Minolta XD insides dirty

Film camera noob here. I only use vintage adapted lenses on my mirrorless, and now have 5 Minolta/Rokkor lenses. Decided to get an XD online for about $90. Seller showed nice pics of body and through the viewfinder, plus, some pics that supposedly came from the camera. So, seemed like good condition, clean, looked great.

But when I got it in the mail and took off the lens, I was a little taken aback. I've just cleaned it with some alcohol wipes and blower, but still, residue of some sort on the inner sides (maybe material is falling apart?), and mirror has some residue or maybe scratches around edges. And, lens it came with looks mainly alright, 50mm 1.7, but noticed some oil looking globs along the edges of a middle element. I now wonder if I got a lemon, or if this will be alright for film as is? I already have a 50mm 2.0 for my mirrorless, so will keep this lens and camera for film.

What now, should I return it, have it professionally cleaned and serviced, or just go shoot and have fun with it? Thanks!

generikku said:

But when I got it in the mail and took off the lens, I was a little taken aback. I've just cleaned it with some alcohol wipes and blower, but still, residue of some sort on the inner sides (maybe material is falling apart?), and mirror has some residue or maybe scratches around edges.

Click to expand...

Foam was used in various parts of those cameras, and it's probably deteriorated and shedding. Check the foam inside the hinged back, which helps provide a light seal, and see what its condition is. It used to be possible to buy replacement foam kits from eBay sellers. Maybe still is.

If there are scratches on the mirror, they can't be fixed, but they don't impact the results anyway.

generikku said:

And, lens it came with looks mainly alright, 50mm 1.7, but noticed some oil looking globs along the edges of a middle element.

Click to expand...

If the glass is not affected and if the diaphragm blades aren't sluggish, don't worry about it.

generikku said:

What now, should I return it, have it professionally cleaned and serviced, or just go shoot and have fun with it?

Click to expand...

Replacing the foam shouldn't be too hard if you can find some.

You can find the camera light seal form, with self-adhesive backing, in sheets and strips on eBay and Amazon. Easily available and inexpensive. Clean the old stuff out, cut your foam to size and shape and install it. One of the easiest home repairs.

Welcome to shooting film. I know many of us have taken for granted that a camera came via online ordering to be perfect, but buying a vintage item..., I'd suggest next time touch a camera first before delve into ordering it on eBay, as you'd learn more about the common defect of a particular model so you can shop cautiously online (as it is required when shop on eBay).

Since it's already purchased, let's get it diagnosed. The other two posters provided great advice. I'll just add on top of it. For the lens, do some research online to see if that particular lens has lubrication issues (older lenses may have used some oil-based lubrication which will seep into diaphragms causing glob you said). If that's the case, you'd have to sent to a technician to have it cleaned and relubricated using modern silicon-based lubrication so that won't become a sticky diaphragm issues (which will cause aperture not to open up properly and might cause metering error on top of not able to capture a photo).

The last photo, I am thinking that's the pattern for metering as my OM-4T has something similar, too. If it's smudged, I don't know how Minolta is designed so I don't know how much it'll affect the accuracy of metering. I may or may not be a deal breaker.

But do look into the dusts and see if dust presented are truly dusts or fungus. Fungus is a much more serious problem than dusts. You may need a loupe to see if lens elements (lens and OVF) became porous or not. Fungus can propagate to your other camera equipment so it's not simply a less sharp photo issue.

sybersitizen said:

Foam was used in various parts of those cameras, and it's probably deteriorated and shedding. Check the foam inside the hinged back, which helps provide a light seal, and see what its condition is. It used to be possible to buy replacement foam kits from eBay sellers. Maybe still is.

Click to expand...

Yes, good points. Will look for replacement foam.

sybersitizen said:

If there are scratches on the mirror, they can't be fixed, but they don't impact the results anyway.

Click to expand...

Glad to know.

sybersitizen said:

If the glass is not affected and if the diaphragm blades aren't sluggish, don't worry about it.

Click to expand...

I took some quick shots on my Sony A7 and lens is better than I expected, doesn't seem to affect performance in real world.

sybersitizen said:

Replacing the foam shouldn't be too hard if you can find some.

