Yeah, I know, it’s amusing: Just last month I talked about getting another Minolta XG7 and extolled its virtues as a “bang about” camera, now I’m going to get rid of it again. What gives? Well, it still a perfectly nice camera and gets the job done, but I find that it just doesn’t fit into the stable. I thought it would be nice to have another compact electronic SLR like my Minolta XD5, but it turns out one is enough, and the XD5 is a much better machine.
The compact SLR is an angle I’ve pursued since getting the XD5 last spring. This spring, after a very brief fling with a Pentax K1000, I picked up a Pentax ME Super. It’s supposedly one of the smallest 35mm SLRs ever made. It was a perfectly fine camera and a bit smaller than the XD5, but not to a magnitude that it mattered. And I thought it might replace my small fixed lens rangefinders, but it didn’t. Off it went. What I really want is a nice compact mechanical SLR.
Before we go on, I’d like to clarify the difference between mechanical and electronic when it comes to film cameras. 1 Now all film cameras will have a mechanical element, namely the movement of the film and actuation of shutter and aperture. And some cameras considered mechanical will have an electronic element to it, usually to do with metering. But the big difference is this: A mechanical camera can be completely functional without a battery, whereas an electronic will either be totally inoperable or have limited functionality without power.
Sorting out my stable, there are four cameras that are electronic, three of which (Olympus XA and XA2, Pentax IQZoom 170SL) will be as dead as a doornail without a battery. 2 My Minolta XD5 has one single shutter speed, 1/100, that will work if the battery is dead and/or electronics fried. Some electronic cameras of this era did it as a backup feature to assuage fears of skeptical serious photographers. 1/100 is better than nothing, but won’t get you far.
Then I have a couple cameras that are technically manual, but the designation is a moot point: The Sawyers Nomad 620 has just one speed and aperture, and the Olympus Pen EES-2 has no battery since it uses a selenium cell. But it’s auto-exposure, so if the cell dies, the camera is essentially useless.3 This leaves me three truly mechanical cameras: The Ricohflex Dia TLR which has no meter, the SR-T 101 which does, and the Canonet QL17 G-III, which has a meter and shutter priority mode, but can be used completely manually sans battery.
There are reasons why people pick mechanical cameras: They are felt to be more “pure”, especially if you’re getting away from digital. Most of them came from an era when cameras were mostly metal and glass, so they feel solid and dependable. Mechanical cameras tend to be easier to repair, too.
And there are reasons why people pick electronic cameras: Shutter speeds are more accurate and hold their accuracy longer than mechanical ones. Electronics allow for things like automatic and semi-automatic exposure modes in focal plane shutter cameras like SLRs, 4 And their greater use of plastics and lesser use of moving parts allowed for the manufacture of lighter and more compact machines.
So I’ve got both a mechanical and electronic SLR. I love everything about my Minolta SR-T 101 except its size and bulk, which is why I got the XD5, which I also love. Yet somehow I’m still not satisfied. I want the mechanical feel of the SR-T 101 with the size of the XD5.
But what one? I’d love to get a Minolta as I’m a sorta fanboy and staying in the SR lens system would make things easier. But alas, Minolta never made a compact mechanical SLR. Neither did Canon, as far as I know, both companies were in full electronic mode when they made compact SLRs. Olympus was the pioneer of the compact SLR, and I know lots of folks love their OM-1, so that is definitely an option. And some people really dig Nikon’s FM series, as they were ruggedly built and, well, a Nikon. But Nikons go for more money. Pentax has the MX, the camera that I was initially looking for when I got the ME Super. It’s supposed to be the smallest of the lot.
