Which Minox model?

[guangong]

Do you know i


It also offers f5.6, so more depth of field than all the other Minox 8x11 cameras.

Minox 3.5 lens in practice has such depth of field that I don’t see any real advantage for 5.6.

 

[tjwspm]

Minox 3.5 lens in practice has such depth of field that I don’t see any real advantage for 5.6.

I would like to point out that at aperture 3.5 the depth of field only starts at 2 m, while at aperture 5.6 it starts at 1 m (Minox manufacturer's information). The difference can be crucial for point and shoot.

I can imagine that at the end of the 1970s Minox took into account the faster films compared to the 1950s. We're talking about 100 to 200 ASA versus 25 to 50 ASA. The big advantage was that 5.6 eliminated the entire distance adjustment, allowing for a fully automatic camera the size of the Minox A/IIIs. This would not have been possible with an adjustable lens at the time. This is proven by the Minox LX, which was constructed at the same time as the EC and is much larger.

 

[ic-racer]

F5.6 also makes practical a slower top speed; 1/500, in this case.

 

[tjwspm]

F5.6 also makes practical a slower top speed; 1/500, in this case.

Exactly, I forgot to mention that.

 

[G1DRP]

I prefer the C and EC, because they are point and shoot cameras. I have the iiis and B models too. I have a 1962 B in my pocket at the moment.

 

[guangong]

I would like to point out that at aperture 3.5 the depth of field only starts at 2 m, while at aperture 5.6 it starts at 1 m (Minox manufacturer's information). The difference can be crucial for point and shoot.

I can imagine that at the end of the 1970s Minox took into account the faster films compared to the 1950s. We're talking about 100 to 200 ASA versus 25 to 50 ASA. The big advantage was that 5.6 eliminated the entire distance adjustment, allowing for a fully automatic camera the size of the Minox A/IIIs. This would not have been possible with an adjustable lens at the time. This is proven by the Minox LX, which was constructed at the same time as the EC and is much larger.

I have never found any inconvenience adjusting focus for less than 6 ft when needed. But these are questions of individual preference. For me, III is basically a point and shoot. One question, not meant to be provocative, but just curious. Not that any difference would be practical in use: How does resolution of 5.6 compare to 3.5 lens?
One reason I prefer III, in addition to small size, is its robust build quality. When EC was introduced, the distributor was Leica in US. My tech friends at Leica warned me about buying one because too fragile. Since ECs are still around, I may have been misinformed.
Since meter is kaput I seldom use my B, but do use my BL.
I bought C when introduced but always felt it was too long. I have a couple LX cameras. My only annoyance with them is that one has the traditional Minox chain to camera attachment while others have normal screw in tripod socket. I always need to check when taking camera out.

 

[tjwspm]

How does resolution of 5.6 compare to 3.5 lens?

One reason I prefer III, in addition to small size, is its robust build quality. When EC was introduced, the distributor was Leica in US. My tech friends at Leica warned me about buying one because too fragile. Since ECs are still around, I may have been misinformed.

Agreed, I also mostly use the Minox A/IIIs. But apart from distances under 1 m, the EC takes damn good pictures in terms of resolution like this one:

When it comes to the quality of the cameras themselves, the A/IIIs is undoubtedly superior to the EC. However, mine (I own 3) also had their problems, mostly with the escapement and the correct shutter speeds. I didn't have any problems with my EC's (I also own 3) shutter speeds, but I did have problems with the contacts of the main switch and the flash. Mechanically they were robust. The housing is made of the same fiber-reinforced makrolon polycarbonate as the Minox 35.

 

[guangong]

Being a Minox enthusiast I bought several Minox 35s when they first appeared for sale. Unfortunately, eventually they all proved to be unreliable. Luck of the draw? Perhaps just bad luck, but that was my experience with Minox 35 cameras. My Rollei 35, bought when introduced, around 1968, still marches on despite being dropped, banged, and requiring need to remove dents from body. Minox 8x11 cameras have also survived being dropped…very rugged cameras.

 

[tjwspm]

It would be interesting to take test photos in a direct comparison between Minox A/IIIs and Minox EC.

Since you can't set a distance on the EC, you have to take a subject that is exactly this distance from the camera. The hyperfocal distance of the EC is 2.4 m, if I calculated correctly. So I would have to set the distance on the A/IIIs to 2.4 m and shoot a suitable subject at that distance. Then shoot the same subject at the same distance with the ED.

Maybe I'll do that sometime...

 

[qqphot]

Being a Minox enthusiast I bought several Minox 35s when they first appeared for sale. Unfortunately, eventually they all proved to be unreliable. Luck of the draw? Perhaps just bad luck, but that was my experience with Minox 35 cameras. My Rollei 35, bought when introduced, around 1968, still marches on despite being dropped, banged, and requiring need to remove dents from body. Minox 8x11 cameras have also survived being dropped…very rugged cameras.

