Nice video and collection, my fav in your collection is the 24mm. My fav in my collection is the 85mm f2. Tiny but sharp. I find that the 50 1.4 Mc is quite soft, I never enjoy taking pictures with it...😊
In terms of quality I don't think you can beat the 1 click wonder approach of modern computationally heavy smartphones, specifically when it comes to dynamic range if anything. Video is a VERY 1 dimensional argument too that these cannot win. But I feel like some stuff were heavily ignored here, considering these cameras offer many features smartphones even today don't. Take the optical zoom range for example, even this G7 can do 6x zoom (up to 210mm) which is better than 90% of smartphone telephotos. Not to mention long telephoto modules rely on a side-mounted configuration with a mirror, which hurts physical contrast. Another thing is, surprisingly, megapixels. Most smartphones are still snapping 12mp photos for harder scenarios or anything other than well-lit daylight photos and there are a lot of pocket cameras that can beat this. Not to mention their sensors and pixels are superior in size too depending on what you get. Then we get into features such as the actual strong xenon flash modules these things have. Your smartphone's LED is nowhere near their strength, which is why I haven't seen a single person use them outside for years now (and it has little to do with modern night modes, this goes back to 2014-15ish). As a final point, CCD sensors don't have any rolling shutter at all. For what it's worth that's one of the main reasons I enjoy hunting these down. The G7 in particular uses an older digic processor that isn't so heavy on the noise reduction and produces really punchy colors on top of it, so videos from it look pretty darn sharp compared to newer G models and that paired with the CCD sensor qualities makes it look like a bulkier camcorder (I would know, I have a Sony camcorder). Take that for the feel, makes some crazy authentic-looking videos. I think these cameras have a lot more value than people realize and I'm talking practical, not just for the aesthetic or feel. If you go a little more expensive you can find 1 inchers with crazy zooms, like those premium Lumix cameras Panasonic has. Smartphones aren't beating that raw sensor performance or the zoom, they're worth a try. Oh and you can flash Canon ones with custom firmware that enables raw capture on pretty much everything, even cameras with like 2 megapixels that came out in the 2000s.
I'm part of the Xennials micro-generation ...... grew up in the '90's shooting film, early '00's was in college and had the new 2MP digital cameras and now have the money to spend on good photo equipment. One thing that I have always found interesting is how much I didn't know in the early days of digital cameras. Buying my first real camera (Nikon D3000) in about '10 forced me to learn more about white balance, exposure comp, noise, etc. Now, the old, "digicams" intrigue me.....I learned what I didn't know back then and the pictures sucked because the operator was inept. Now, by understanding the old cameras' limits...and abilities....I am better educated and can produce decent pictures on a 20 year old camera. In a society driven by planned obsolescence and the constant pressure to upgrade, it's nice to take a step back to simpler technology and still produce amazing results.
I owned a black FM2N. It was a great camera; very ergonomic, lightweight, easy to use and worked very reliably in extreme cold. The my favorite features were its multi-exposure lever and fast 1/4000 s shutter speed.
Can’t believe you got rid of the 58. Sure the 50 is sharper but the 58 has this character to it that makes it and the 50 not comparable. The color reproduction is different. The bokeh is different. Besides both being “fast 50s” they’re very different otherwise
This camera has a great lens and there are work arounds for the drawbacks you mentioned. I also like it for street photography best, however I usually use the Minolta X700 with a 28mm for that as far as film cameras go, also of course the many Canon EOS style cameras make things so easy and pleasant.
I think you have to look at these old CCD digicans in context, they're not a film camera and you certainly can't compare them like for like with a modern camera. But you do get the biggest bang for your $ by far, this one cost you $15 effectively, that's basically the cost of a roll of film with just 36 exposures on it, then you have to pay for developing plus the film camera and a decent lens etc You do get a 'retro' look about the images which are a little reminiscent of film but without the high cost of film photography. There is something very satisfying about using a cheap camera and getting good results out of it. 😊
With CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) you can shoot RAW with the Canon G7 as it has been mentioned. I got a G7 in 2007 and still have it (even if I don't use it a lot). What I like the most about this camera is that you just focus on the composition and the rest is very straightforward, it fits in your pocket, it's very discreet for street photography, you're never afraid of breaking it or getting it stolen as you said, the quality in low light isn't really good but you can still use the flash. The low tech side of these mid 2000 cameras pushes your creativity in my opinion, I would compare them to Polaroid but as it is digital you can edit your photos if you want !
I have an X570 and I vaguely remember a few lenses available that had built in autofocus capability for use with non-af MD mount cameras. Am I dreaming or did such a thing exist?
The X1 / XK is an amazing rig 😮 there’s just something about it that always makes me want to shoot it… heck, even just looking at it and picking it up brings joy
thanks for your opinions,, I appreciate them, but I would like to ask you if the focus is easy to get due to the rangefinder?... is it good quality for detailed objects like leave trees as much as a face in a portrait? thx
I used Minolta XD-5/XD-11 and Contax RTS2, 137 and Nikon FM2,FE2 and F3. Probably most elite ones are Contax RTS-2 and 137 but most assuring one is F3. Please try Contax 137 and RTS-2. I wasnt able to use RTS-3 which might be an excellent one.
