peterblaise
Well-Known Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Pietruch (Camhound) wrote:
> ... my first X-700 is still going strong (after 20 years), and has had literally thousands of rolls (24- and 36-exposure) through it, using the Winder G for the first few years, and the MD-1 ever since (call it 15+ years with the motor drive). In fact, it'd feel naked without an MD-1 attached ...
Peter Blaise responds:
Hi Joe,
My sentiments and experience exactly.
Though I like going naked now and again! ;-)
That is, I occasionally like stripping down my Minolta X-700 to be sans MD1 and Zing wrist strap, and I mount a 50mm f/2 or a 45mm f/2 lens and hide it in a little tiny fanny pack and then go out and do some clandestine street photography - and no one knows I even have a camera 'cause it's so small and inconspicuous.
And accurate.
And reliable.
And quiet!
And light weight!
And SMALL! ;-)
... can't do that with an XK -- too bad!
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael R. Lachance (Mike_lachance) wrote:
> ... "I have shot 1undreds of rolls through these cameras over a VERY long period of time, so i do think i have a basis to judge the line ....The fact remains, what i have said was my honest experience with the line" ...
... and Peter Blaise responds once again ...
Hi Mike,
No.
As noted statesman Winston Churchill is reported to have said, perhaps not in so many words,
"Honesty is nice, but accuracy is better."
Mike, you have a basis for judging your own experience. Experience with ... 3 ... cameras?
You have no basis for judging any experience other than your own, and certainly NO basis for judging entire factory productions over dozens of years!
However, to witness 2,000+ other experiences, we can all visit the MUG Minolta User's Groups now on Yahoo! Groups, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: I am 100% confident that you and I are NEVER going to agree, nor are we going to change each other's minds.
--------------------------------------------------------------
My only hope is to counteract the apparent or supposed "authority" of your comments so other people have an opportunity to asses your comments in some perspective, so that this list does not become a misinformed "poor Minolta, really made some bummer cameras" list.
Mike, I think you have had legitimate experiences with cameras that were NOT appropriate for you in substantial ways. I'm glad you found another Minolta camera that apparently pleases you. Other photographers in similar situations have found Nikons, Canons and other cameras brands that pleased them. I wish you all well. Good luck. I have Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Yashica, Contax, Pentax and so on, along with my hard working Minolta collection. I am not easy to please, and Minolta uniquely pleases me (after 40 years of experience at it!).
However, just because you found a few cameras to be inappropriate for your own photographic purposes does NOT say anything about those cameras, and certainly does NOT say anything about those cameras for any one else!
And, I offer to everyone willing to read this far into the thread that the cameras you walked away from are PERFECTLY appropriate for thousands (millions?) of other people whose photographic experiences may or may not correspond to yours.
Sorry you had some bummer experiences. Shame you can't send to me the cameras you left behind. I'd love to have the chance to appreciate them. I hope they are serving someone else well.
> Mike wrote:
> ... "I feel part of the problem may be in not having regular CLA done on these cameras. If you are going to ABUSE the shutter and advance mechanisms of the X-Series with a very fine permorming MD-1 (I loved mine) than by all means take your camera in FIRST and have them do a CLA. Better safe than sorry...."
Peter Blaise responds:
You are being presumptive, Mike. You haven't told us that you EVER got them fixed and what a certified Minolta service technician might have said was the cause of failure. Were they early production models that Minolta fixed with subsequent production modifications, and everyone else's versions are just fine? Was there a piece of broken film jammed inside the mechanism? We will never know - and neither will you. By the way, the shutter and advance mechanism have no way of knowing if they are being triggered manually or by a motor winder or motor drive.
All my Minolta service manuals show steady, consistent improvement in Minolta cameras throughout their production, especially such long lived models as the Minolta X-series cameras. It stands to reason that the one's that died in your hands may be different than the ones that live on in other people's hands.
Without SPECIFICS of the (unrealized) repair that your cameras apparently needed, which so far you decline to suggest that you had repairs done to your cameras, we are in the dark, and your comments about "the whole line" fall extremely short of ACCURACY! Sorry, but regardless of how all encompassing you think your experiences are for the rest of us, you are really only speaking for yourself, NOT the entire production line of Minolta X-series cameras, nor other people's experiences!
CLA Cleaning, Lubrication and Alignment will NOT fix a problem with a weak design and could not have prevented failure due to supposed stress from a motor drive accessory. The Minolta X-series was the world's largest selling camera at the time, so it is expected to read quotes from techs who saw lots of ones needing service, and quotes from people who bought early ones that exhibited failures that were remedied under warranty and in later production changes. What you have absolutely no reference to are ... the thousands (millions?) of Minolta X-series cameras that ain't got no problem, and your indictment of the whole line just makes no sense.
