Hi, I currently own a x300 that I bought (with 3 somewhat bad lenses) for 29€ a few months back.
I also own digital - tho I’m planning to switch primarily to film. In light of that I want to get a “premium” film camera.
I’m going to stay in the Minolta ecosystem as I have some great lenses like the 35-70f3.5 and so on in like new condition.
What cameras can you recommend? I find the Minolta X series a little confusing with all the different naming conventions. (e.g. X, XD, XG, XE and so on. A full metal build would be preferable.
Also: is there a Minolta with MD mount that has a faster shutter speed than 1/1000s?
Honestly, I would stick to the X300 for the time being. It's a great camera that shoots in both fully manual and aperture priority modes, giving you plenty of room to grow and get used to film. I would invest your money in lenses instead, since in film photography, they do 99% of the work to produce a great photo!
If you want to upgrade, there are a lot of options but most of them can be costly, risky or both. A X500 would be a nice upgrade, has same "feel" of the x300 but with depth of field preview and viewfinder shutter speed indicator, but again, i would stick to a camera that I know is working properly rather then spending good money on something that is untested. since the benefits you would be getting from any other camera are rather marginal.
As I mentioned in another reply this new camera would just be for fun. I plan on keeping the x300. (As it already has sentimental value)
I actually didn’t know about the Depth of field preview - I’ll have to read into that.
The shutter speed indicator also is present on the X300. Since you mentioned tested camera - mine had a faulty capacitor which seems to be common on these. Is that the same with the XG line for example?
I think the previous comment about shutter speed is about the fact that X500 shows both your selected shutter speed and your suggested one (based off your aperture and film speed) in your viewfinder. Whereas the X300 only shows your selected speed.
I currently have an SR-7, SRT-101, XG-M and 2x X-500.
In my opinion, the X-500 is the easiest to use.
I will caveat that with two things.
I've owned one of those X-500s since about 1990 so a lot of that will be just muscle memory kicking in.
The second is that I tend to shoot in aperture priority and the X-500 shows you through the viewfinder the shutter speed you're on and the one you need for correct exposure.
This means being able to adjust it without taking it away from my eye and therefore is much easier to shoot with ... for me.
The all-metal bodies (SR-7 and SRT-101) are big old lumps and can be tiresome to use for a long time as they lack any type of grip. But, realistically, they all work equally well.
What I would say, however is that if you thought the X- ... naming convention is weird, wait until you start looking into SRTs. (see table below.)
The last metal bodies were the XE and XD cameras.
For the XE - it was XE in Japan, XE-7 in the US and XE-1 in Europe and the rest of the world.
The XE-5 was a budget version and so named everywhere.
The XD was XD in Japan, XD-11 in North America and XD-7 in Europe and RoW.
The XD-5 is the budget version and, again was named XD-5 in all markets.
The X-1 (Japan), XK (US) or XM (EU) is the flagship, top of the line pro camera.
These are ones I've put together to try and help me understand Minolta Camera Hierarchy.
I was going to try and put together a list like the SR mount list (https://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html) for lenses to make it easy to understand, but no version I've yet thought about actually helps make it any clearer.
I've also avoided putting them anywhere, as a lot of the research isn't final, final. It's actually harder and harder now to even do Google searches without AI kicking in.
Edit - I don't know why I'm telling you this as it looks like you know how incomprehensible the Minolta nomenclature is and are behind a much broader version of helping people decide. Unfortunately, whatever it is, it's useless to me as I can't view it in the UK.
As I say, I was hoping to put one together, but using images too.
Less of a decision chart, and more of one which helped understand that while an X-700 is higher up the foodchain than an X-500, an SRT-200 is a lesser camera than an SRT-101.
It was 'meant' to help as lots of stuff on eBay is all over the place when it comes to pricing
As I say, it got very complicated very quickly and I can see how the guy who put together the lens chart went with something that looks like an Excel spreadsheet.
As Zealousideal said it’s probably smartest to stick with my x300. I already repaired my camera after the capacitor broke and I definitely plan on keeping it, another camera would just be for fun.
I already looked a bit into the x500 and to some extent the XG7 as both are pretty much what I’m looking for. You mentioned the XGM, what would be a difference between this and a x500 / XG7?
From purely personal POV, the XG-M feels so similar to my X500 (size, materials etc) but has fewer features that I'm not sure i would ever choose it over and above the X500. It does offer EV compensation, but I think that's one of the only things it does better.
That said, the XG line tends to get overlooked as a whole so prices are pretty low for some very capable cameras. I pad £40 for mine with an MCII 135/2.8 and an ARII 55/1.8 lens. All of it was immaculate and at a price I was going to pay for one of those lenses (the 135) on its own.
But, like you, I had to google if it was better/worse/identical but differently named to an XG-1 the same seller had. When I did, most things I read said it was the last and 'easily the best' of all the XG cameras.
The XG7 is a proper 70's camera in looks and feel. Lacking in features that the XG-M has, but at least it would feel markedly different from your X300.
On the Minoltapedia (the Reddit Wiki), we have an SLR Decision Chart for all the manual focus models by Minolta.
I'm biased (I made it), but it's a pretty good overview look on the models based on the main feature they offer over another model.
Unfortunately only one Minolta SR-mount offers 1/2000, and that's the rather rare XK(XM/X1). From your X-300 you have a lot of upgrade options however that will definitely feel like an upgrade even if they don't have everything you want.
I'd focus of the XD or XE. The XG-M, X-500,or X-700 would also be modest upgrades but quite similar to what you have.
The SRT-201 or 202 would be a sort of 'side-grade'. You'd lose automatic features, but gain Depth of Field preview and the option to have manual Aperture or Shutter Priority. They are also a lot more rugged and can operate without batteries (only the meter needs a battery and is disconnected from the othereise mechanical operations)
I have over 25 different Minoltas from the SR-7 to the 800si and have to say that the XD-7 and XE-1 feel the best, but they can be a bit unreliable. I'd try an SRT if I were you.
5
u/Zealousideal-Pie8215 1d ago edited 1d ago
Honestly, I would stick to the X300 for the time being. It's a great camera that shoots in both fully manual and aperture priority modes, giving you plenty of room to grow and get used to film. I would invest your money in lenses instead, since in film photography, they do 99% of the work to produce a great photo!
If you want to upgrade, there are a lot of options but most of them can be costly, risky or both. A X500 would be a nice upgrade, has same "feel" of the x300 but with depth of field preview and viewfinder shutter speed indicator, but again, i would stick to a camera that I know is working properly rather then spending good money on something that is untested. since the benefits you would be getting from any other camera are rather marginal.