Leica M same as Minolta M?

[Cato]

I belive there's a big chance there won't be any replies to this. But I'm asking, if anyone has any knowledge or can help figure this out, I'd truly appretiate it.

My dad handed me down some Leica equipment the other day, cameras, lenses, filters, etc. I've been storing it for awhile, till I read a very short note in a photography mag that I subscribe to, mentioning the Epson R-D1. This digital camera continue to use this Leica equipment, very interesting! I'm not going to buy this camera just to use that equipment, but it made me search the web some more.

I am a Minolta user and have been for some time, well, Sony now Anyway, I found that Minolta and Leica worked together on making one of the cameras I'm storing, Leica CL, and it take these lenses. Apparently, it use the Leica M mount, and Minolta made some Rokkor lenses for this called M-Rokkor. Is this the same M mount as Minolta used on the Minolta manual focus cameras, which take the lenses called MC and MD Rokkor? If so, there is a mount adaptor which make it possible to use the M mount lenses on the A mount which the autofocus lenses use and that Sony will continue to use. I know it makes it possible to use the MC and MD lenses on the A-mount, but can it take the M-Rokkor lenses made for Leica CL, and can it take the other Leica lenses for the Leica M mount? If yes, then I'll get the adaptor, although it's a x2, and play with these lenses on my KM A-mount camera Although, I don't think it's the same mount, just the same name basically But I don't know for sure and I can't find any information that answer this on the net. Anyone know?

Cato

[cyclohexane]

This a good place to start checking things out:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm

http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm

[dougjgreen]

FYI, Minolta made exactly 2 cameras in the M-mount, which were rangefinders, not SLRs. These were the Minolta CL, also known as the Leitz-Minolta CL, and the more advanced, electronic, Minolta CLE. These were excellent cameras, and I still own and occassionally use a Minolta CLE. But this was an entirely different lensmount from any other Minolta Cameras ever made. In fact, it is the same lensmount as Leica M-series rangefinders used, and the lenses work on Leicas, and most of Leica's M-mount lenses also worked on those Minoltas.

There are only 3 Minolta M-mount lenses, a 90mm f4.0 short telephoto, a 40mm f2.0 normal lens, and a 28mm f2.8 wide angle. They are optically superb, and quite costly for old used manual focus lenses, because they are viewed as Leica equivalents. The 28mm had a problem, because the coating on most of them went bad, and white spots formed on the inner glass of most of them. The 40mm f2, in particular, is widely praised, and many Leica users think it's as good as most Leica lenses, and it's amazingly small and light..

MD and MC Rokkor lenses are completely different from Minolta M lenses. - The MC, and the later, enhanced MD mount was the lens mount for Minolta's excellent manual focus SLRs product lines from the 1960s thru the 1980s.

[Cato]

Thank you for the thorough answers, much appretiated

[aranda1984]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

FYI, Minolta made exactly 2 cameras in the M-mount, which were rangefinders, not SLRs. These were the Minolta CL, also known as the Leitz-Minolta CL, and the more advanced, electronic, Minolta CLE. These were excellent cameras, and I still own and occassionally use a Minolta CLE. But this was an entirely different lensmount from any other Minolta Cameras ever made. In fact, it is the same lensmount as Leica M-series rangefinders used, and the lenses work on Leicas, and most of Leica's M-mount lenses also worked on those Minoltas.

There are only 3 Minolta M-mount lenses, a 90mm f4.0 short telephoto, a 40mm f2.0 normal lens, and a 28mm f2.8 wide angle. They are optically superb, and quite costly for old used manual focus lenses, because they are viewed as Leica equivalents. The 28mm had a problem, because the coating on most of them went bad, and white spots formed on the inner glass of most of them. The 40mm f2, in particular, is widely praised, and many Leica users think it's as good as most Leica lenses, and it's amazingly small and light..

MD and MC Rokkor lenses are completely different from Minolta M lenses. - The MC, and the later, enhanced MD mount was the lens mount for Minolta's excellent manual focus SLRs product lines from the 1960s thru the 1980s.