Think of it this way - what's the world's most popular car - the VW Beetle (or Toyota Corolla, Ford Model T ... any number of cars qualify depending on how you measure). Well then, if there are TONS of them out there, then even at the smallest statistical failure rate, there must be thousands of failures at the repair shops, and thousands of stories of those failures. Meaningful? Sure - but only to the factory quality control and designers, so they can make the next ones impervious to preventable failures. And also consider that they are now out survive their competitors in years of happy owner's use, so they are older than their now unused competition, so additional service is to be expected - versus their competition which are just junked and thrown away.
And while I'm speaking of cars, I think your experiences corresponds to this: I can buy a 20,000 mile warranty tire and a 40,000 mile warranty tire, drive them both the exact same NORMAL way, and I'd expect the 20,000 mile tire to wear out first. By your standards, NORMAL use of that 20,000 mile tire should be considered ABUSE since the tire wore out before the 40,000 mile tire.
Wrong!
I don't think your logic survives much scrutiny, sorry.
Normal use coincidentally leading to unrelated failure is not "abuse".
But, as I said, the ones that are NOT at the repair shop NEVER GET MENTIONED. Thousands (millions?). So, lots of stories of broken ones are a natural byproduct of being the world's largest selling camera line at the time. There are many, many more untold stories of happy customers with Minolta X-series cameras in their hands!
Finally, I imagine there are far fewer MD1s out there than X-series cameras that fit them, and many X-series cameras don't fit the MD1, so it's a moot point to say they would ALL fail if "abused" by strapping on an MD1 if the MD1 won't even fit!
"Abused" - geesh! Mike, I do not believe that you abused your cameras into failure by using an MD1. They failed because they failed. Period. If you ever had enough trust in Minolta to have had them fixed properly, and then when they came home, strapped the MD1 on 'em, you'd probably still be using them now!
> Mike quoted a bunch of unreferenced Internet comments on supposed failures of Minolta cameras.
Peter Blaise responds:
And your point?
This is no news. I already mentioned hundreds of failure stories already exchanged on the MUG (see above and earlier in this thread), and NONE of those stories support your contention of "failure of Minolta X-series cameras with cloth shutters dying prematurely due to wear and tear of so called abuse from the Motor Drive 1".
None of the stories from the MUG support your argument.
Funny, none of the quotes you supplied support your argument either!
In fact, the ONLY quote you offered regarding the MD1 is from a Minolta Authorized Servicer who comments on user abuse, NOT camera failure.
Conversely, Mike, to apply your reasoning elsewhere in the universe, pick any other manufactured product with which you have had a failure and tell us about the whole production line from your one or two or three personal experiences, okay? Maybe then we can see if your line of reasoning is appropriate. Say ... had a refrigerator fail? A car need repair? A shoe fall apart? A radio break? What?
"That GE stove burned my dinner once - GE stoves suck!"
Right.
... so, for $400 I can buy 2, 3, even 4 Minolta X-series cameras, or I can buy just 1 and then have spare money to get it fixed IF it ever breaks, and in the meantime I can afford lots of film and processing for $400.
... and you've only got one Minolta X-series camera with no film for $400.
Cool.
To each their own.
I can see how your chosen camera gear is appropriate for you. Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltaxk/ and enjoy!
I hope you or at least others may see how their own camera gear choices may be different and appropriate for them, and my camera gear choices may be different and appropriate for me.
> Mike wrote:
> ... Calm down please Peter ... I respectfully request you do not make this a personal thing ...
Peter Blaise responds:
Mike, you can ONLY make your sharing here personal - as you are the only person in the world who has any insight into the honesty and accuracy of your awareness of your own personal experiences. I am only trying to help (a) ward off anyone thinking you speak for anyone else's experience but your own, and (b) perhaps direct you into heightened awareness of your own experiences upon revisiting them (if you could get your broken cameras back and get them fixed, eh?).
And, I have nothing against you personally, as we don't know each other personally, hence the silliness of suggesting that you experienced me as not "calm" when all you experienced was your own interpretation of my written words, your own reading of my written words!
Mike, I only have a problem with your reasoning, and with your vicious, inaccurate, out of context, unreferenced quotes.
Other than that, I think we are getting along just fine.
Just fine!
How 'bout you?