But in the end, I’m wondering if I’m just being silly. My Minolta XD5 does everything I want it to do, so what if it’s not purely mechanical. Do I really need another camera? Shouldn’t I be spending my energy on other things? But Gear Acquisition Syndrome is real, and despite doing my best to inoculate myself against it, sometimes the virus breaks through. This doesn’t mean I’m going to buy another camera any time soon, at least I tell myself that…
- Digital cameras are inherently electronic by nature, but there can be motors in the lens for focus and zoom. ↩︎
- You can manually advance the film in the XAs but the shutter will not fire without a battery. ↩︎
- OK, bear with me on this one: There is a sorta override used for flash, where you can designate aperture. People mistakenly think that if you set it at f/4, that’s what aperture the camera will use. But if the selenium cell works and you point it at the sun, it’ll shoot at f/22. Basically you’re telling the camera what’s the maximum aperture the camera can use: If the light is insufficient, it’ll go with what aperture you pick. But if the meter detects enough light over what you select, the camera will go with the aperture setting it feels appropriate. So I’m guessing if the selenium cell dies or is disconnected, the camera will use whatever aperture you select, as there’s no “electronic eye” to argue with it. I have no way of testing this, though. And even if one decides to go through the trouble to “hack” this, the shutter will only fire at 1/40 sec. Just find an original Olympus Pen or something from the D series (or the SLR F if yer fancy) if you want full exposure control on an Olympus half-frame camera, you’ll save yourself the trouble and heartbreak. ↩︎
- Fixed lens leaf shutter cameras, like the rangefinders and viewfinder cameras that made up the bulk of ’60s and ’70s consumer 35mm sales, could achieve automatic or shutter priority exposure without needs of electronics, see the Pen EES-2 and Canonet QL17 G-III for examples. ↩︎
Urban Adventure League 
Pentax MXs are gorgeous cameras and quite small. I don’t see the harm in electronics though. I’m a fan of aperture priority and it hasn’t been my experience that mechanical cameras are necessarily any more reliable than electronic ones.
True! As alluded to in the title, preferring mechanical over electronic is semi-rational, a more romantic notion than practical.
I certainly get it. I’ve mostly been shooting a Barnack Leica since May and I would stand on a corner defending the Rolleiflex as the single greatest camera ever made (fight me). I guess for me, SLRs are where I set the romance aside and embrace small conveniences like built in meters, framing through the lens, and aperture priority. Anyway, my dad shot a Pentax MX so it’s a camera I know well. You can’t go wrong and Pentaxians are some of the best people.
I definitely like aperture priority (and even shutter priority!) in my Minolta XD5, and I pretty much only shoot my Canonet in shutter priority. And my SR-T 101 is mechanical with meter. I do love these “conveniences”. But it’s interesting how you say you “set romance aside” with SLRs, as I feel like they are possibly the most romanticized cameras of the past half-century (Real pros shoot them!)
In my head, SLRs are like land rovers; something more utilitarian. I wouldn’t be without one, it’s what you want when you have once chance to get it right and not a lot of time. But rangefinders and TLRs are more fun. Digital’s basically just for work at this point, I do a lot of product photography for our little food company.
Yes, SLRs are utilitarian, but there’s the romantic appeal of “shooting what the pros use” even if you’re using a K1000. Rangefinders and TLRs are fun, but also very romantic, esp. if you are shooting an interchangeable lens rangefinder sans meter. I mean, shooting film in general is pretty romantic in this digital age.
Your problem between SRT 101 and XD5 isn’t solved very quick🤔.
You can’t choose a Minolta XE , they are even heavier than a SRT.
The smallest SLR’s among the Minoltas is the famous XG. I can recommend the XG 9. Okay, she doesn’t have a mechanical shutter. But her layout, her design reminds of a smaller and more lightweight version of a Minolta XD5.
I have two black bodies of the XG9 and throw it in the bag especially on the bike or while hiking.
For my opinion the black XG9 is a bit cuter than the similar XG-M, which is one of the maturest and most precious SLR’s with aperture priority.
Hey JC, thanks for commenting. If you look at the first paragraph of this post, you’ll see that I had an XG7, which is just like the XG9. I would hardly call the XG series “a smaller and more lightweight version of a Minolta XD5”. When I compared both, the XG7 was just an ounce lighter than the XD5, and was also a little longer.
But when you comment on a post from last year, you don’t see what I’ve done since then! 😉 If you dig around, you’ll see how I “solved” my compact mechanical SLR conundrum.