next one.
Since than I remember water in fountains has more substances than I expected. But camera and lens survived.
Anyway, whole set costs less than single waterproof case for a modern camera.

Some bokeh to enjoy...

...rather pleasure one, but wide open it's not the best.

YEAH! Go get some film and shoot!!!

Upon byuing MC 50/1.4 PG I was thinking how to distinguish from other lenses and adjust filtering so results would be similar to 35/2.8. It's a little bit hard and slow process. In the end it seems green-yellow filter - same as in case of 35/2.8 - was the best option. Without filter snaps are little bit "flat", with yellow highlights are exargetted. I used an apple basket as a prime target, see results below.

The best snap so far was from Tessar 45/2.8 on color Portra :-)

Same scenery, but MC 50.14 PG with yellow filter - too much contrast.

...also yellow filter, compare with snaps below.

Yellow-green filter (and Trix-X for a change @300ASA). This seems to be ok.

G Planar 45/2 and Portra 400.

Tessar 45/2.8

Well, enough of simplified comparisions and get back to snaps!

The best thing using a cheap camera is not to be afraid of difficult situations.

Like here. To be honest, rarely I need to clean a lens.

Yellow filter is sometimes ok.

Here is a bit too much, but snap is nice anyway. Compare to this one, which is without any filter.

Those images speaks for themselves. No technical info is needed.