Click to expand...

I think you're right. I'll look around when I'm out and about.

Thanks, found a very short vid on another old Minolta body where they do the DIY foam repair with dollar store materials and a pair of scissors. Looks easy enough, even for me, haha. Cheers.

citizenlouie said:

Welcome to shooting film. I know many of us have taken for granted that a camera came via online ordering to be perfect, but buying a vintage item..., I'd suggest next time touch a camera first before delve into ordering it on eBay, as you'd learn more about the common defect of a particular model so you can shop cautiously online (as it is required when shop on eBay).

Click to expand...

Where I live there are a couple local camera shops, I'll have go directly when I can. I am noticing ordering used online gives mixed results. But, I've had much better than expected results occasionally. I do prefer to see and touch items before buying though.

citizenlouie said:

Since it's already purchased, let's get it diagnosed. The other two posters provided great advice. I'll just add on top of it. For the lens, do some research online to see if that particular lens has lubrication issues (older lenses may have used some oil-based lubrication which will seep into diaphragms causing glob you said). If that's the case, you'd have to sent to a technician to have it cleaned and relubricated using modern silicon-based lubrication so that won't become a sticky diaphragm issues (which will cause aperture not to open up properly and might cause metering error on top of not able to capture a photo).

Click to expand...

Great advice, but since this lens is probably not worth much, I don't think it would be worth it. I'll keep that in mind for some more expensive lenses I have though. I tried the lens on my A7 body and images looked fine on review. I'll have to take more shots and upload on computer, but I think it's more than acceptable, especially if I'll mainly use it on the film body.

citizenlouie said:

The last photo, I am thinking that's the pattern for metering as my OM-4T has something similar, too. If it's smudged, I don't know how Minolta is designed so I don't know how much it'll affect the accuracy of metering. I may or may not be a deal breaker.

Click to expand...

It's it's not accurate it'll force me to be more quick with Sunny 16

citizenlouie said:

But do look into the dusts and see if dust presented are truly dusts or fungus. Fungus is a much more serious problem than dusts. You may need a loupe to see if lens elements (lens and OVF) became porous or not. Fungus can propagate to your other camera equipment so it's not simply a less sharp photo issue.

Click to expand...

I'm becoming less particular about dust and fungus, especially since I have a humidity controlled camera case. Seems like no fungus in this one, just dust and that glob issue. I'll see about the OVF, good point.

generikku said:

Where I live there are a couple local camera shops, I'll have go directly when I can. I am noticing ordering used online gives mixed results. But, I've had much better than expected results occasionally. I do prefer to see and touch items before buying though.

Click to expand...

Cool.

generikku said:

Great advice, but since this lens is probably not worth much, I don't think it would be worth it. I'll keep that in mind for some more expensive lenses I have though. I tried the lens on my A7 body and images looked fine on review. I'll have to take more shots and upload on computer, but I think it's more than acceptable, especially if I'll mainly use it on the film body.

Click to expand...

Cheap lens does not equal bad lens! But the point I was trying to say is I don't want you to shoot in the middle of the roll and then aperture failed to open and you end up getting a lot of surprises when you got your film developed.

generikku said:

It's it's not accurate it'll force me to be more quick with Sunny 16

Click to expand...

Cool beans. Power to you.

generikku said:

I'm becoming less particular about dust and fungus, especially since I have a humidity controlled camera case. Seems like no fungus in this one, just dust and that glob issue. I'll see about the OVF, good point.

Click to expand...

Excellent.

Congrats on buying a very cool camera. I only have one manual-wind Minolta in my posession (a beat-up XG-E) but with the Rokkor 50/1.4 it takes beautiful pictures.

My suggestion would be to first run a test roll and see if the debris in the camera affects the picture quality. Good chance it won't. A lot of my cameras show goobers on the mirror and focusing screen, but all that stuff gets tucked away when I hit the shutter button as it's a straight shot from the glass to the film plane. If the meter and shutter are all working than you're golden.

