Swell Reflex Too: The Minolta SR-T 200

I'm the Quirky Guy with a Camera, and I approve this message:

"In the market for a Pentax K-1000? Do you actually want to use it as a film camera, and do you have no sentimental attachment that makes you specifically want this model?  Do you actually like saving money?  Would you like a camera with nearly identical capabilities to a K-1000 at a fraction of the price?  If so, I present your camera!"

I rarely editorialize in my posts.  I tend to simply lay out my personal observations specific to particular camera model or film, present these observations along with my results, and let you, the reader, make an informed choice from the information I present.  I don't typically get into the heartfelt and often irrational positions that Camera A is "better" than Camera B so you'd better not buy the latter.

But every now and again, I notice something really off about the film world at large to which I feel I need to add a sanity check, and this is very much one of them.

One of the most iconic of 35mm film cameras of the later decades of film's prominence was the Pentax K-1000, a fairly simple 35mm SLR camera offering metered manual shooting and little else in the way of bells and whistles.  For years, it was THE standard camera for photography students and school yearbook offices, largely because it was the cheapest manual control camera available at the time.  It is a ubiquitous piece of film history as classic as a Hershey Chocolate Bar.  And it's also quite overpriced in today's market.


Examples of this very common and very basic camera are often selling for $50 and upwards. Sure there are people who used this camera decades ago clamoring to rekindle their younger years who may want one of these cameras for this very reason, though I can't see why.  I used a Pentax K-1000 for a couple of years while shooting for my college yearbook, and while I never hated it, I simply never saw much of any appeal to it, even in a day when I couldn't afford a "real" camera of my own.  Even today, as I gravitate more and more to all things film, the "K-Grand" as we often called it, has no draw to me whatsoever, particularly at the prices in today's market.  It's a camera whose popularity is a puzzle to me.

In sharp contrast to the popular K-1000 are those camera models that have been relegated to relative obscurity.  A big part of this obscurity comes from what I would call "big brother syndrome," where the model in question isn't as full featured as a more "premium" sibling, and in a market where a buyer can pay a few dollars more for the marquee model of a lineup, they almost certainly will elect to do just that.

The result is that there are often some overlooked gems out there to be had, even if they are not the most coveted models of their lineup.  They may lack some professional grade features of the era, such as mirror lock up or depth of field preview, but often contain just enough basics to still be totally versatile shooters that will handle most shooting environments.  They are often in excellent condition, and may cost a fraction of a more well known camera like the K-1000.  

In 1966, Minolta released its revolutionary SR-T lineup, pioneered by the well known SR-T 101. When used with the "MC" series lenses, cameras in this lineup enabled metering with the aperture wide open, making focusing and composition of images much easier. Production of the SR-T 101 continued for nearly 10 years, during which it was supplemented by a budget model and a premium model with suffixes 100 and 102 respectively.  In 1975, the entire lineup was given a refresh, and new names that varied with the market.  In the US, the "updated" versions were numbered with suffixes between 200 and 202.  

The SR-T 200 was still the basic variant, offering match needle based metered manual exposure, a top shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second, and not much else in the way of extras. It was a mechanical SLR camera designed for the entry level / budget market, and priced modestly below the 201 and 202 models also offered by Minolta at the time.

Today, it is not a big challenge to find working cameras across the SR-T lineup at very modest prices. They were common models made in great numbers, and they were well constructed.  Cameras like the SR-T 101 still have their adoring fans to this day, and this adoration is well deserved.  Given this adulation and affordability, it isn't tough to covet an SR-T 101.

Externally, the SR-T 200 appears quite similar to the SR-T 101, with the main visible difference being the self-timer switch on the higher end model.  Unseen here is that the depth of field preview button on the 101 will latch on and off, whereas the version on the 200 requires the user to hold it down during preview.

As a result, the SR-T 200 is often forgotten.  After all, it is the budget entry in the lineup, and as such, is oft overlooked, or thought of as the less capable stepchild of its siblings with the higher last digit. To a large degree, this oversight is really very much a shame.

I stumbled across the SR-T 200 on a whim on a Goodwill trip quite a while back.  Though I had only minimal interest in the seeming sameness that was the SLR camera offerings of the 1970's and 1980's, this camera came equipped with a smaller and slightly "left of center" Minolta 45mm lens instead of the typical 50mm lens often seen on used SLR cameras.  In addition, the camera and lens were priced at about the same price as a roll of film, so it seemed to be an item of very minimal risk. I snapped it up, only to have it sit on the shelf for months as other "quirkier" cameras took precedence over this pedestrian SLR camera.  All I could say about it for sure was that the shutter seemed to work at all speeds.