;-)
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise Monahon Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Pietruch (Camhound) wrote:
> ... my first X-700 is still going strong (after 20 years), and has had literally thousands of rolls (24- and 36-exposure) through it, using the Winder G for the first few years, and the MD-1 ever since (call it 15+ years with the motor drive). In fact, it'd feel naked without an MD-1 attached ...
Peter Blaise responds:
Hi Joe,
My sentiments and experience exactly.
Though I like going naked now and again! ;-)
That is, I occasionally like stripping down my Minolta X-700 to be sans MD1 and Zing wrist strap, and I mount a 50mm f/2 or a 45mm f/2 lens and hide it in a little tiny fanny pack and then go out and do some clandestine street photography - and no one knows I even have a camera 'cause it's so small and inconspicuous.
And accurate.
And reliable.
And quiet!
And light weight!
And SMALL! ;-)
... can't do that with an XK -- too bad!
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael R. Lachance (Mike_lachance) wrote:
> ... "I have shot 1undreds of rolls through these cameras over a VERY long period of time, so i do think i have a basis to judge the line ....The fact remains, what i have said was my honest experience with the line" ...
... and Peter Blaise responds once again ...
Hi Mike,
No.
As noted statesman Winston Churchill is reported to have said, perhaps not in so many words,
"Honesty is nice, but accuracy is better."
Mike, you have a basis for judging your own experience. Experience with ... 3 ... cameras?
You have no basis for judging any experience other than your own, and certainly NO basis for judging entire factory productions over dozens of years!
However, to witness 2,000+ other experiences, we can all visit the MUG Minolta User's Groups now on Yahoo! Groups, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: I am 100% confident that you and I are NEVER going to agree, nor are we going to change each other's minds.
--------------------------------------------------------------
My only hope is to counteract the apparent or supposed "authority" of your comments so other people have an opportunity to asses your comments in some perspective, so that this list does not become a misinformed "poor Minolta, really made some bummer cameras" list.
Mike, I think you have had legitimate experiences with cameras that were NOT appropriate for you in substantial ways. I'm glad you found another Minolta camera that apparently pleases you. Other photographers in similar situations have found Nikons, Canons and other cameras brands that pleased them. I wish you all well. Good luck. I have Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Yashica, Contax, Pentax and so on, along with my hard working Minolta collection. I am not easy to please, and Minolta uniquely pleases me (after 40 years of experience at it!).
However, just because you found a few cameras to be inappropriate for your own photographic purposes does NOT say anything about those cameras, and certainly does NOT say anything about those cameras for any one else!
And, I offer to everyone willing to read this far into the thread that the cameras you walked away from are PERFECTLY appropriate for thousands (millions?) of other people whose photographic experiences may or may not correspond to yours.
Sorry you had some bummer experiences. Shame you can't send to me the cameras you left behind. I'd love to have the chance to appreciate them. I hope they are serving someone else well.
> Mike wrote:
> ... "I feel part of the problem may be in not having regular CLA done on these cameras. If you are going to ABUSE the shutter and advance mechanisms of the X-Series with a very fine permorming MD-1 (I loved mine) than by all means take your camera in FIRST and have them do a CLA. Better safe than sorry...."
Peter Blaise responds:
You are being presumptive, Mike. You haven't told us that you EVER got them fixed and what a certified Minolta service technician might have said was the cause of failure. Were they early production models that Minolta fixed with subsequent production modifications, and everyone else's versions are just fine? Was there a piece of broken film jammed inside the mechanism? We will never know - and neither will you. By the way, the shutter and advance mechanism have no way of knowing if they are being triggered manually or by a motor winder or motor drive.
All my Minolta service manuals show steady, consistent improvement in Minolta cameras throughout their production, especially such long lived models as the Minolta X-series cameras. It stands to reason that the one's that died in your hands may be different than the ones that live on in other people's hands.
Without SPECIFICS of the (unrealized) repair that your cameras apparently needed, which so far you decline to suggest that you had repairs done to your cameras, we are in the dark, and your comments about "the whole line" fall extremely short of ACCURACY! Sorry, but regardless of how all encompassing you think your experiences are for the rest of us, you are really only speaking for yourself, NOT the entire production line of Minolta X-series cameras, nor other people's experiences!
CLA Cleaning, Lubrication and Alignment will NOT fix a problem with a weak design and could not have prevented failure due to supposed stress from a motor drive accessory. The Minolta X-series was the world's largest selling camera at the time, so it is expected to read quotes from techs who saw lots of ones needing service, and quotes from people who bought early ones that exhibited failures that were remedied under warranty and in later production changes. What you have absolutely no reference to are ... the thousands (millions?) of Minolta X-series cameras that ain't got no problem, and your indictment of the whole line just makes no sense.
