$14 Kodak vs. $349 Minox

Hi Folks,

 

I have one of those Leica M3 Minox classic miniature cameras. I

just got the pictures back from Minox Labs and they are basically a

joke. I could have painted a better photo by hand. My wife

recently took photos with a new digital disposable from Kodak and

her photos blow the Minox's out of the water. I don't have a

scanner to show you, lucky for Minox. My question is, are Minox

cameras for real or just gimmicks to sit on collector's shelves

looking pretty? Please tell me before I throw this thing back to

the auction site.

 

Steve

Steve

The Minox Leica M3 classic camera is for collectors of classic cameras ( ie, screw mount Leica, Contax, Rolleiflex TLR, Hasselblad ).

These Minox classic cameras are 1/3 scale replicas, and are selling

well among collectors, many Minox classic cameras are sold out. I am not a collector myself, hence I don't own any Minox classic series,

and have no direct experience with their picture quality.<p>

I do think these classic cameras still take decent pictures under

right condition-- at par with fixed focused Minox EC/ ECX. Due to

the fact that these classic camera have only one shutter speed,( unlike

Minox EC/ECX which has shutter speed ranging from 8 sec to 1/500)

hence is more restrictive in lighting condition.<p>

The Minox classic camera series were the result of cooperation between Minox and Sharan Japan. The same series are sold in Japan

under Sharan brand <p>

<a href="http://camera.megahouse.co.jp/collection.htm"> Sharan classic collections </a>.<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/classic/classic/m3.jpg"><P>

Sharan Leica M3<p><img src="http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/classic/images/sharan_lecia_m3_black.jpg"><P>Leica M3 black<p><img src="http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/classic/images/sharan_rolleiflex_1.jpg"><P>Rolleiflex<p><img src="http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/classic/images/swc_1.jpg"><P>Hasselblad SWC<P>

</center><P> They are selling like hot cakes. Some are

even gold plated. I don;t think any one buying these classic camera

intend to compare it with disposal camera :)<p> My guess is, even if these classic camera have only dummy lens, and do not actually take

picture, they still sell well, very much like miniature cars, miniature houses, miniature furniture etc.<p>

I do own a replica Leica M3 : Minox Leica digital camera M3 2.1, I like it, and even bought a genuine leather case for it<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0052Du

Steve -- Martin is right on point. These are collector items. Early on, I compared the specs with those of my 30-year-old Minox B and they were very, very different. If you look on this forum for some photos made by Martin on his 8x11 cameras, you'll see the quality 8x11 can produce with a serious user subminiature camera and an experienced hand.

Hi! Surely the classic cameras have mostly been created to serve the collectors market. But: My experiences with those little replicas have been positive. If you would like to have a look at some of my b/w results, please have a look at my website:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20030517192846/http://www.8x11film.com/spur/bilderclassic.html

 

Those pictures have been taken with a MINOX CCC Leica M3 on sunny days - nearly all shots on the Copex and Delta Films were useable and gave results in the quality you can see on the page.

Even the three-glass-lens insinde the classics seem to have an acceptable quality.

 

Regards, Marcus

Sorry, I will again try post a photo

Steve:

Next step is to get yourself a Kodak KE-60, which is the non disposable version of the camera your wife used. It has a very impressive 29mm wide angle lens and is better than many more expensive cameras for under $30 US, I would guess, these days.

If I am correct in seeing that these cameras have a fixed-focus, f/5.6 fixed aperture

lens, then that's a terrible shame.

 

A 50 year old Minox B has an f/3.5 lens and adjustable focus. One HELL of a lot more

workable. What's Minox thinking these days?

Andrew says: "If I am correct in seeing that these cameras have a fixed-focus, f/5.6 fixed aperture lens, then that's a terrible shame.

 

A 50 year old Minox B has an f/3.5 lens and adjustable focus. One HELL of a lot more workable. What's Minox thinking these days?"

 

Now that is really ironic--the Kodak KE-60 and most likely the one time use "digital" that Steve's wife used also have a fixed f5.6 lens. Of course the Kodak one timer isn't really digital, but scans can be made of the negatives, just like with any other film camera.

 

Don't get me wrong here, I love my Minox 35MB and truth to tell it probably has a sharper lens than the KE-60. But for your average 4x6 snapshot prints, it is not always apparent that the MB is "better" than the KE-60 (plus the KE-60 has an adequate flash built onto the camera and the distance from the lens helps eliminate red eye).

 

I think Minox deserves Steve's wrath for packaging these cameras at highly inflated prices, when they skimp on the functionality. But as always, we as consumers must always beware. In the long run, Minox/Leica will be hurt by their marketing hijinks.

My point is that after a half-century of so-called advancement, Minox should offer an

8x11 with...

 

1. Shutter speed control - Automatic + T-1/2000th

 

2. Manual focus. People afraid of cameras can use the 'dot' like before.

 

3. A variable aperture lens, perhaps an f/1.8 - f/8 lens + auto setting

 

I see the current lineup of Minox cameras, including the TLX, as half-***ed attempts

of cameras. By all reckoning, the lenses are less sharp (even at f/5.6), and the bodies

less durable than the 50 year old units out there. WHY?

 

I feel that the Earth has developed an eccentricity in its orbit. It's the late Dr. Zapp

spinning in his grave! (with all due respect and credit to Douglas Adams)

"A variable aperture lens, perhaps an f/1.8 - f/8 lens + auto setting

"

<p>

Absolute nonsense !

It is precisely the genius of Walter Zapp who saw through the superfluity of variable aperture in a Minox<p>

Because

<ol>

<li>at F3.5 the Minox has already great depth of field, equavalent

to f11 on 35mm camera with standard lens

<li>Smaller aperture renders lens less sharp, because defraction effect.

<li> larger aperture then f3.5 has shallower depth of field

</ol><p>

Walter Zapp got it just right, hallmark of a genius<p>

Simplicity is genius<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=15135284"><P></center>

Personally, I like Cartier watch, Minox TLX camera and Pelican fountain pen<p> I have no doubt others like a $10 Timex watch, a $10 Kodak disposable and a Bic.

"I see the current lineup of Minox cameras, including the TLX, as half-assed attempts of cameras. By all reckoning, the lenses are less sharp (even at f/5.6), and the bodies less durable than the 50 year old units out there. WHY? "<p>

 

Because you are complete wrong !

 

Because you are complete ignorant of Minox TLX ! Minox TLX has no

f5.6 it always work at f3.5 <p>

Sorry. I am complete(sic) wrong about the TLX.

 

It's tragic about the other Minox offerings and their slow, SLOW lenses, though!

 

Sometimes, I want a smaller DOF and the ability to shoot in lower light than f/3.5

gives me. Zapp or no Zapp.

Andrew, may be you should consider

 

 

<ol><li> Canon 110 which has a f2.0 lens,

<li>

MEC 16SB (22mm f/2.0 Rodenstock Heligon lens)

<li> Edixa 16 with 25mm f/2.8 Schneider Kreuznach Xenar lens

</ol><p> And there is always the large aperture king Leica Noctilux

50mm f/1.0 with Leica M6.

Okay, Well thanks for the responses. I get the idea now. The black & white photos (posted above) are quite impressive for this camera. I like the idea of processing my own photos as well. -S