Dirt in the works is an issue with a lot of old cameras. A cleaning might fix it, question is do you want to put $100 into a $90 camera that will then be worth $90. Nothing wrong with doing that but (assuming image quality is OK) I'd take some time with the XD and make sure it's your true love. (When it comes to cameras I don't believe in monogamy.)

If it does affect image quality, you might want to try to negotiate a partial refund with the seller (which won't work if he said it's as-is or untested). If he refunds $40 and you put $100 into a cleaning, now for $150 you've got a great camera that should work fine for the next 25 years or so. That's how I'd look at it.

Autonerd said:

Congrats on buying a very cool camera. I only have one manual-wind Minolta in my posession (a beat-up XG-E) but with the Rokkor 50/1.4 it takes beautiful pictures.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I may have to get more Minolta bodies, so I'll look into that one too. I misspoke above and said I had a 50mm f2 Rokkor but actually it's the 1.4, which I love on my Sony. It's a little heavy though, but those sharp images, wow.

Autonerd said:

My suggestion would be to first run a test roll and see if the debris in the camera affects the picture quality. Good chance it won't. A lot of my cameras show goobers on the mirror and focusing screen, but all that stuff gets tucked away when I hit the shutter button as it's a straight shot from the glass to the film plane. If the meter and shutter are all working than you're golden.

Click to expand...

Good suggestions. I think the seller left film inside from some testing, I'll try it and see. Supposedly, shutter works. Not sure about the meter, but I'll try Sunny 16.

From images that supposedly came from the camera, it didn't look like image quality is affected much from the gunky stuff I was concerned about, but, if they were from another camera I'd be annoyed at the bait and switch

Autonerd said:

Dirt in the works is an issue with a lot of old cameras. A cleaning might fix it, question is do you want to put $100 into a $90 camera that will then be worth $90. Nothing wrong with doing that but (assuming image quality is OK) I'd take some time with the XD and make sure it's your true love. (When it comes to cameras I don't believe in monogamy.)

Click to expand...

About the dirt, I found some cleaning vids on similar Minolta bodies, maybe I'll give it a try. Thereare some local shops around, when it's good to go, I might have them take a look. Hopefully the CLA or whatever it's called isn't $90

Oh, and the cost included the body plus 50mm 1.7, I think I wasn't clear above. I'm actually OK with the little dirt in the lens, and, I don't think I see fungus, if so, it's negligible and I'm learned not to let it obsess me these days. When it does, I may attemp disassembly when I'm brave enough.

Autonerd said:

If it does affect image quality, you might want to try to negotiate a partial refund with the seller (which won't work if he said it's as-is or untested). If he refunds $40 and you put $100 into a cleaning, now for $150 you've got a great camera that should work fine for the next 25 years or so. That's how I'd look at it.

Click to expand...

I'll keep these ideas in mind for next camera I end up trying out, good solid bargaining/negotiating advice. Cheers.

generikku said:

Not sure about the meter, but I'll try Sunny 16.

Click to expand...

Was the camera advertised as working? If the meter's on the fritz, I'd say you have a good claim for a refund or a partial refund. If that's the camera I think it is (Japanese-market XD11), well, part of its appeal is that it has both shutter and aperture priority automatic modes (rare for a camera of that vintage, I think XD11 was the first). That's one of the reasons they command the prices they do. Without a working meter, those features don't work, and if you wanted to shoot Sunny 16 you could find a cheaper camera.

generikku said:

>. Hopefully the CLA or whatever it's called isn't $90

Click to expand...

Apologies, I should have defined my terms. CLA is Cleaning, Lube and Adjustment. It's not just about blowing the dust out; they partially disassemble the camera, clean out not just the dirt but old gooped-up grease and oil, lubricate and adjust the works, and check, calibrate and adjust the meter. And while they are in there, they can make other repairs as needed.

Remember, unlike a digicam, which can be built with no moving parts, your SLR is *all* moving parts! As a f'rintsance, sometimes the shutter curtains (might be leaves on that camera) slow down a bit, effectively making your exposures longer.

A CLA is more like an overhaul, and they were a regular thing for cameras back in The Day. Nowadays they seem to go for between $85 and $125, and that doesn't matter if it's a $15 Ricoh KR-10 or a $250 Nikon FM2. (Both good cameras, by the way.)