Think of it this way - what's the world's most popular car - the VW Beetle (or Toyota Corolla, Ford Model T ... any number of cars qualify depending on how you measure). Well then, if there are TONS of them out there, then even at the smallest statistical failure rate, there must be thousands of failures at the repair shops, and thousands of stories of those failures. Meaningful? Sure - but only to the factory quality control and designers, so they can make the next ones impervious to preventable failures. And also consider that they are now out survive their competitors in years of happy owner's use, so they are older than their now unused competition, so additional service is to be expected - versus their competition which are just junked and thrown away.
And while I'm speaking of cars, I think your experiences corresponds to this: I can buy a 20,000 mile warranty tire and a 40,000 mile warranty tire, drive them both the exact same NORMAL way, and I'd expect the 20,000 mile tire to wear out first. By your standards, NORMAL use of that 20,000 mile tire should be considered ABUSE since the tire wore out before the 40,000 mile tire.
Wrong!
I don't think your logic survives much scrutiny, sorry.
Normal use coincidentally leading to unrelated failure is not "abuse".
But, as I said, the ones that are NOT at the repair shop NEVER GET MENTIONED. Thousands (millions?). So, lots of stories of broken ones are a natural byproduct of being the world's largest selling camera line at the time. There are many, many more untold stories of happy customers with Minolta X-series cameras in their hands!
Finally, I imagine there are far fewer MD1s out there than X-series cameras that fit them, and many X-series cameras don't fit the MD1, so it's a moot point to say they would ALL fail if "abused" by strapping on an MD1 if the MD1 won't even fit!
"Abused" - geesh! Mike, I do not believe that you abused your cameras into failure by using an MD1. They failed because they failed. Period. If you ever had enough trust in Minolta to have had them fixed properly, and then when they came home, strapped the MD1 on 'em, you'd probably still be using them now!
> Mike quoted a bunch of unreferenced Internet comments on supposed failures of Minolta cameras.
Peter Blaise responds:
And your point?
This is no news. I already mentioned hundreds of failure stories already exchanged on the MUG (see above and earlier in this thread), and NONE of those stories support your contention of "failure of Minolta X-series cameras with cloth shutters dying prematurely due to wear and tear of so called abuse from the Motor Drive 1".
None of the stories from the MUG support your argument.
Funny, none of the quotes you supplied support your argument either!
In fact, the ONLY quote you offered regarding the MD1 is from a Minolta Authorized Servicer who comments on user abuse, NOT camera failure.
Conversely, Mike, to apply your reasoning elsewhere in the universe, pick any other manufactured product with which you have had a failure and tell us about the whole production line from your one or two or three personal experiences, okay? Maybe then we can see if your line of reasoning is appropriate. Say ... had a refrigerator fail? A car need repair? A shoe fall apart? A radio break? What?
"That GE stove burned my dinner once - GE stoves suck!"
Right.
... so, for $400 I can buy 2, 3, even 4 Minolta X-series cameras, or I can buy just 1 and then have spare money to get it fixed IF it ever breaks, and in the meantime I can afford lots of film and processing for $400.
... and you've only got one Minolta X-series camera with no film for $400.
Cool.
To each their own.
I can see how your chosen camera gear is appropriate for you. Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltaxk/ and enjoy!
I hope you or at least others may see how their own camera gear choices may be different and appropriate for them, and my camera gear choices may be different and appropriate for me.
> Mike wrote:
> ... Calm down please Peter ... I respectfully request you do not make this a personal thing ...
Peter Blaise responds:
Mike, you can ONLY make your sharing here personal - as you are the only person in the world who has any insight into the honesty and accuracy of your awareness of your own personal experiences. I am only trying to help (a) ward off anyone thinking you speak for anyone else's experience but your own, and (b) perhaps direct you into heightened awareness of your own experiences upon revisiting them (if you could get your broken cameras back and get them fixed, eh?).
And, I have nothing against you personally, as we don't know each other personally, hence the silliness of suggesting that you experienced me as not "calm" when all you experienced was your own interpretation of my written words, your own reading of my written words!
Mike, I only have a problem with your reasoning, and with your vicious, inaccurate, out of context, unreferenced quotes.
Other than that, I think we are getting along just fine.
Just fine!
How 'bout you?
;-)
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise Monahon Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------