Finally, as the autumn colors entered their final weeks, I picked the SR-T 200 up from its shelf, loaded it with an adapted 675 cell, and tested the meter.  It too seemed to work, lining up more or less with expected readings in "Sunny-16" type conditions, making a very strong case for me to show this overlooked camera some long overdue love.

And if you can forgive me for sounding a bit sappy, this once orphaned camera, like only a choice few of the many I've encountered over the past couple of years, seemed to respond surprisingly receptively to this attention, performing better than I could have ever imagined. With little more than a fresh battery, the 40 year old SLR snapped through a roll of relabeled Ferrania 200 film as it were a brand new camera.  The meter was consistent and sure in its readings, and the shutter clicked through each successive frame with a comparably confident precision as it deftly worked its way through its nitrate based medium. Shooting with the SR-T 200, admittedly, carried a real joy that is often elusive with some of my quirkier devices.  There was a certain nicety in leaving the exposure worries largely aside and simply focusing, composing, and shooting.

Much of one's first impressions on anything in life are often formed by their most recent previous experiences. As such, my "fuzzies" for the SR-T 200 were largely helped by the cameras I was shooting prior to picking it up.  These included a guess-focused folder whose focus readings were off, a box camera with minimal adjustable settings, a rangefinder with limited shutter speed options, an SLR with an unreliable meter, and an AF SLR with some external LCD display issues.  This Minolta gave me the ability to focus, a working meter, and a ready ability to see through changes to shutter and aperture.  It was vintage shooting in a near perfect setting, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

Thus, my adoring impressions of the SR-T 200 are admittedly somewhat flawed.  For example, it would be great if the camera displayed shutter or aperture settings in the viewfinder, but it doesn't. An EV compensation dial would also be a nice plus given that the meter seems so solid, but is also lacking on this basic model.  In order to mimic EV compensation, the only choice is to change the film speed for your exposure, and then change it back. 

Viewfinders of the SR-T 101 (above) and SR-T 200 (below) are quite similar, with the higher end model displaying shutter speed by means of a moving gauge along the bottom.  One issue with this is that the illumination of this display comes from the viewfinder itself, leading to speeds on either end of the spectrum being less than visible in anything but the brightest of light.

Still, for my usual style of photography, the 200 does more or less just what I need it to do, and seems to do this very well.  The 45mm lens offers a nice little plus in squeezing in some desired elements in tight quarters, while not giving off a perspective that was noticeably wide in the process.  This camera also allowed me to put an older 100mm f/3.5 Rokkor lens into service for a few shots as well, and while I noticed the aperture didn't seem to properly stop down when used normally, I could manually stop the lens down with the Depth-of-Field preview button just prior to shooting, which seemed to do the task.

Regardless of how nice it was to shoot the SR-T 200, the experience would not mean much if the results from the film itself didn't dovetail with the good vibes from the camera.  Unlike many first rolls taken with other cameras, I didn't have a lot of worry about my results from the Minolta.  My main hesitation centered largely around the use of nearly 10 year old film, followed to some degree with some concerns about how steady my shots taken with the Rokkor would be, given that one hand was depressing a lever below the lens as I pressed the shutter release with the other.

These worries were largely unfounded, and I was pleased to see that I had a roll of mostly well exposed images, and further than the photos taken with the older 100mm lens were mostly keepers as well.  The positive impressions this camera gave me as I tried it out were carried through to the results. 

I started out shooting the Minolta in scenes of encroaching shadows and diminishing afternoon light in late Autumn.  The camera metered and performed admirably.

A scene with varied light portrays pretty well on the Ferrania 200 speed color negative film.

Among the more evenly lit of scenes renders with great sharpness and color through the Rokkor 45mm f/2 lens.

Another varied lighting scene that was well handled by the Minolta's CLC metering system.

Shadow details were somewhat lost in this scene, but the overall color rendition is quite nice.

A more closely focused scene shot nearly wide open at about f/2.8 gives off some excellent bokeh...

...while a stopped down scene portrays with good sharpness. 

The camera really did handle mixed light quite well.  A Fall morning in Maryland gives off the true feel of the scene.

Backlight pushed the shadow details in this scene to portray with a murky rendition: one reason why an EV compensation dial would have been nice.

One of my favorite nearby scenes, captured a year ago on Velvia.  The rendering on the Ferrania 200 isn't quite as vivid, but still very nice. 

Two shots of the same scene taken with the 45mm (above) and with the 100mm (below) in Gaithersburg, MD.  The longer lens generally was a pleasant surprise.

The 100mm didn't quite handle mixed light scenes as well as the 45mm, at least when attempting more close up material.  

In more even light, the 100mm Rokkor gives off a clean image with good sharpness and even toning throughout the image.