Hello folks.

I am new here, but not new to Minolta cameras and lenses.
I have been using Minolta gear since 1968.

I agree with almost everything in the quoted thread, except the reference to MC and MD lens mounts!
Manual focus interchangeable lenses for the Minolta SLR cameras had the SR mount!
The MC and MD designation was referring to the meter coupling.

Also I have to add, the Leica R3 models were based on the XE-7 and the R4 on the XD-11 cameras.
Actually they used the XD-11 up to the R7 models with some modifications!
The lens mount was changed to Leica and they also changed the electronics in the R models. Actually, the Minolta electronics were much better, according to many!
Minolta also manufactured a few lenses for Leica and they were sold under the name of Leitz. They still fetch about 3 -4 times the price of a similar Minolta lens.

I have quite a few Minoltas, because I will never sell them!
I might be going against the tide here, but I sold many of my MF Canon and Nikon gear, but hung onto Minoltas.
(I still have my father's Zeiss Icon that he bought in 1939 and it still takes decent pictures!)

My minolta collection is as follows:

SRT 101; XK; XM; XKM; XE7; XD11;XG-9; XG-M; X-700;Some of these I have more then one.

Lenses:
MC 16/2.8 Rokkor-OK Fisheye
MC 21/2.8 Rokkor
MD 24/2.8 VFC Rokkor-X (Variable Field Curvature)
MD 24/2.8 W Rokkor-X
MC 28/2.5 W Rokkor-SI
MD 28/2.8 W Rokkor-X
MD 35/1.8 Rokkor-HH
( The 35 mm shift I have it in Nikon)
MD & MC 50/1.7 W Rokkor-X lenses
MD & MC 50/1.4 Rokkor lenses
MC 58/1.2 Rokkor-X
MD 85/1.7 Rokkor-X
MD 85/2.8 Rokkor-X Varisoft (Variable soft focus lens)
MD 100/2.5 Rokkor-X
MD 135/2 Rokkor-X
MD 135/2.8 Rokkor-X
MD 200/2.8 Rokkor-X
MC 200/4 Celtic
MD 300/4.5 Tele Rokkor-X
RF 500/8 Rokkor-X
MD 24-50/4 Rokkor-X
MD 35-70/3.5 Rokkor-X
300S 2X
Spotmeter F
Flash meter IV
Booster for the meter etc...

I still have some other brands,(Canon, Nikon F3-F4, some older Leica,Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc...) but my favored gear was unquestionably the Minolta line for the advanced multi-coatings on the elements, the bright focusing screens and the user friendly approach to photography by their designers... etc.

I am not bragging about my collection, (there is nothing to brag about!) because after I have laid out a hefty sum to acquire gear that even Minolta abandoned when they changed their lens mount from the SR to the auto focus they had invented (and sued for!) all I have is some magnificient, but obsolete stuff!!!

... For those who are interested, there was one Minolta with an extra variation to the lens coupling, that extra pin was for focus assistance, before the AF system was implemented by Minolta. I have some information on that also, I just have to dig it up from someplace...
... Very few cameras and lenses were made with this variation.

I also have the appropriate flashes to go with every camera, even the XKs!
I spent a fortune hunting down the cables, sensors etc...
Only to see the prices drop to the levels that is nothing more, but an insult to the magnificient engineering that was done by Minolta over it's competition!

Take note that the Minolta prices are only low when you want to sell them, you still have to pay a decent price to camera stores when you want to buy them!

In favor of Minolta: They had the fish eye lens almost a decade before Canon or Nikon had one, their 35 mm shift lens was the only one in the world that was auto coupled.
The 24 VFC is like no other lens in the world, in 35 mm!

My 58/1.2 is the one I use mostly on the XK or XM. That lens I call my romantic frame shooter!!! You have to buy a very expensive Zeiss lens to match that!

Who knows, maybe it wasn't a complete waste of money to buy all that Minolta gear...
However, maybe one day my boys might have the joy of showing all this on the Trawelling Antique Road Show.
Who knows, maybe even the prices might go North on the Minolta lenses!

