Skip to main content

Minolta XD-7

I didn't really need a Minolta XD-7 but I did want one. Having heard and read so many good things about it, i thought i should go through that auction site and see what is available. Ten minutes later and £28 less, there i had it, an immaculate XD-7 with a new leatherette that no one wanted to buy !!!
The XD-7 is a fantastic camera that does not hide its professional aspirations. Althought not meant to compete in the professional grade arena (Minolta had the XM for that role) you could see this camera as the professional sibling of the X-700 - a camera which i really love - or see the X-700 as a scale down version of the XD-7 (if that help better). So what is different? First of all the shutter. In the XD-7 we find a Seiko MFC shutter instead of the more simple (but equally reliable?) cloth shutter of the X-700. The mirror box is also different, shock and noise absorbers are employed that makes the XD-7 more quiet than the X-700 (the difference is not huge but it is noticeable). The XD-7 uses a far more complicated and informative viewfinder with the display of speeds and apertures changing depending on the camera mode. Also a small window appears in manual mode showing the chosen speed. Both top and bottom plates are made out of metal and the film advance mechanism is very different too, it has a buttery smooth feel with a slightly smaller stroke cycle than that on the X-700. While both cameras are excellent users, the above differences result in a camera that has a much better feel-good-factor; it gives a better tactile sensation, it is slightly heavier and although they are pretty much the same dimensions, the XD-7 feels smaller but at the same time easier to hold.
Which one is the Leica - Which one is the Minolta?
People probably know that, in the mid-to-late seventies, Minolta and Leica started a joined venture into sharing their know-how in camera manufacturing. The Germans wanted the Japanese knowledge on electronics and the Japanese wanted to know more about the mechanical and optical superiority of the Leitz factory. Both companies sat around the table and they produced cameras such as the XE-7 / R3 or XD-7 / R4/R5 which are sort of twin sisters. Those cameras share a lot in common - for example I have found this picture on the right on the Photo.net forum and is posted by a reputable repairman called Gus Lazzari. He is prompting the readers to guess which one is the XD-7 and which one is the Leica R6 (the thread can be found here). It is an indication of how many things in common the Leica R-series has with the XD-7.
The shutter found on the XD-7 requires also special mention. The Seiko MFC has been developed by Seiko and back at that time it was considered to be a mechanical marvel. Leitz tuned down the shutter which potentially could work up to a 1/2000 sec to a more sensible 1/1000 sec adding to its reliability and longevity.The XD-7 can reach the 1/2000 speed though but only in one occasion. The newer versions of the XD-7 have a shutter speed dial with the 1/125 speed painted in green. If you set the speed dial to 1/125, select speed priority and set the lens to its minimum (e.g. f/22), the XD-7 offers a sort of a primitive programme mode where the camera will change the aperture/speed combination to match the exposure. In cases of hi-speed film being used in very bright scenes, the camera can reach up to 1/2000. In every other case, the shutter is limited to the top speed of 1/1000. I have the first generation sample, (See the picture, my 1/125 is not painted green)so mine does not offer this facility.
As I said earlier on, the camera uses shock and noise absorbers resulting in a more quiet operation. Setting the camera to "B" mode, the mirror is dead-silent when it goes up although most of the noise is heard when the mirror goes down. I imagine that cushioning the mirror on its way down was not seen as a priority as the shutter is already closed so the vibrations do not effect picture quality. Part of this noise comes also from the closing shutter. As it is, the XD-7 is the quietest SLR i own, reaching almost rangefinder levels. The next more quite camera I own is the Leica IIc. One of the features that I like a lot on the X-700, the meter being activated just by a simple touch, can be found also on the XD-7. A nice little detail is the multi-coated viewfinder glass that looks sooo nice. Are there any aspects that the X-700 performs better than the XD-7? I think there is one. The viewfinder image is equally bright in both cameras but it seems to me that on the X-700 is more crisp and well defined. I have a new focusing screen installed on the XD-7 as the previous one was cracked and it still seems to me that the newer screen on the X-700 results in a better viewing image.
As I said earlier on, Minolta produced at least three different versions of this camera. I have the first version, the second version has the 1/125 speed painted green and the third version carries minolta's logo written in capitals. I heard that during the camera's progression from the first version to the third, Minolta replaced some metal parts of the camera with plastic ones. I don't think that this had any impact on the camera's reliability really but it is out there as a story*. Third generation XD's are not very common and they tend to fetch more money in the second hand market.
Would l change something in the XD-7 ? I would like the mode selector to be easier accessed, at times can be difficult to be switched from the "M" mode to "A" mode. I would love to have seen a compatibility with the newer focusing screens like the one used on the X-700. I am also wondering if there was any other way to dumper the mirror on its way down - might be my fantasy but I wonder if that would have made it even more quiet.