My attempt at "Foreground Bokeh" with the foliage didn't quite work as hoped, yet the 100mm lens still handled the overall scene quite well. 

This mild telephoto lens did well at compressing composition in scenes like this. 

A more distant scene rendered quite well, even though stopped down only minimally to about f/5.6.

This last shot with the 100mm was a hopeful favorite that turned out even better than expected.  I really like the rendering of the out of focus areas, while the composition works quite well for the branch in foreground. 

I don't aim to trash the Pentax K-1000.  Not at all.  It is a solid and well built camera that has endured nicely to this day.  However, aside from nostalgia, I can't see any reason why someone would elect to pay the money that these cameras command when equally excellent cameras can be had for 1/4 to 1/3 the price tag.

The only tangible benefits of the K-1000 over the SR-T 200 that I can determine are the ability to use the Pentax MF lenses on more modern Pentax equipment, and the presence of an actual hot shoe rather than a PC connection as with the Minolta.  However, neither of these benefits make a difference to me, and I can imagine this would be the same for the vast majority of actual users today. The SR-T 200 is thus an under-appreciated gem too quickly overshadowed by its more full featured siblings, which in itself is just as much a malady as the demand disparity between this camera and the more coveted Pentax.

I for one, will happily continue to shoot my SR-T 200.  If you are looking for quality build with a tiny price tag, you are more than welcome to join me.  

Fun with Film: Kodak Supra 100

The world of Color Negative Film has gotten to be a bit dull to me - not dull as in "unsaturated," but more so dull in that there are not a lot of fresh options when I care to see if I can try out a new palette. 

Fortunately, there are, at the moment, a number of expired film stocks still found today, under 15 years old, that can still produce good results.  While these films may not be readily available, or even consistent from roll to roll, they can at least make for a fun new shooting exercise to throw into a trusted camera to see what you get.

One such film is Kodak Supra 100, an emulsion that appears to have shown up on the market around 2000, just as the world of digital photography was about to take off.  The introduction of a slower 100 speed film during an era when compact point and shoot cameras (that tended to need faster speed films) had gained so much traction in the market is an interesting and refreshing thing to note.  I'd presume that this film was marketed towards serious amateurs using SLR cameras or similar equipment.  

Information on Supra's selling points today can be a tad scant given that many web pages contemporary with the period the film was sold, have since vanished into cyberspace.  It seems that this film's main strengths were a vivid color and fine grain in comparison to the Kodak Gold and Royal Gold products at the time.  Supra was discontinued in all speeds around 2003, and remaining stocks of the film appear sporadically on eBay and other sales outlets, often in quantities of 5 rolls or less.

I happened to snap up a small lot of expired film from an ebay auction that included one roll of Supra, and was curious to see what this film could do, though the most recent examples of the film I could find on the web were a bit too "Lomo" for my tastes.  I elected to set out close to home with this film loaded in my Exakta VX, swapping from the Domiplan 2.8 to the Primotar 3.5 lens, and then finishing the roll in the Minolta A5 in order to see what sort of color the latter camera might provide.   

At the onset of the roll, the Supra provides a look that certainly doesn't look like a roll of film that was likely 15 years old, offering up bright colors that embody the vivid morning on which I rambled about.  Grain increase is evident in the sky, but is by no means distracting. 

Supra handled contrast well, offering a natural yet vibrant rendition that still showed adequate shadow detail. 

One of the advantages of the Exakta's waist level finder is not having to pull a muscle to get a low shot like this.  Contrast is a bit low, but the Domiplan offers up some bubbly bokeh.

Shot at a near wide open aperture, this image still gives off a good color with particularly true to life green tones. 

Another shallow depth of field shot doesn't offer the same bokeh as my lower perspective shot from above, but does show the vivid color strengths present, even on this old film stock. 

With a somewhat backlit scene, the Supra's colors are still quite nice.  The blue sky rendering tends to be a bit more flat however. 

Another try at a shallow depth of field shot shows off a nice result on what is typically an overlooked lens in the Domiplan, as well as the rich green tones this film can provide, even under overcast. 

The film's rendition wasn't always consistent however. as the yellow hues here tend to suggest. 

Skin tones in the shots above and below aren't very flattering, with a greenish cast evident.  This seems a film more suited to landscape work. 

A mid-afternoon shower provided me a quick chance to see how this film performed in such conditions, and it responded with a similar cool green cast. 

I switched to the Primotar for the last few images, and found results to be acceptable, but not particularly stirring. 

The Primotar however, had the disadvantage of having all of its shots taken under overcast.  STill, the tones here are particularly lush and pleasant. 