I talked to many pros in the past, especially in Europe, where Minoltas had a much better reputation compared to North America.
Most of them claimed the bokeh on the better Minolta lenses to be second to almost none!

Some of my pictures when developed, each time surprised me for clarity, sharpness, bokeh and color, even at greater enlargements!

It is a shame, now when I take some of my XK gear out, people look at me like if I were a time traveller.

Unfortunately, the digital technology is leaving us slowly behind.

I love film when it is a bright color and heavy contrast frame with over exposed parts! However, I prefer digital for the shadow detail and for the convenience of shooting 100 shots to get a few good pictures!

(This was a slight embelishment in the film's favor!)

Like most everybody, I also have gone digital.

But it doesn't feel the same, althought it is extremely convenient!
While I shoot film, I take the trouble to set up my frames... in digital, I am almost chimping!

A foot note:
I hate people with P&S digitals (and cell pnone cameras) with their Mickey Mousy flashes who take pictures in stadiums.... from 50 or 75 yards away....

Never mind..,

Regards,

Stephen I. M.
Ps; By the way, Minoltas first DSLR was the RD-175, a modified 400Si that sold new for $ 10000 and was marketed to professionals!

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by aranda1984

Hello folks.

I am new here, but not new to Minolta cameras and lenses.
I have been using Minolta gear since 1968.

I agree with almost everything in the quoted thread, except the reference to MC and MD lens mounts!
Manual focus interchangeable lenses for the Minolta SLR cameras had the SR mount!
The MC and MD designation was referring to the meter coupling.

Also I have to add, the Leica R3 models were based on the XE-7 and the R4 on the XD-11 cameras.
Actually they used the XD-11 up to the R7 models with some modifications!
The lens mount was changed to Leica and they also changed the electronics in the R models. Actually, the Minolta electronics were much better, according to many!
Minolta also manufactured a few lenses for Leica and they were sold under the name of Leitz. They still fetch about 3 -4 times the price of a similar Minolta lens.

I have quite a few Minoltas, because I will never sell them!
I might be going against the tide here, but I sold many of my MF Canon and Nikon gear, but hung onto Minoltas.
(I still have my father's Zeiss Icon that he bought in 1939 and it still takes decent pictures!)

My minolta collection is as follows:

SRT 101; XK; XM; XKM; XE7; XD11;XG-9; XG-M; X-700;Some of these I have more then one.

Lenses:
MC 16/2.8 Rokkor-OK Fisheye
MC 21/2.8 Rokkor
MD 24/2.8 VFC Rokkor-X (Variable Field Curvature)
MD 24/2.8 W Rokkor-X
MC 28/2.5 W Rokkor-SI
MD 28/2.8 W Rokkor-X
MD 35/1.8 Rokkor-HH
( The 35 mm shift I have it in Nikon)
MD & MC 50/1.7 W Rokkor-X lenses
MD & MC 50/1.4 Rokkor lenses
MC 58/1.2 Rokkor-X
MD 85/1.7 Rokkor-X
MD 85/2.8 Rokkor-X Varisoft (Variable soft focus lens)
MD 100/2.5 Rokkor-X
MD 135/2 Rokkor-X
MD 135/2.8 Rokkor-X
MD 200/2.8 Rokkor-X
MC 200/4 Celtic
MD 300/4.5 Tele Rokkor-X
RF 500/8 Rokkor-X
MD 24-50/4 Rokkor-X
MD 35-70/3.5 Rokkor-X
300S 2X
Spotmeter F
Flash meter IV
Booster for the meter etc...

I still have some other brands,(Canon, Nikon F3-F4, some older Leica,Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc...) but my favored gear was unquestionably the Minolta line for the advanced multi-coatings on the elements, the bright focusing screens and the user friendly approach to photography by their designers... etc.

I am not bragging about my collection, (there is nothing to brag about!) because after I have laid out a hefty sum to acquire gear that even Minolta abandoned when they changed their lens mount from the SR to the auto focus they had invented (and sued for!) all I have is some magnificient, but obsolete stuff!!!