Conclusion

 Right, let's see who this camera is for. Investing on a Minolta is a bit tricky nowadays because there is not forward lens compatibility - so you need to keep that in mind. Those who love Minoltas (like i do) and want a small camera (excludes the XE/SRT-series this way) it is between the X-700 and the XD-7. As things are at the moment regarding prices, the X-700 is a more attractive option. It is as functional as the XD-7 and costs 1/3 of its price. If you don't want to invest too much money on a system that does not carry any compatibility with future cameras then the X-700 is the way to go. Buy it and don't look back - the XD-7 will not offer you anything more.
If you are one of those people that value the -what i call - feel-good factor, a camera that looks good and feels good on your hands and you do want to spend the extra cash then go for the XD-7. This is the only camera that i ever paid extra for a CLA and it feels so good in my hands that has virtually displaced the X-700 as a user. I haven't CLA'ed any other camera but this one felt different righ from the start.
Now that I have both cameras, if you ask me "which one would I keep if i had to keep just one" I would say, the XD-7 - definitely.
A true classic.


Lasting Impressions
Well... after all these praises i sang about the XD-7, I ended up selling it. Why? It was just the fact that i couldn't justify having it any more. I also own the Pentax MX and the Olympus OM-1n which are all very similar cameras and I find myself using the Olympus more than any other camera. So I thought i should let it go. Beautiful camera, i thoroughly enjoyed using it and highly recommended should you find one in the right price!

Comments

  1. Willi17 November 2015 at 04:50

    Thank you for this entry. I liked it an d will continue reading your reviews.
    That similarity pic and thread are about Leica R6 and the XD-11 (not 7), though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Panagiotis Giannakis18 November 2015 at 03:13

      Hi Will,

      The XD-7 and the XD-11 are the same cameras. One intended for the American market and the other for the European.

      Regards,
      Pan

      Delete
  2. kxrist17 November 2016 at 23:54

    Excellent review. I own this camera for more than 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dutch Wine Lover23 September 2017 at 12:49

    Have two XD5's and about to pick up a fine XD7 to add to my little Minolta collection. Even the XD5 is a tank compared to the XG9, which I prefer for snapshot street photography, though. The XD's are more to take out when shooting a day in the countryside. They are a statement on their own and just having an XD with me is comfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown22 March 2018 at 10:02

    Great post! I currently have an X-700 and the viewfinder is so crisp and clear. I find, however, that the form-factor is just missing for me. I was really hoping the XD-7 would be the perfect solution, but your observation about the XD-7's viewfinder being less crisp and well defined has me concerned. Another camera I really want to like is the Olympus OM-1, but that viewfinder isn't crisp enough for my taste. Having had experience with all of these, would you say that the XD-7's viewfinder is more, or less crisp and clear than the Olympus? Where would you put the MX in there for comparison? Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Panagiotis Giannakis23 March 2018 at 02:58

      The viewfinder in the XD7 provides full information, something that the Olympus and Pentax lug behind. In terms of use, the Olympus/Pentax are bigger and brighter although in terms of clarity I would say are the same with the XD. I have sold all of these cameras and just kept two black OM1 and om2. The are more functional for me.

      One thing that I have not mentioned in the review and I will need to update is the XD7 shutter lag. Minolta used the so called 'final check system' in order to solve compatibility issues with older lenses. You press the button and the shutter triggers in a quick two stage response. People usually don't mind it but I found this awkward.

