Posted on 05/20/2011 12:43:35 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
I've been putting this rig together for a while now, one piece at a time. It's all just about new in condition.
The Minolta Maxxum XTSi was released in 1998, the 3200i flash is from a few years earlier.
This is one of the toys I lusted after when it came out but couldn't afford, the body alone was 600 bucks in 1998.
Minolta digital cameras appeared not long after this, rhen the line was bought by Sony. If I put this camera next to my Sony Alpha digital the XTSi, although smaller, shows a lot of the same design trends, likely from the same R&D team.
I didn't need it, of course, but if the world is ending tomorrow anyway, why not!
Pinglist
Nice.
Be the first to publish pictures of the rapture.
I will if the people at Walgreens are still around to develop the film!
Thanks for the ping SWAMPSNIPER. In from yard work, ducking a swarm of bees right now. Had one in my hair, and was chased by about five, or six. Seemed like millions of them swarming up the North Drive. Got in here without getting stung LOL.
Think I’ll lay low, and let the weeds grow today. Try whackin’ ‘em again tomorrow.
Quite an interesting rig there. It’s on a tripod isn’t it? I think that lens is similar AF zoom we have. I’ll have to go open the carrier, and check it out. If so it’s effective, but I want one with more zzzzzzzzzz in the zoom myself, or is that ooooooo in the zoom? whatever.
The 35-70 f4 was a kit lens in '85, lots of them around. It is a very good little lens. They don't bring much money because they are plentiful. It's the lens that stays on the Sony most of the time as a walk around lens.
Mine isn’t after all. I picked it out of the closet, and brought out of the case a “Tamron AF Tele-Macro 70-210mm 1:4-5.6 (symbol like an 0 with a vertical line through the center of it)52.”
The only other identifying mark on it is on the opposite side at the mounting a “158DM”, and the serial number I s’pose.
Perhaps you can tell me about this item?
Do you have a lens preference? I’m just an amateur, mostly digital, shutterbug, so I’ve only heard about Sony and Carl Zeiss lenses.
I buy Minolta lenses because they are excellent quality and I can afford them. Theoretically the newer lenses by Sony and CZ are better but I don’t have any problems with what I have.
The best source of data on A mount lenses is http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/resultsAdv.asp
Thanks. Search at that site was unproductive for that Tamron, so I guess it’s not in their base.
Are you sure it has a Minolta A mount? Tamron makes lenses for most camera brands.
So whats it cost these days to get 35mm film developed?
I just picked up a Nikon FE2 w/MD4 motordrive, Nikkor 24mm 2.8 lens and a SunPak pro flash unit with two extra batteries and charger. All this came in a large foam lined hard professional case w/strap.
The film advance winder doesn’t work and I don’t want to force it. Everything else is in near new condition. Am shooting with a digital now (Nikon Cool-Pix 880).
Just wondering if you think it’s worth getting fixed?
I paid $40.00 for the whole package. Love those yard sales!!
On the Minolta bodies the linkage from where the motor winder hooks up sometimes hangs up if the camera sits for a long time. You can often free it up by wiggling the drive coupling. Be gentle, don't use force.
I don’t get prints, just negatives. Walgreens charges about 5 bucks a roll. I scan the negatives on an Epson 3590.
My compliments on your selection.
I enjoy my 3000i and 7000i. The 1.7 lenses are razor sharp with excellent contrast. The Mrs commandeered the 3000i because it’s ridiculously easy to take great pictures with the thing. Yes they’re both fantastic plastic but both have the heft of earlier steel bodies and are the first grab bodies when we’re heading to an event and want film pics.
Thanks, SWAMPSNIPER. Do the scanned negatives come out clear?
Bad business choices hurt Minolta, not bad cameras.
The scanner software is really good and then Photoshop takes over. Most of the labs today are aren’t dedicatted to really high quality.
Sheepishly, I admit I had not thought of just havign the negatives, no prints, then use the scanner/printer. I have a Canon T-50 which I used to love to use, but the processing of film got too expensive so I finally bought a digital. But I miss using the various lenses I have for the Canon, especially the telephoto 200 zoom. I’m gonna get that beauty out and clean it up, oil it and start using real film again! Scanning the nagatives into files on the computer will allow me to make prints any ol’ time and any ol’ size I want! Thanks for mentioning it, Swampy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.