... For those who are interested, there was one Minolta with an extra variation to the lens coupling, that extra pin was for focus assistance, before the AF system was implemented by Minolta. I have some information on that also, I just have to dig it up from someplace...
... Very few cameras and lenses were made with this variation.

I also have the appropriate flashes to go with every camera, even the XKs!
I spent a fortune hunting down the cables, sensors etc...
Only to see the prices drop to the levels that is nothing more, but an insult to the magnificient engineering that was done by Minolta over it's competition!

Take note that the Minolta prices are only low when you want to sell them, you still have to pay a decent price to camera stores when you want to buy them!

In favor of Minolta: They had the fish eye lens almost a decade before Canon or Nikon had one, their 35 mm shift lens was the only one in the world that was auto coupled.
The 24 VFC is like no other lens in the world, in 35 mm!

My 58/1.2 is the one I use mostly on the XK or XM. That lens I call my romantic frame shooter!!! You have to buy a very expensive Zeiss lens to match that!

Who knows, maybe it wasn't a complete waste of money to buy all that Minolta gear...
However, maybe one day my boys might have the joy of showing all this on the Trawelling Antique Road Show.
Who knows, maybe even the prices might go North on the Minolta lenses!

I talked to many pros in the past, especially in Europe, where Minoltas had a much better reputation compared to North America.
Most of them claimed the bokeh on the better Minolta lenses to be second to almost none!

Some of my pictures when developed, each time surprised me for clarity, sharpness, bokeh and color, even at greater enlargements!

It is a shame, now when I take some of my XK gear out, people look at me like if I were a time traveller.

Unfortunately, the digital technology is leaving us slowly behind.

I love film when it is a bright color and heavy contrast frame with over exposed parts! However, I prefer digital for the shadow detail and for the convenience of shooting 100 shots to get a few good pictures!

(This was a slight embelishment in the film's favor!)

Like most everybody, I also have gone digital.

But it doesn't feel the same, althought it is extremely convenient!
While I shoot film, I take the trouble to set up my frames... in digital, I am almost chimping!

A foot note:
I hate people with P&S digitals (and cell pnone cameras) with their Mickey Mousy flashes who take pictures in stadiums.... from 50 or 75 yards away....

Never mind..,

Regards,

Stephen I. M.
Ps; By the way, Minoltas first DSLR was the RD-175, a modified 400Si that sold new for $ 10000 and was marketed to professionals!

Pretty nice collection. BTW, I personally own an SRT-102, SRT-202, XE, XE-7, a couple of XD-11 bodies and an X-570. In the past, I owned a couple of XK bodies as well, but I didn't like the ergonomics as much as the XE and XD bodies.

Nowhere near that collection of lenses you've got, though - I have quite a few of the better Tamron SP adaptall-2 lenses because I could move them between my Minoltas, Nikons, and Olympuses.

I sold almost all of my Minolta CLE and Leica M-mount gear a couple of years ago. It was worth quite a bit at the time and I could see that the M-mount was basically never going to move into full-frame digital for any sort of reasonable cost.

[AlanK]

Originally Posted by Mileege

"I hate people with P&S digitals (and cell pnone cameras) with their Mickey Mousy flashes who take pictures in stadiums.... from 50 or 75 yards away.... "

Just imagine the waste of energy... Something in the order of 99,99999%! It's embarrassing by proxy!

Maybe a better use of your energy would be to be thankful YOU know better? I mean if they gave you a mic and you could go out into the middle of that stadium and tell everyone with point & shoot camera's, or popping flashes, what dopes they were would you feel better? Would you convince anyone?

What if I showed up with my Leica M9 and a couple of lens would you belittle me? Would you feel better if I brought my Nikon D3 and 200mm ƒ2 lens?

Well, that's enough of my time wasted on this thread;~)

Alan

[snkenai]

I, for one, thank you for a very informative post on Minolta. And a question: What is the best Minolta 50mm for adapting to m4/3 digital? By this I mean Marriage of old and new for resolution.

Thank you
Steve