      Delete
  5. deerekit25 April 2018 at 10:16

    In the (very) early hours of a mid-autumn Thursday morning here in Melbourne, Australia, I somehow find myself moved to add a rather late post to this thread. First things first: I have owned and used a Minolta XD7 for nine years, and I regard it as an excellent camera. My copy showed very little evidence of wear when I bought it, and it shows only a little more now. The leatherette has not shrunk at all (only lifted a little in one spot next to the lens mount), and I have serviced the body only once while it was still under warranty to correct a shutter-speed dropout. Otherwise the camera has worked like a charm from the first frame of the first roll that I loaded into the chamber all of those years ago. My deal came with the Minolta MD 50/2 lens, not fast glass but quite smooth, and the Auto Winder D. The sound that is made by the shutter is a kind of camera magic: a double-tap photo-shot to get the picture (almost) every time. (I say "almost", because the dud shots are, as always, entirely my fault to own.) My first camera thirty-three years ago was a Minolta X-500, an ideal camera for learning the basics, so I must admit that there is a more than a touch of sentiment about my feeling for the XD7. I now also own an XE-1, a couple of SRT bodies, and a 7s range-finder, along with a batch of good lenses for the SLRs, and I always keep a roll in at least one of the cameras to pick up on the slightest whim. I owe a lot to Minolta - my only camera for nearly a decade was the 9000, a solid workhorse that made me a small fortune as a jobbing photographer - so I'm sure that I can be accused of bias. Even so, I know that any of these cameras can take me back to those early days when I did not know what I did not know (about photography, at least, and maybe almost everything else) and I felt free to make a photograph with no other thought in my head or care in the world. As careful and selective as I now can be about what and when I shoot, and as critical as I can thereafter be about the exposure when I see it as a picture, I try not to forget the carefreeness (or the carelessness) of those first experiences. If I can say anything worthwhile during my visit to this fan club, it is this: The Minolta XD7 reminds me to pay attention to time as it happens, as it passes, and as I try to make it stay still.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Panagiotis Giannakis25 April 2018 at 12:25

      Thank you for stopping by, i have used many minoltas and they were all fine photographic instruments. Pity to see nowadays the logo SONY on them.

      Delete
    2. deerekit25 April 2018 at 14:46

      Yes, Panagiotis: A sad version of history has now caught up with the once-mighty Minolta brand. All the more reason, I say, to hold on to the old classics while they can still be used and serviced. Mine, I trust, will still be shooting for many years to come. Film is forever. - Kit

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nikon F801s

The venerable Nikon F801s  This is a review of the Nikon F801s and it's progenitor, the F801. I've been using the F801s for a few months now and I own a plain F801 since 2017. As it is usually the case, it was an impulsive buy, it was for £0.99 with no bids online and I decided that I wanted to compare it with the old trusty F801. * Background information and history. Nikon joined the AF race quite early on in 1986 - Minolta's surprising announcement of the Dynax 7000/9000 the year before forced Nikon to release a modified version of the F301 with an AF module - the F501AF. Canon joined a year later with the first EOS camera (EOS 650) featuring a new lens mount with no backwards compatibility. Nikon's F501 used a very basic AF module with 96 CCDs  - this was eventually replaced by the "legendary" (the emphasis is mine) AM200 module (an array of 20 by 10 CCDs) which found its way in all AF Nikons - from F401 to the F4 and even the third generation ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pentax MZ-50

Cute... This was an impulsive buy - found it for £5 and thought i could have it. It came with 2 CR-2 batteries and initial testing at the shop showed that it worked well. Anyway, the batteries alone cost more than £5. I am not sure how did Pentax experienced the 1990's. Pentax was big in the swinging and dancing 60's with the Spotmatic, did very well in the 70s with the MX and it was the LX that dominated Pentax's pro-line in the 80s. But in the 90s Pentax did not come up with any pro camera and did not introduce any exotic lenses either. The different iterations of the Z-1 were good cameras but in the same league such as the Nikon F90 or Canon EOS5. If you scroll down my blog you will find a review of the Z1 - a very good camera which I sold due to the complicated user interface.  I have to say that the photographic press was pleasantly surprised by the Z-20. I don't see a lot of them coming up online and some of the reviews I read describe it as functiona...
Post a Comment
Read more

Olympus 35DC

Pretty little thing This is a review of the Olympus 35 DC rangefinder. After i shot a film with it, i realized that it needed a CLA, so i will come back to it in the future and add a long lasting impressions section to this post. You know when you are going to have a good day - you walk down the street to go to your local car boot sale and you find a one pound coin and then you go to the sale and you find a nice Olympus 35 DC for £2. The previous owner stated that the camera belonged to his father, used it a few years ago before switching to digital and all pictures came out fine. So i thought.... yea why not, lets not haggle on this one. There were plenty of 35mm fixed lens rangefinder from Olympus during the 60's - too many to remember - all sold with beautiful Zuiko lenses. The Olympus 35xx series peaked with the 35SP during the late 60's. The 35SP was succeeded by the 35RD - Olympus dropped the spot metering and the 7 elements lens was scaled down to...
2 comments
Read more