The common shutter problem with the Minox 35 is very easy to fix, and the fix seems pretty persistent:

Minox 35

Users of Minox 35, any model *Please only upload photos taken with a Minox 35 camera. *

flickr.com

 

[guangong]

The common shutter problem with the Minox 35 is very easy to fix, and the fix seems pretty persistent:

Minox 35

Users of Minox 35, any model *Please only upload photos taken with a Minox 35 camera. *

flickr.com

While the fix may be easy, Rollei 35s are unpredictable as to when they stop functioning, and it always seems to happen at the wrong time. I always carry a dependable Minox 8x11. I didn’t just own several Minox 35s, but went whole hog with case, filters, etc but unreliability for all models was maddening. For almost 60 years my Rollei 35 has worked faultlessly. Moreover, Olympus xa has never let me down. Perhaps Minox 35 should have been made in Japan.

 

[Minox]

I do not see a very difficult choice here. If you are accustomed with distance focusing and whatever rule of reading the light, then a Minox A (meaning the otherwise known IIIs) is for you. Electronic-less, fully mechanical camera. Capability of shooting old cassettes 50 exp, Complan lens, in both metric or imperial markings, two filters additional to the fixed UV one on camera.

If buying a Minox B, expect the meter to be off by some 1, 2 or even 3 stops. It is basically a Minox A/IIIs camera, with a Gossen selenium in. They do fail, but with care and looking in reputable shops, these can be found in working condition (the meters I mean). Out of the models of B (honeycomb and lattice meters), I would choose the first one, they reportedly are better. Again, I would choose a Complan model, not a Minox lens for it.

If you'd like the camera to guess the exposure for you, get a C (btw, they all take either the battery adapter or 5.6v batts, there is no Minox C that takes "one cell battery", al are the same re power source).

If you need a point and shoot Minox, choose the smallest one made, the EC. Pretty much an automatic Minox in the true sense. Make sure they are still have the ND filter in front of the sensor, because they are known to fall of.

The BL is somewhat overrated, and difficult to find with the meter working. Otherwise a perfectly good mechanical camera, as the battery (a MR44 adapter actually, or a hearing aid battery) only powers the (not coupled) meter.

The LX would give you automatic exposure and ND filter, which may come in handy at times. However, it does not use the same accessories the other older ones do (meaning the LX needs a different type of tripod head, etc).

Regarding the other models: TLX, CLX, AX and the like...I do have them and very rarely used. This is because I have never noticed any difference in the quality of the photographs taken with these, versus the other models.

More on Minox cameras and whatnot, here: http://www.juliantanase.com

I hope you'll find what you are looking for, and have fun !​

 

[guangong]

I do not see a very difficult choice here. If you are accustomed with distance focusing and whatever rule of reading the light, then a Minox A (meaning the otherwise known IIIs) is for you. Electronic-less, fully mechanical camera. Capability of shooting old cassettes 50 exp, Complan lens, in both metric or imperial markings, two filters additional to the fixed UV one on camera.

If buying a Minox B, expect the meter to be off by some 1, 2 or even 3 stops. It is basically a Minox A/IIIs camera, with a Gossen selenium in. They do fail, but with care and looking in reputable shops, these can be found in working condition (the meters I mean). Out of the models of B (honeycomb and lattice meters), I would choose the first one, they reportedly are better. Again, I would choose a Complan model, not a Minox lens for it.

If you'd like the camera to guess the exposure for you, get a C (btw, they all take either the battery adapter or 5.6v batts, there is no Minox C that takes "one cell battery", al are the same re power source).

If you need a point and shoot Minox, choose the smallest one made, the EC. Pretty much an automatic Minox in the true sense. Make sure they are still have the ND filter in front of the sensor, because they are known to fall of.

The BL is somewhat overrated, and difficult to find with the meter working. Otherwise a perfectly good mechanical camera, as the battery (a MR44 adapter actually, or a hearing aid battery) only powers the (not coupled) meter.

The LX would give you automatic exposure and ND filter, which may come in handy at times. However, it does not use the same accessories the other older ones do (meaning the LX needs a different type of tripod head, etc).

Regarding the other models: TLX, CLX, AX and the like...I do have them and very rarely used. This is because I have never noticed any difference in the quality of the photographs taken with these, versus the other models.

More on Minox cameras and whatnot, here: http://www.juliantanase.com

I hope you'll find what you are looking for, and have fun !​

Very good summary!

