How good is the Riga Minox compared to the Minox III?

[tjwspm]

The Riga Minox from 1938 was the first model of this type of camera. It already had all the features that made the Minox famous. Created from nothing, it was the big hit.
What many people may not be aware of is that the Riga Minox has a completely different shutter than the successor models. And a different lens. And less weight, if that is an advantage at all...Yes, there are other differences, but they are minor.

I wonder if all the improvements of the post-war Minox really improved the image quality noticeably. What is your opinion and experience?

You can see everything I know and have found about the Riga Minox here:

Riga Minox - The big hit

It looks like a jewel and is very robust at the same time. The Riga Minox was invented 90 years ago and still works today like the first day.

moments-of-now.com

 

[xya]

The Riga Minox is much heavier than the later moels, it was made of stainless steel, the newer ones are aluminum. I never had the Riga one, but most of the others.


It is commonly agreed that the newer lens is much better, the shutter as well. The Riga model seems to be more a collectors item...

 

[tjwspm]

The Riga Minox is much heavier than the later moels, it was made of stainless steel, the newer ones are aluminum. I never had the Riga one, but most of the others.


It is commonly agreed that the newer lens is much better, the shutter as well. The Riga model seems to be more a collectors item...

Yes, the Riga is twice as heavy as the A. But it feels good in the hand when taking photos.

As far as image quality is concerned, here are my test photos with the Riga for comparison:

Riga Minox - The big hit

It looks like a jewel and is very robust at the same time. The Riga Minox was invented 90 years ago and still works today like the first day.

moments-of-now.com

Here are photos I took with a Minox A:

The ugliest Minox I've ever seen ...

… belongs to me. At the same time, it is probably the most well-known Minox in the world. At first I was skeptical, now I am enthusiastic.

moments-of-now.com

All pictures are taken with Kodak Ektar 100.

 

[4season]

Did you know that Estonia issued a postage stamp commemorating Walter Zapp's patent?

 

[JensH]

The Riga Minox from 1938 was the first model of this type of camera. It already had all the features that made the Minox famous. Created from nothing, it was the big hit.
What many people may not be aware of is that the Riga Minox has a completely different shutter than the successor models. And a different lens. And less weight, if that is an advantage at all...Yes, there are other differences, but they are minor.

I wonder if all the improvements of the post-war Minox really improved the image quality noticeably. What is your opinion and experience?

You can see everything I know and have found about the Riga Minox here:

Riga Minox - The big hit

It looks like a jewel and is very robust at the same time. The Riga Minox was invented 90 years ago and still works today like the first day.

moments-of-now.com

Moin,

thank you for that joyful to read articles - I always found early Minoxes fascinating...

This photo is my favorite:

https://moments-of-now.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/P1050557-Denoise-I-1024x719.jpg

Best wishes
Jens

 

[tjwspm]

Did you know that Estonia issued a postage stamp commemorating Walter Zapp's patent?

As far as I know, Walter Zapp was very pleased about this late (1994) recognition of his achievement, when he was 89 years old.

For certain reasons, I read this patent word for word last month. I was amazed at how different the patent specification was in the individual countries. The US patent is the most detailed with the best description and the most pictures. Then comes the Swiss version, while the German patent is the shortest with the fewest pictures.

 

[tjwspm]

To be able to compare the image quality of both cameras better, I compare them directly here. On the left a test photo taken with a Riga Minox, on the right a test photo taken with a Minox A IIIs:

So again, why can't I see any difference in quality between the Minox Riga test photo (left) and the Minox A IIIs test photo (right)? Why was it necessary to develop the Minox A IIIs Complan lens?

What do you think?

 

[xya]

We won't be able to decide this, as most of us do not have a Riga Minox to compare. The Minostigmat is a Cooke triplet, a good compromise, but in general 4 lenses could do better, especially in this case, as the Complan with its curved film plane compensates errors for which a fifth or sixth lens would have been necessary.

I found this guy who has plenty of both, he indicates clearly that the image quality of the Riga model is quite inferior https://juliantanase.com/minox-riga-2/

 

[tjwspm]

I consider Julian Tanase to be one of the most experienced and competent Minox experts who has been photographing with Minox cameras for decades.

However, I am used to discussing on the basis of reproducible tests. That's why I'm comparing pictures here so that everyone can make their own judgment.

The following pictures were each taken with the same test objects, the same film and digitized and post-processed in the same way. In this way, everyone can make their own judgment, even if they don't own a Minox themselves.

Left: Riga Minox, right: Minox A IIIs

1. Close-up (0.2 m)

2. Landscape (infinity)

Technical conditions
Shooting: with tripod
Film: Kodak Ektar 100
Digitization: negatives photographed emulsion side up with Lumix TZ41 digital camera and Adox 10x loupe (results in approximately 10000 ppi)
Post-processing with GIMP: color inverted, horizontally mirrored, close-ups adjusted to the grid (rotated), white balance, black balance, downsampled to 2MB

I am aware that the comparison photos are not ideal as they were taken a few months apart. But I think they give a realistic impression. I should actually take the photos one after the other and align the view exactly for comparison.

I am also aware of the different construction of Minostigmat and Complan and accept that the Complan should theoretically be better. The only question is
- how much better?
- Is the difference really visible in practice?