Again, a cool, but not distracting, tone embellishes the images taken on Supra 100.

My last shot on the Exakta was this one, proving that even with a slow f/3.5 lens and a vivid waist level finder, it can be tricky to get the shallow depth of field effect desired.  The image lacks any true focus, but the color rendition is quite lovely. 

After switching to the A5 for the last few shots, I didn't get a lot of sun with which to shoot.  Still, the Supra delivered some decent results in light that it was not really optimal for, even when it was new stock. 

When given a modest amount of sun, the Supra tended to have a bit more of the green cast that made it work well under overcast, but in this case, it gives off a soft muted portrayal. 

But with the sun at my back in softer light, the muted look was actually pretty favorable. 

A pair of close focus shots under overcast have a nice balance, and the fine grain works well in spotlighting the sharpness of A5. 

A wide open shot doesn't quite nail focus, but still gives off a lush result. 

Closing out with this one, the sky takes on a hazy hue that is a bit unappealing, with an excess of pale yellow in the green tones.

Supra, in my view, provided impressive, but not stellar results.  The grain structure was quite good, and the colors could render nicely.  Generally, the film has aged well, but was still prone to some shifts and casts, particularly under light to moderate overcast. 

Looking through the results of this roll, it seems as if Kodak was aiming to compete with Fuji's Reala with their Supra film.  Having tried both films, I can find things to like in both, but am certainly partial to the Fuji product.  I wouldn't actively seek out a stash of Supra in the future, but if it came my way in a mixed lot, I would certainly shoot it without hesitation, provided that I was shooting landscape images and the lighting was favorable.

Fun with Film: Cross Processed Ektachrome Professional Plus

It seems to be a common problem with me to have an excess of out of date slide film.  Sometimes, I will take the chance and try to process it in E6 and see if I can do some tweaking in post processing to get an image that is fairly neutral.  While this generally works to some degree, I'd much rather shoot fresh (or recently expired) E6 film for conventional photography.

Which leaves me to use the building stockpile of 20-30 year old slide film for experimentation.  And what would be easier than cross processing some of it in C-41 chemistry in the midst of a color negative run.  

Such was what I did with a roll of "Ektachrome Pro Plus" that I had in my possession.  Loading it up in my more recent variant of a Gevabox camera, I fired off 8 shots handily on a return trip home on a fairly sunny afternoon.  This would be my first color photography in a Gevabox, and while I didn't expect a faithful rendition, I did look forward to seeing what it could manage.

In Mount Airy, MD, I took a snapshot of the former train depot with the caboose in the distance.  Teh result was pretty decent for a fairly limited camera on an expired film with a narrow exposure latitude. 

This old Chevrolet logo has interested me since first seeing it, but I never could get over the modern awnings that sort of made a really vintage looking photo impossible.  As I was passing this anyway, I figured it was time to get a photo of it anyway. 

Old National Road milestones have long been a favorite fascination of mine.  This one peers out from the brush west of Mount Airy.  The green rendering of this film in brighter light is surprisingly nice for the cross processing. 

A stop in New Market for a shot under modest overcast provided a surprisingly decent result from the basic Gevabox.  Contrast and shadow detail are well represented. 

A slight blue green cast pervades this image, but the result is still fairly accurate.  Taken under the wider aperture setting, the edge detail falls off in this shot. 

Trying to shoot the Frederick Fairgrounds Building through the fence proved somewhat successful.  The building fits in the frame while none of the fence obscured the image, but the horizon orientation is markedly off.  

This time, a bit more blue eases into the image.  I began to realize by the end of the roll, that this was more or less a way to test the image characteristics of the Gevabox more than to get anything wonderful from this expired film. 

Though the top of the image shows some blur, the rest of the field is remarkably sharp for such a simple camera.  I didn't expect this much from this camera. 

I've realized upon developing this and another roll of E-6 film in C-41 chemistry that I'm more or less over the whole "X-Pro" experience for the sake of cross processing.  It can be time consuming to scan and get the right color balance, and still it often seems to look more like a regular image with a sickly cast to it. 

That said, I'm not always in possession of a lot of C-41 film, particularly in medium format, but have a decent amount of old E-6 film.  Rather than tossing this film away, I'd rather use it in a fashion similar to what I've done here, and if something wonderful happens to result from it, great.  If not, so be it.  At least it provides an accessible avenue with which I can shoot a few more frames of film and not have to incur any more financial outlay.

From what I've discovered, some films and subjects seem to work really well with cross processing, and finding that right combination requires some luck and fortitude that only occurs on occasion with me.  This will hardly be the last X-Pro roll I shoot or feature, but I'm wondering if I might need to take a few more chances out of my comfort one with these types of rolls in the future.