X-700 / XG-1 lenses

[earlyearlybirdbird]

hi i'm comtemplating between buying a Minolta X-700 and a Minolta XG-1, any recommendations or advice to which i should get? the price of the X-700 is about 120-180$ while the XG-1 is at 60$.

also, i heard that both of them are only compatible with MD (maybe MC for X-700?) mounts, and how much will they cost?

i'm new here, thus your help will greatly be appreciated. cheers!
regards,
Marcus.

[LittleWolf]

The X-700 is newer and has more features (P exposure mode, TTL flash metering, motor drive coupling for 3.5 frames/s, some gadget accessories) compared to the XG series. The XG-1 is further limited wrt to the information displayed in the viewfinder (no aperture readout, exposure times longer than 1/30s or so cannot be distinguished, and metering may be isabled in manual mode (not sure on this.) There are (at least) two major revisions of the XG-1 with different body styling.

Later X-700 bodies have a bit of a reputation for electronics problems.

For full functionality on the 700, you need lenses with MD coupler. For the XG-1, MC coupling is enough.

edit: Forgot to mention that the X-700 has a better metering system an a DOF preview button.

[earlyearlybirdbird]

so in other words, very simply put, the x-700 owns the xg-1 flat la? i mean, there are no aspects in the xg-1 which is better than the x-700 right.

MD lens with zoom capability seem to be a little on the expensive side (100-200$) is that true?

lastly, thanks for your help!

[LittleWolf]

Originally Posted by earlyearlybirdbird so in other words, very simply put, the x-700 owns the xg-1 flat la?

Feature-wise, yes. But a XG-1 in good condition will be better than an X-700 with electronics problems.

Quote: i mean, there are no aspects in the xg-1 which is better than the x-700 right.

I cannot vouch for it in this specific case, but there's a tendency that the older cameras may have better build quality. Minolta's older SLRs like the XD series are definitely better built than the X300/500/700 series which are largely plastic.

Quote: MD lens with zoom capability seem to be a little on the expensive side (100-200$) is that true?

100-200$ is not expensive for a decent lens. Personally, I'd recommend to go with Minolta's prime lenses. Back in the day, people were more concerned about quality than featuritis. Prime lenses were the norm, and unlike today's AF stuff you'd get them at affordable prices (i.e. cheaper than zooms).

[sherchoo]

There are tons of MD lenses around. Actually 1 have 2 prime lenses that I was playing around with. Anyway, it's sitting in my cabinet now. Let me know if you're ever interested.