tandaina
January 16th, 2015, 02:29 PM
OK, promised this to a few folks. If you are a grumpy old camera person like me (get off my lawn!) then you are probably lamenting the long lost days of *real* cameras. You know the ones, all metal, film, if you were *lucky* it had a light meter, but it probably *didn't*, and it was heavy enough that if you got mugged you could beat the attacker off with it. Those cameras. :pound:
So I learned to shoot in the heady days of the Minolta SRT-101. For those who don't know it's probably one of the best cameras ever produced. (Remember, I'm a grumpy old photography gal, don't argue, just nod.) Rugged, accurate, and most importantly didn't need power to operate. Sure if you put a battery in it you'd get a basic light meter, but back then we didn't *need* light meters darn it! And yes, you had to focus the shot yourself. And we didn't have zoom lenses either. We zoomed by walking. (Up hill, both ways!) I shot mostly black and white film (easy to develop and print, and when I lost dark room access, cheaper to have developed). That camera taught me to see. Partly because it was all manual and you had to slow down and *think* about your shot you really learned to see.
Well time passed and I dug in my heels for a loooong time but eventually I admitted that maybe a camera that wound the film for you between shots would be nice to have. So I made the biggest photographic mistake of my life and bought a Canon. Piece of junk. Seriously, it broke within a year and the cost to fix it was more than I'd paid for it new. I threw it away and went back to Minolta and have never left. Well eventually I lost access to a dark room, development costs were rising, and I hated the crappy development results I got from local labs. (No.... shot three needed pushing two stops you idiots.)
So when a friend told me that *digital* cameras meant your computer was your dark room... I jumped. I bought the Minolta 7D and a couple lenses and off I went. Eventually the worst thing to ever happen to photography happened, Minolta got out of the business. (I know this might cause a war but the best glass produced was made by Minolta. The color rendering, the detail. It was amazing, no one else comes close. Even Zeiss bought lens designs from Minolta in the 70s.) Eventually I moved to Sony's (who bought Minolta's photo business) professional body, the enormous a900. An amazing camera, but I think it weighs 20 pounds and it's easily as big as my head.
The whole time I lamented, often enough that my family got really sick of hearing it, that all I wanted was someone to make a digital back for the Minolta SRT-101. That's it, just a digital back to replace the film plate. Well no one ever did that, but Sony has been doing some pretty amazing things with mirrorless cameras (I swore I'd never go mirrorless early on). And recently they released the a7 (comes in a number of variations for different specialities) and then the a7ii (an upgrade/improvement.) I would have never bought it for myself, but my husband read online that with a simple adapter ring it would use my old Minolta lenses *the same as my SRT-101 did.* I think it took him 30 seconds to buy it, just to shut me up. ;) It was my Christmas present this year.
15667
Ignore the lenses one's a huge old Minolta 300mm prime and the other is I think 28mm, but here's the wonderful old SRT-101 next to its great-granddaughter the Sony a7ii. Look maybe a *little* similar? (The addition of the grip for the right hand is soooo welcome. An upgrade from the old camera that I can agree with.)
I honestly expected my fond memories of my old Minolta glass to be utterly ruined by this camera. You see digital cameras have gotten *so* good that many of them (the a900 is one) can render images more detailed than most *lenses* can produce. So you see all the lens' warts. Anything less than a $2k modern Sony/Minolta lens on the a900 looks like *crap.* The sensors are just that good.
My old Minolta glass was mid range for its day. I have the 50mm 1.7 (not the 50mm 1.4). I have the 28mm 2.8 (not the famed 24mm 2.8). You get the picture. They were solid pieces of glass for their time. The 50mm 1.7 sells for about $20 today. So let me say, when I put these lenses on this body I wasn't expecting much. I was totally blown away. The old Minolta color, all there, the detail rendering? Sharp as a tack no matter how I pixel peep. 40 year old glass that sells for well under $100 these days utterly decimated my good quality automatic Minolta/Sony glass. We haven't yet got an adapter for my husbands ultra top of the line Canon glass, but after looking at these photos he's pretty sure the Minolta glass will outperform his stuff as well. They don't make 'em like they used to. :)
Eye candy time!
The 24mm 2.8 dealing with some pretty intense sun (if it ever had a hood it has long ago been lost) and some huge dynamic range. I think we may finally have entered the era of digital matching film for dynamic range. This is not HDR.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-gMr2HKS/0/O/i-gMr2HKS.jpg
This is a 100mm Vivitar with a macro adapter.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-CWtfhZF/0/O/i-CWtfhZF.jpg
The 50mm (work horse lens). This is 6400 ISO. Unbelievable.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-FhRjFc4/0/O/i-FhRjFc4.jpg
Still the 50, rotten day. Raining, foggy. Just blech.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-k5dWFmh/0/O/i-k5dWFmh.jpg
50mm (apparently I really just need like one lens)
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-C2jJ6Lq/0/O/i-C2jJ6Lq.jpg
28mm 2.8, really hard shot. The falls were running so high that all the way on the observation platform where this was taken it was *raining up.* Most of the time the lens was too covered with water spots, but I managed this...