 

[tjwspm]

a Minox A (meaning the otherwise known IIIs) is for you. Electronic-less, fully mechanical camera. Capability of shooting old cassettes 50 exp, Complan lens, in both metric or imperial markings, two filters additional to the fixed UV one on camera.​

Totally agreed.

Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the Minox A only had a permanently installed UV filter since 1962.

And I didn't know until now that there were also Minox B cameras with Minox lenses. In fact, they are the Minox B manufactured from serial number 983566. Interesting !

 

[Minox]

Worthy of mentioning that the Riga, II, III, IIIs and B are cameras that once cocked, there has to be a shutter release; if you do not take the shot, you wasted one frame. I have known people who do not like these models because they are "film wasters".

Alternatively, from C forward, this feature disappears; one may cock the camera, and if one decides not to shoot the frame, one can close the camera down without wasting a frame.

And yes, one should avoid the Pentar lens like the plague, re Minox II. Siebert did a magnificent job with the Complan, which became one of the best lenses there are, for a lot of reasons. Not for nothing he was "stolen" from the across the road firm, Leica.

 

[tjwspm]

Worthy of mentioning that the Riga, II, III, IIIs and B are cameras that once cocked, there has to be a shutter release; if you do not take the shot, you wasted one frame. I have known people who do not like these models because they are "film wasters".

For those who are bothered by this but appreciate the mechanics of the A and B, this would really be a reason to take the BL.

However, it doesn't bother me personally. The focal length of the Minox is chosen so that it comes very close to the natural field of vision. That's why I don't actually need the viewfinder to judge whether the shot is worth it or not. I can see this before I open the camera. I only use the viewfinder for composition. So no BL needed for me.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I totally agree.

In my years shooting with the IIIs and B, I found that lose-a-frame-if-you-close-the-camera-without-exposing a valuable feature, not a bug.

It helped me develop the discipline to previsualize, to decide whether or not there was a worthwhile photo before I even opened the Minox and brought it to eye. Over the years it definitely made me a better photographer, and raised my good-shot-to-exposures-taken ratio (which was already high from my childhood training as a professional) significantly. It improved my picture-making vision.

It's your eye that really "makes" a photo, the camera capturing it is just a tool.

 

[tjwspm]

I totally agree.

In my years shooting with the IIIs and B, I found that lose-a-frame-if-you-close-the-camera-without-exposing a valuable feature, not a bug.

It helped me develop the discipline to previsualize, to decide whether or not there was a worthwhile photo before I even opened the Minox and brought it to eye. Over the years it definitely made me a better photographer, and raised my good-shot-to-exposures-taken ratio (which was already high from my childhood training as a professional) significantly. It improved my picture-making vision.

It's your eye that really "makes" a photo, the camera capturing it is just a tool.

True. An interesting point of view. It actually forces you to think about the actual motif before you start thinking about the technical realization.

So it's actually an advantage

 

[xkaes]

That "lose a frame" non-feature has always bugged me. Every time I am forced to lose another 8x11mm piece of film, I tell myself -- "There goes another 0.0001¢ down the drain."

 

[xya]

That "lose a frame" non-feature has always bugged me. Every time I am forced to lose another 8x11mm piece of film, I tell myself -- "There goes another 0.0001¢ down the drain."

Oh, if you are not able to cut the film yourself and you have to buy the very expensive ready cut film in ready made cartridges, you lose about 1$. But anyway, I would never close the camera without taking a shot on this "lost" negative. Sometimes these shots are even great.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you are accustomed with distance focusing and whatever rule of reading the light, then a Minox A (meaning the otherwise known IIIs) is for you. Electronic-less, fully mechanical camera. Capability of shooting old cassettes 50 exp, Complan lens, in both metric or imperial markings, two filters additional to the fixed UV one on camera.

Everything I'm hearing says III/IIIs is my aim point. Dual filters, manual shutter and exposure, and shutter 1/500 to 1/2 plus B. Plus, as noted above, one of the best lenses ever made.

once cocked, there has to be a shutter release; if you do not take the shot, you wasted one frame.

I've used Minolta 16/16II and Kiev 30/303 for years, I'm used to this. If it's a problem for you composing, seems like it wouldn't be that hard to take the viewfinder piece off a broken III, or similarly make a framing viewer.

 

[Minox]

The III/IIIs has a 1/1000 top speed shutter.

Re framing, you can put to good use a Minox meter, if you have one. Never needed a separate viewer, though.

 

[xkaes]

I always have a spy-finder on my IIIs, and find it very handy -- but it does require careful framing.

I prefer the Minolta spy-finder for the MG-s. It is easily rotated around the viewfinder end of the camera body. If positioned on the back, it is a 90° spy finder. If positioned on the front, it is a waist-level finder. If positioned on the top, it's out of the way. Very handy!