Making close focus closer on old Minoltas (1 Viewer)

Hi ! I was looking for a cheap pair of 8x40 that would stand on my office desk just in front the bird feeders, and ocasionnaly do some stars in the backyard. I've been tempted with older Minoltas because of some good reviews and because I used to love my old X700 camera. These can be found quite easily here in France for 20 to 50 euros.

The Minolta range is a real mess, with Standard, Standard ez, Classic I, II and III models and so on, and little reliable data can be found. I bought a MIJ 8x40 MK Standard Extra wide 9.5 °. They're quite robust, and rather heavy at 860 g. I found the centre sharpness and brightness at daytime to be on par with my Bushnell BOL custom 10x50. The sweet spot is wide enough. I didn't measure the FOV but it seems wide. The depth of view is good to, and saves you from constant re-focusing. A good buy overall, but with two drawbacks. First, a distinct yellowish tint. Second, a close focus distance of .... 10 meters ! OMG, 10 meters, when the feeders are 8 meters away from my window ! I could hear the bin gods laughing at me in the heavens.

So I've been thinking of a way to make the close focus distance closer. To make a long story short, the easiest way seemed to set the oculars further away from the body when at minimum focusing. I did it by adding a washer under the bridge ( see pics ). I had to cut the washer for one ocular arm has a small pin that must sit in the slot. The washer is about 2 mm thick and this gives me now an acceptable 5 m close focus. A thicker washer would have been even better but some problems would have resulted. First, the ocular sleeves may have been too short, second, the sloted brass tightening nut that keeps both arms of the bridge together ( see pic ) may have been too short as well.

Now I have enough close focus to look at the feeders, without loosing the infinity focus. Unfortunately, I've no solution for the yellowish tint...
Hope this can be useful, and let the spirit of Porro be with you.

. Dear christophe17,
. Well done.
I make the field of the 8×40 Minolta Standard about 9.4°. The 7×35 11.05°. The 10×50 7.65°, 7.75°, or 7.8° depending how close I can get my eyes. But as I don't wear glasses using binoculars I see at least 7.65° of the field in normal use, with the 10 x 50.

I don't really notice any yellow cast, but I don't really look for it.
The only problem I have with the Minolta Standard binoculars is that the coating is very basic. If they had the coatings of the Minolta Activa 12×50, i.e. multicoated on all surfaces including the prisms, the Minolta Standard binoculars would be something rather special, even though the edge performance is not that great.
Nowadays, there simply are no extra wide-angle binoculars except some very poor Russian ones, that one can buy off-the-shelf new.

I much prefer the Minolta X500 as it has metered manual exposure. I used this camera for about 10 years with 50 mm F/1.2 and 50 mm F/1 .4 lenses mainly, although I have other lenses as well. Is still works well but I don't use film cameras nowadays.
The Minolta X500 and Minolta X700 are better bets now than the Minolta SRT cameras as one cannot get mercury batteries any more for the older camera, although I believe that some Chinese ones may exist. I may still have some mercury batteries but they are nearing the end of their life.

Thanks for your reply, Binastro. I too preferred the X-500 for the same reason as you : the exposure indicator when in manual mode, but I had been offered a X-700. Among the good lenses I had, I did a lot of macro using a Panagor 90 mm that was bulky but razor sharp. My favorite minolta lens was a 55 mm MC Rokkor f/1.7 that had a unique feature. It was the same , exactly the same focal length as my eyes. I could open the left eye while focusing with the right eye, and both images would match as if I was just looking through a piece of glass instead of a camera !

Do you recommand the Activa range of binoculars ? There's a 12x50 on a local list right now, and I was wondering if they were worth the 80 euros the guy asks for.

. Hi there,
. You must mean that the focal length of the lens as seen through the viewfinder, which presumably reduced the image scale, maybe a reversed Galilean viewfinder, gave the same view as your eye.

My first Minolta SRT 101 in 1967 had a 58 mm F/1.4 lens, which amazed me at the time, as you could take photographs directly into the Sun with no problems at all. I never had the 55 mm F/1.7. The 135 mm F/2.8 was a lovely lens. And the 58mm F/1.2 is a valuable lens nowadays, apparently having the best bokeh of this type of lens. I took some very nice Aurora photographs with this lens.

The Minolta Activa 12×50 seem to sell for a lot less money in the USA and maybe even Australia.
€80, nowadays is only £60 and if the binocular s perfect it is a reasonable price.
The problem is that old binoculars may not be perfectly collimated and in addition are likely to have internal haze unless you are extremely lucky that they have been stored in perfect conditions.