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Art/Black-White-Study/i-96wjKxz/0/XL/DSC00216-Edit-2-XL.jpg
These are a roughly 25 year old Minolta *auto-focus* 20mm lens. Another goodie.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Seasons/Winter/i-x8qhCpd/0/XL/DSC00628-XL.jpg
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Seasons/Winter/i-R7DqxZq/0/XL/DSC00637-XL.jpg
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Seasons/Winter/i-48WRZK9/0/XL/DSC00641-Edit-XL.jpg
So I learned to shoot in the heady days of the Minolta SRT-101. For those who don't know it's probably one of the best cameras ever produced. (Remember, I'm a grumpy old photography gal, don't argue, just nod.) Rugged, accurate, and most importantly didn't need power to operate. Sure if you put a battery in it you'd get a basic light meter, but back then we didn't *need* light meters darn it! And yes, you had to focus the shot yourself. And we didn't have zoom lenses either. We zoomed by walking. (Up hill, both ways!) I shot mostly black and white film (easy to develop and print, and when I lost dark room access, cheaper to have developed). That camera taught me to see. Partly because it was all manual and you had to slow down and *think* about your shot you really learned to see.
Well time passed and I dug in my heels for a loooong time but eventually I admitted that maybe a camera that wound the film for you between shots would be nice to have. So I made the biggest photographic mistake of my life and bought a Canon. Piece of junk. Seriously, it broke within a year and the cost to fix it was more than I'd paid for it new. I threw it away and went back to Minolta and have never left. Well eventually I lost access to a dark room, development costs were rising, and I hated the crappy development results I got from local labs. (No.... shot three needed pushing two stops you idiots.)
So when a friend told me that *digital* cameras meant your computer was your dark room... I jumped. I bought the Minolta 7D and a couple lenses and off I went. Eventually the worst thing to ever happen to photography happened, Minolta got out of the business. (I know this might cause a war but the best glass produced was made by Minolta. The color rendering, the detail. It was amazing, no one else comes close. Even Zeiss bought lens designs from Minolta in the 70s.) Eventually I moved to Sony's (who bought Minolta's photo business) professional body, the enormous a900. An amazing camera, but I think it weighs 20 pounds and it's easily as big as my head.
The whole time I lamented, often enough that my family got really sick of hearing it, that all I wanted was someone to make a digital back for the Minolta SRT-101. That's it, just a digital back to replace the film plate. Well no one ever did that, but Sony has been doing some pretty amazing things with mirrorless cameras (I swore I'd never go mirrorless early on). And recently they released the a7 (comes in a number of variations for different specialities) and then the a7ii (an upgrade/improvement.) I would have never bought it for myself, but my husband read online that with a simple adapter ring it would use my old Minolta lenses *the same as my SRT-101 did.* I think it took him 30 seconds to buy it, just to shut me up. ;) It was my Christmas present this year.
15667
Ignore the lenses one's a huge old Minolta 300mm prime and the other is I think 28mm, but here's the wonderful old SRT-101 next to its great-granddaughter the Sony a7ii. Look maybe a *little* similar? (The addition of the grip for the right hand is soooo welcome. An upgrade from the old camera that I can agree with.)
I honestly expected my fond memories of my old Minolta glass to be utterly ruined by this camera. You see digital cameras have gotten *so* good that many of them (the a900 is one) can render images more detailed than most *lenses* can produce. So you see all the lens' warts. Anything less than a $2k modern Sony/Minolta lens on the a900 looks like *crap.* The sensors are just that good.
My old Minolta glass was mid range for its day. I have the 50mm 1.7 (not the 50mm 1.4). I have the 28mm 2.8 (not the famed 24mm 2.8). You get the picture. They were solid pieces of glass for their time. The 50mm 1.7 sells for about $20 today. So let me say, when I put these lenses on this body I wasn't expecting much. I was totally blown away. The old Minolta color, all there, the detail rendering? Sharp as a tack no matter how I pixel peep. 40 year old glass that sells for well under $100 these days utterly decimated my good quality automatic Minolta/Sony glass. We haven't yet got an adapter for my husbands ultra top of the line Canon glass, but after looking at these photos he's pretty sure the Minolta glass will outperform his stuff as well. They don't make 'em like they used to. :)
Eye candy time!
The 24mm 2.8 dealing with some pretty intense sun (if it ever had a hood it has long ago been lost) and some huge dynamic range. I think we may finally have entered the era of digital matching film for dynamic range. This is not HDR.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-gMr2HKS/0/O/i-gMr2HKS.jpg
This is a 100mm Vivitar with a macro adapter.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-CWtfhZF/0/O/i-CWtfhZF.jpg
The 50mm (work horse lens). This is 6400 ISO. Unbelievable.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-FhRjFc4/0/O/i-FhRjFc4.jpg
Still the 50, rotten day. Raining, foggy. Just blech.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-k5dWFmh/0/O/i-k5dWFmh.jpg
50mm (apparently I really just need like one lens)
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/photos/i-C2jJ6Lq/0/O/i-C2jJ6Lq.jpg
28mm 2.8, really hard shot. The falls were running so high that all the way on the observation platform where this was taken it was *raining up.* Most of the time the lens was too covered with water spots, but I managed this...
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Art/Black-White-Study/i-96wjKxz/0/XL/DSC00216-Edit-2-XL.jpg
These are a roughly 25 year old Minolta *auto-focus* 20mm lens. Another goodie.
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Seasons/Winter/i-x8qhCpd/0/XL/DSC00628-XL.jpg
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Seasons/Winter/i-R7DqxZq/0/XL/DSC00637-XL.jpg
http://tandaina.smugmug.com/Seasons/Winter/i-48WRZK9/0/XL/DSC00641-Edit-XL.jpg