Photography

How did I set out?
Minolta Maxxum 400si I'm using
My wish list
The lens I played with
My opinion on the films I've tried
My little art gallery:)
Other photo links

My hobby has started quite a time ago from my father's old camera, "Kiev-10" (35mm SLR). First years I was shooting B&W negatives only doing all the processing myself. That was fun and helped a lot my chemistry:)

Meanwhile I got a new "Zenit 12CD", and later "Zenit ET". Both were (and the latter still is) excellent cameras with sharp optics and sturdy design, and their quality encouraged me to explore the realm of colors: I switched to color slides. That was quite an impression to me, though my joy was frequently spoiled by the poor quality of Kyiv photolabs' processing. I heard they had improved over the years passed:) I've never tried to process any color film myself, and probably never will -- too much work.

Recently I turned to color prints. By now all the prints made by different local labs have been at least slightly worse than negatives, sharpness and color rendering are the major flaws. Granted, there is no other way as to have them printed before your very eyes so you can correct the colors.

BTW, some of the pictures featured in this page were made by me and scanned in 256 colors by Uwe Oehler and Alex Constantinov. Take a look at the photo gallery!

My comments on Minolta Maxxum 400si (aka Dynax 500si)

I'm using it now, and it's a good camera. I'm not a pro, and for the average couple of rolls per months I'm not concerned with plastic body and lens/tripod mounts. Viewfinder info is explicit, and I like the design and controls too. Just think a bit before you go after 800si or F90: do you really need those features for double the price? a good lens is a much better way to invest money, IMHO.

The autofocus is fast and quiet (with a few lenses I have tried out). Metering is good. The built-in flash is OK for fill-ins and small scenes. And there are times when a separate flash is too much weight (click here to see how come).

I bought a Minolta 3500xi flash and it's just the best match for the camera. A better/expensive model, 5400xi, would be an overkill I think.

I wish the 400si had:

Remote control.
Now I have to keep the shutter release button pressed at "B" for a long exposure, and it just doesn't feel good. Also camera shake could be noticeable even with a good tripod. Self-timer works for static scenes in this case. I also heard of a strap-like remote release that worked with 400si.
Spot metering.
Overall honeycomb metering is good for general lighting situations, but for some creativity I have to guess with exposure compensation, and it's much slower and less precise.
Multiple exposures
There's no easy way to simulate this one. Shooting, rewinding the film and shooting again the same frame is pain, and it doesn't work: frames move from load to load, though slightly. By now the only solution I've come up with is shooting at long exposures with very dark, still background and a hand held flash, moving your subject and firing the flash a few times to ensure correct exposure (which you have to calculate youself). Setting the camera to 15 or 30 sec, and opening/closing the front lens cap manually could free your finger from holding the shutter release button at "B".
Improved fill-in flash metering
When used as a fill-in, an on-camera flash makes your subject a little bit too bright, and the background goes too dark. Well I can live with it...

I heard that many of the above features were incorporated into 500si Super. And I believe there are later models like XTsi and HTsi now available.

The lens I played with

Minolta Maxxum AF 24-85/3.5-4.5
Great lens, unbeatable for its range and speed. It is sharp, there is no light fall-off at the wide end, and these 24mm -- that's something you wouldn't expect from a zoom... Non-rotating front element. A #1 travel lens for me. Too bad it's so rarely found second-hand.
Minolta Maxxum AF 70-210/4
One of the best zoom optics ever made by Minolta, colors are just unbelievable. Internal zoom (doesn't move when zoomed), which I found great for wildlife photography. The lens is somewhat on the heavier side, still I love it and drag it with me wherever I go. There are a couple of versions out, get the older one, second-hand if you can.
Minolta Maxxum AF 50/1.7
Well, there are times when it's simply too dark for f/4-zooms. That's when I screw on my 50/1.7. I bought it second-hand -- it's a real jewel. Very light and sharp, beats everything else. Lets you work at the lighting you would never attempted with any zoom lens. Considering the number of used lens available and their price, get it by all means.
Minolta Maxxum AF 28-80/4-5.6 (with Macro switch)
A good lens, one of the least expensive of its class -- great for the price if you aren't after some pro shots. The lens is somewhat slow at the telefoto end. Wide-angle side works OK, macro too. All you want for average family photography.
Vivitar (Minolta Maxxum AF mount) 100-300/5.6-6.7
Yes, it is really slow, otherwise it's fine optically. The pull zoom tends to slide off when you point the lens up or down. I also noticed that focussing drains camera battery quite fast, but I'm not sure about it since that battery was old anyway.

These films I have tried...

Color slide films

Kodak Elite II 100 and Elite Select 100

Very good. Just that.

Fuji Velvia 50

Its speed makes it a secondary choice in low-light situation, but otherwise it's a superb film.

Kodak Ektacolor 100

Good, but not super, one would expect a tighter grain from a slide film.

Orwochrome UT 21

Former East Germany make, ISO 100. The film isn't great, grains are clearly visible, and the film is very easy to overdevelop.

Orwochrome UT 18

ISO 50. Basically the same, also it has an orange tinge.

Color negative films

Kodak Pro GPX-160

This is THE film. True colors, true speed, no grains at all idf properly exposed. A real 'pro' film.

Kodak PJM Multi-Speed

Very, very good film. It's a must if you're out to shoot quick'n'dirty. It will take exposures from 100 to 1000, DX-labeled to 640. I think I haven't pushed it all to the fast end, but at 800 the grains are still tolerable.

Kodak VPS-160

I tried it only once and got purplish negatives (and brownish prints). I guess it might've been screwed up by the lab...

Fuji Super G 100

Very good film, I like its color rendering when working with nature settings.

Kodak Royal Gold 100, 200 and 400

Good films, the 100 one especially. The grain of the 100 is acceptable for enlargements, yet colors are a little bit oversaturated (i.e. pleasing for portraits) when printed on Kodak paper. Surprisingly, it's somewhat better on Fujicolor.

Kodak T Max

This one is a cheaper imitation of Kodak PJM and is said to auto-adjust from 100(?) to 1600(?) ASA, and is DX labeled to 640 (?again). Well, it's great for occasional family photography, but I won't likely to use it anymore... too grainy and the colors can be off considerably.

Black's Memories 100/200/400

Good family-print films, very good colors when printed on Fujicolor paper. Some older emulsions are a little bit grainy. I was told that this film uses a Fuji emulsion.

Kodak Royal Gold 25

Extremely sharp, but probably very sensitive to over/underexposure. I was told that this brand uses the same formula as old Ektar does. Seems like 0.5 stops off and you need to correct the colors while printing. The only roll I shot turned out as brownish negatives (even on unexposed edges) and magenta-saturated prints. Could've been the lab's fault though...

Kodak Gold 100

A cheaper imitation of the Royal Gold film. I'd go for the latter.

DS-4

The former Soviet Union make. Used to be very cheap, and the quality matched the price, colors were always faint. I don't recall the exact ISO value, probably somewhere around 50.

Konica Super XG-200

Medium quality film. Colors are reasonable, but grain looks more like that of a 400 or 800 film. I wouldn't use it for a serious job.