My one was bought new, and I think that the transmission is probably above 90%.
I don't know if the coatings varied during its production run.
It is strange that the Minolta Standard doesn't have better coatings, as Minolta had their achromatic coatings very early compared with other makers.
As you said Minolta binoculars are extremely varied in specification and design and are numerous different types.
They never went in for the really top end of the market. But to the general public I think they did well.

A couple camera close-up lenses will change the near-point tremendously, even 0.25 D.

One thing about changing the focuser: the optical formula is tremendously
non-linear at the close end. A little ocular shift may not get you much closer.

Optic-nut, I already thought about using close-up camera lenses for my bins, as I started to take macro pics this way when younger, together with using a reverse ring on my cheap but good Minolta 50 f/2.

I saw three problems rising:
- first, finding a close-up lens that woult adapt to the bins objectives. Would they be the screwing type ? If so it's unlikely that I could find the right diameter, as macro lenses usually come in several standardized diameters, but not all of them. Would they snap around the objectives , like the Reynolds ones ? I'm afraid the external diameter of the objectives on my Minolta 8x40 would be a bit too large. And anyways, I can't see how to attach them on my reverse porro Bushnell 7x26.
- second : how to make sure that both close-up lenses are exactly at the same distance of the objective lens ? And wouldn't this distance vary while using the bins ?
- third : I would anyway loose the infinite focus by using a close up lens.
- and in the end, two raynox lenses would cost as much as a pentax papilio .....

However, if you found a way to achieve this, I'd be really interested in knowing how.

About the non linearity, I'll keep this in mind, for Im planning to butcher one of my cheap reverse porro pocket bins in order to turn it into a close-up bino. Thanks for the reminder.

4 little dots of craft glue do pretty well.
Distance to the objectice doesn't matter much at 1D, but they do have to be level.
I use a toothpick and E6000. I tacked one into a 7x50 monocular (it slips in)
I made by cutting IF binoculars. There isn't much point in trying for stereo at 1-4 ft.

My numbers are off .... +1D or +2D is common, and works.

Definitely: you do lose infinity if you go for macro (2 ft or less)
..but extending your travel usually breaks the seal on the EP guidetubes and you pick up dust.
you field gets a little blurry and reduced as well. The worst part is how the alignment
of the focuser see-saws when you're on the last threads. I've seen it because
I had a few pairs where the stops on the focuser were gone. Things get ugly fast.

Used close-up screw-ons can usually be gotten pretty cheap.
New ones do cost, due to the low quantity of traffic.

I'm leaving a +2D tacked into a 7x50 monocular, goes to 1 ft.
but for infinity to 2 ft, I can use the Audubon 6x16 monocular.

Here is a cheap close-focus:
http://www.maxiaids.com/products/91...&idAff=15225&gclid=CN_L2pLK0sMCFdcXgQodBhEA4w
---A friend got one, for ultralight hiking. It's actually not bad, just has some barrel distortion.

And a very nice Opticron:
http://www.eagleoptics.com/monoculars/opticron/opticron-galleryscope-8x20-monocular

And one in the middle price-wise, with a tripod thread:
http://www.opticsplanet.com/carson-7x32-close-focus-monocular.html
----you can keep an eye on the any mound or those barnacles and fiddler crabs.

Many good macro things are made, but they are monoculars.
Pivoting, coordinating stereo dissecting microscopes are tons of money.

Without the Papilio trick of moving objectives in, normal binoculars are terrible at
2-3 ft. too much sightline/fov sepearation.
Bear that in mind before you draw your weapons. ;-)
Or just tack on to one barrel.

I used this video and take the eyepieces off. I Keep turning the center wheel, if I remember right, after the eps are off. This moves the focus wheel out.

Serviceing a Porro binocular.: http://youtu.be/BpHtruwBjCo

You'll probably have to play with it some. 7x50's get down under 20 ft. Make sure that the eps don't go too far out, off the guides.

I used hearing aid batteries on the OM-1. They are labeled 1.4 V I think, 1.35 rounded. They don't fit, but I don't remember having a problem.

I really liked my X-700, too, I had the 50/1.7, 35/2.8, and 70-210/4, all MD. Great quality lenses, nice body. Got some good photos with that system

Thanks for the link, this video will certainly help me on my project of cleanning an old pair of 8x40 japanese porros labelled " Bisley Deluxe ". I bought them for peanuts and they seem to be an interesting pair of oldies, but dusty and fungy inside ...