I'm sorry, but I don't like the way you presented this camera, you presented it as if it had no photographic value, as if it is stupid, when compared to a human,you talk about that camera in such a disparaging way!And film doesn't have a ton of flexibility and it doesn't have a ton of resolution! I usually shoot on film and unless you are going to print the film in the old classic way you cannot say that the film has a ton of resolution, it has as much resolution as you set your scanner.By the way, the G7 is a pretty good camera with which you can make fairly large prints, I printed a 19 by 25 inch photo! You mentioned your Fuji camera, I bet that in a few years you will talk as disparagingly about that camera as you do about this Canon!! Sorry man, but when someone talks like you do, it makes me very angry
Old DigiCams are horrible, picture quality is garbage, intended focus is almost unable to achieve, slow in operation… All it is just a hype pushed by RU-vidrs… the difference is just because the quality of the pictures from a cellphone is so good that the horrible garbage from old DigiCams looks different. Same as “light leak” filters, back in the film day light leak was a reason to trash a picture 🤷🏼
What is hilarious about your smug, arrogant comment is that your exaggerated criticisms are exactly what people like about digicams! It's a different aesthetic, whether you like or not. So maybe, remove the stick that's up your butt & accept that your narrow view of of photography is not the only one! Maybe you should change your handle to: photo_n_fart, that might suit you better lol
Another lifelong Minolta fan here. Cameras that were gifts from my parents XG-7, X700 and XK. All Christmas gifts starting in the 70's. Also inherited a Maxxum after my folks passed away and have used those lenses with my Sony DSLR.
At one time or another, I have owned a SRT-101, a XK, and a XD11. All were great. At some point, I moved to Nikon FM2s and loved it, too. LOVED the 250mm f/5.6 mirror lens ... wish I had kept it.
I am bemused by the fact that Zach felt the need to start a video on this topic with what amounts to an apology. After Nico posted his video on increasing film prices some months ago, I looked at what I paid for film, B&W and color slide film, in the early 1960s when I started doing photography, and applied published inflation rates for the dollar. Guess what? The inflation adjusted price of film 6 months ago was no higher than the price of film in 1964. Back then, we had a lot more choices, and there were a lot more film manufacturers actually making film. Film prices today are "high", only in reference to prices from the 1980-90s. Those were temporarily lower (if a decade can be "temporary") because Kodak and Fuji were joined in a holy war for the loyalty of film photographers, Ilford was struggling to survive problems of its own creation (and failed in bankruptcy), and Kodak was still sitting on its "birth of digital" patents. These all pushed film prices lower than the traditional market. The biggest problem IMO for the future of film is fragile supply. More than half the brands of film offered today are just products of other companies, dressed up in a new box and resold at a large markup. Take Kodak (color) or Harmon/Ilford (B&W) or Foma (cheap B&W) off the game board, and film would be in real trouble, so worry about that.
Your vocabulary needs addressing …. forget about film look, lo-fi, blah blah blah … you can get fantastic results out of any camera - if you understand their limitations and work with them as attributes. I have a Canon SX130-IS point and shoot that I have taken everywhere for ten years. If you dial everything down on the custom film setting, and get the lighting right, then you’re in heaven. Forget about any comparison with film, it’s a logical fallacy that’s old and tired. Almost everything you say is just uninformed nonsense. You talk about cameras as if they are cheap to the point of being worthless. In today’s money, they cost thousands, so don’t say they can be thrown around with impunity.
Love my XE4, never understood the whinging over the focus dial, ive put it in the Q menu and litterally takes 3 seconds to change on the very rare occasion I need too
Those are great lenses indeed. 3 other favorites of mine are: - MD 75-150/4 (best zoom I’ve ever used) - MD 35/2.8 (insanely sharp stopped down) - MC/MD (5/5 formula) 100mm f/2.5 (one of the best bokeh lenses around) - Rokkor-PF 55/2 (incredibly well rounded lens, great colors, great build quality, great bokeh, great sharpness)
I bought sony for only 10$ with 16gb memory card and its much slimmer than this and very miniature i also hate to use phone for take pics. Digital cameras is just so much better than use phone for tale vids and pics
Oh man, thanks a lot for putting out this video! After three years of mainly shooting film with a Canon P (lovely camera, am I right?!), I've been looking into updating my DSLR, an old Nikon D300. I ended up getting an X-E4 which should arrive in a bit, and this video can't come in a better moment. I had a few doubts due to all the reviews saying it felt like a toy, but I'm in love with the size and feel of the Canon P, which seems to be almost identical in shape. I'll be using it to digitize my film as well, do you have any recs on the settings for that? I wonder if you can also create "shooting profiles", where you set up the camera in a certain way for, say, scanning film, and save it as a preset. I do this on my Nikon so I don't have to manually change everything. Does it work on the Fuji too?
Agree 100% Similar cameras are the perfect one for beginners to learn and to not spend much money until they decide to upgrade to a more manual and durable camera! Excellent video Zachary!!!!
Excellent video Zachary!! A really wonderful Minolta MD/MC Collection, A real inspiration to start mine. I will like to ask you which of your Minolta electronic camera has been more reliable, I'm in the process of getting a body to test the lenses. Thanks for the video.
Over the decades, I have owned and used the following 35mm rangefinder cameras: My first was an Argus C3 with 35, 50, and 100mm lenses. My second was a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens. My third was a Canon Canonet QL17 G-III with fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens. My fourth was a Contax G1 with 21, 28, 45, and 90mm lenses. My fifth was a Leica M6 with 21, 35, and 90mm lenses. All five were great cameras that produced excellent images. In my opinion, the Canonet, also known as the poor man's Leica, was a great camera provided you did not need interchangeable lenses.