I'll tell you this -- if your XD is in acceptable shape, it's definitely worth a CLA. I don't own one (yet!) but everything i read is that they are great cameras, and I'm impressed as all get-out at the durability of my XG-E, which looks like it's been through a war and still works. And the Rokkor lenses, as you know, are great. You either did your homework, are lucky, or are clairvoyant, because you got a great camera in that XD.

Autonerd said:

Autonerd said:

Not sure about the meter, but I'll try Sunny 16.

Click to expand...

Was the camera advertised as working? If the meter's on the fritz, I'd say you have a good claim for a refund or a partial refund. If that's the camera I think it is (Japanese-market XD11), well, part of its appeal is that it has both shutter and aperture priority automatic modes (rare for a camera of that vintage, I think XD11 was the first). That's one of the reasons they command the prices they do. Without a working meter, those features don't work, and if you wanted to shoot Sunny 16 you could find a cheaper camera.

Click to expand...

Camera was advertised as working. I saw another all black one for about $30 more, but the included lens was in worse condition and body looked a little more beat up, hence why I went for this one. Since I just got an MD lens in a set, I'll have to try it then, I was originally going to use the MCs. Good point about working meter and those features then.

Autonerd said:

Autonerd said:

>. Hopefully the CLA or whatever it's called isn't $90

Click to expand...

Apologies, I should have defined my terms. CLA is Cleaning, Lube and Adjustment. It's not just about blowing the dust out; they partially disassemble the camera, clean out not just the dirt but old gooped-up grease and oil, lubricate and adjust the works, and check, calibrate and adjust the meter. And while they are in there, they can make other repairs as needed.

Remember, unlike a digicam, which can be built with no moving parts, your SLR is *all* moving parts! As a f'rintsance, sometimes the shutter curtains (might be leaves on that camera) slow down a bit, effectively making your exposures longer.

A CLA is more like an overhaul, and they were a regular thing for cameras back in The Day. Nowadays they seem to go for between $85 and $125, and that doesn't matter if it's a $15 Ricoh KR-10 or a $250 Nikon FM2. (Both good cameras, by the way.)

I'll tell you this -- if your XD is in acceptable shape, it's definitely worth a CLA. I don't own one (yet!) but everything i read is that they are great cameras, and I'm impressed as all get-out at the durability of my XG-E, which looks like it's been through a war and still works. And the Rokkor lenses, as you know, are great. You either did your homework, are lucky, or are clairvoyant, because you got a great camera in that XD.

Click to expand...

You definitely got me sold on getting a CLA. I'll have to take this in, plus a box of "junk" cameras that I just got, couple rangefinders and a Nikkor. Dunno if they'll work but yeah, I'll see about CLAs.

And I guess just dumb luck in my case, as when I went around local shops I could only find clean and cheap MC Rokkor lenses, and ended up with a nice set from 28mm - 50mm. And, I have adapters for Sony A7 and Micro Four Thirds, so I figured I would get a film camera body for them too. I did some homework and came across the XD line and got excited about it. It feels really good in the hands.

Cheers for the tips and hope you find a good XD-11 body!

generikku said:

I'll have to take this in, plus a box of "junk" cameras that I just got, couple rangefinders and a Nikkor. Dunno if they'll work but yeah, I'll see about CLAs.

Click to expand...

I would test them before you spend the money on them. In recent months I have acquired... let me count... at least six old cameras, ranging from 25 to 45 years old, that are working just fine without any service. And that doesn't count my circa-1975 Pentax KX which I've had since the early 90s and has never been serviced.

The two cameras I took into the shop had specific things wrong with them, and I put the money into them because they were cameras I was eager to use (Nikon FE and Pentax MX). I have a couple others that are not working and could probably get repaired for around $100 each, and I'm not that eager to use them.

generikku said:

And I guess just dumb luck in my case

Click to expand...

We should all have your luck! I am genuinely happy for you (and your camera - it's always wonderful when a camera ends up with someone who can appreciate it) and I cannot wait to see what your film photos look like.

Aaron