Minox vs Mini Digital cams

"Martin, maybe you need to read my post again. Minox prints, especially above 5x7, are grainy. Really, really grainy"<p>

 

You simply used haven't use the right film<p>

 

Technical Pan developed in Agfa Rodinal Special is virtually grainless

to 16x20" from Minox<p>

 

Talking about grain, you have being fooled<p>

Take a 20 loup and look at your digital prints, you can see pixels

and pixels of color dye--- digital grains, full of them.

A 15 foot Cincinnati sky line mural was made from four Minox 8x11mm negatives by Minox master photographer Joe J. Marx of Sarasota, Florida

"I have been experimenting with creating stitched virtual higher-resolution photos recently with my 10D"<P>

 

You are not creating any higher resolution photo, you just stitched

up several photo to make one photo with exactly same resolution<p>

 

Resolution is measured in s DPI, pixel PER inch, not MP<P>

 

Your stitched result has exactly the same DPI, as one photo no matter how many pictures you stiched together, 10, 20, all the same.<p>

" No matter what anyone says, in the next five years digital will replace film in just about every application since it will simply beat the pants off of everything else out there on two points. "<p>

 

As long as Hollywood still use film for motion picture, that will

never happen.<p>

 

I bet this will not happen in next five years.

I have seen 4000 DPI scans of Minox film, and here's a question - if 35mm and even

MF (at least above ISO 100) have a hard time making grain-free enlargements at that

size, how could the Minox? That's awesome that some artist likes enlarging his Minox

negs to 13 feet wide, but I might not like it if I saw it. I know I don't like 8x10 inch

prints from it.

 

I'm sure a very satisfying print can be made with the Minox, for what it is. Don't try to

convince me that 16x20 or larger, grain-free prints are possible like with a decent

digital camera. I'd have to see it to believe it, as the evidence I have seen weighs

against it. As soon as I get myself some more canisters I'll order some Tech Pan from

the goat place and try it myself. In Rodinal.

"I'll order some Tech Pan from the goat place and try it myself. In Rodinal."<p>

You haven't even used Technica Pan, and dare to talk about grains<p>

 

Rodinal is a grainly developer, again, you use the wrong developer,

use Kodak Technidol or Rodinal Special, not Rodinal<p>

Bluefire Police film can be enlarged 67 x without visible grains<p>

<a href="http://www.frugalphotographer.com/Extreme-Enlargement.htm">Bluefire Police film</a><p>

At 250x, still no visible grain<p>

67x from Minox bluefire negative gives grainless 21" x 29" enlargement.<p>

250x from Bluefire Minox negative gives 80" x 110" grainless enlargement

Here goes!<div></div>

33x enlargement. Notice the hairs on the legs of the spider. The legs is about 1mm

across. The hairs are mode like 1/80th mm across.

Andrew, nice macro pix<p>

However, the enlargement does not reveal any feature hidden in the

full frame pix<p>

 

The following picture in this thread<p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006e1u<P>is a better illustration of the resolution

of digital camera<p>

 

http://mikedixonphotography.com/dgitalres.jpg<p>

 

You can count about ten pairs of black and white lines at the bottom of 0.5 mm section of frame, that yields 20 lpmm ( very low by

any 35mm films standard.)<p>

In my illustration, 0.1mm film contains three characters, that is at least 30 alphabets in 1mm of film area

Martin, you're looking at the spikes on the leg that jut out. If you look closely, you

can also see fine hairs that run parallel to the leg.

Well, this has become a Minox film vs digital discussion, and a very stupid one too. I mean, who wants to shoot Techpan 25 or Bluefire? Not me, and at a guess, neither would Fred. He is considering a digital camera, so he is considering color. With 200 or 400 color film, those 300 pixel/mm will become a whole lot less, and the Minox advantage would become negligible, I suppose (and would be overkill for me and Fred anyway). Add the rather steep cost per pic when you let a lab do the processing, or the hassle of scanning 8x11 negatives, and digital rapidly becomes the more attractive proposition. I just like to take pics, not to wrench the last ounce of resolution from a camera.

 

But the Minox is a wonderful camera, and it is with at least some regret that I am now looking for a 1.3M/2M tinycam. I would feel tempted too by a new Minox at very decent price, but Minox 8x11 is just too expensive for a color snapshooter like me. At least, so it would seem.

 

Regards,

 

Karel

James

>but I am amazed that people still present the argument of longevity of CD's

 

'cause it is still a fact.

 

>as compelling reasons to stick with film

Never said it was a compelling reason at all to stick with film but the single concern if part of your photographs are to pass down in the family. As people have protected, store correctly and looked after the negatives by simple puting in a dry place away from extremes in temperature.

 

>The truth of the matter is that at least 99% of people never even look at their negatives

 

But 99% of people keep their negatives. I have been looking though a pile of 70 year old negatives trying to see what prints are now missing. All I need is a light source - daylight.

 

>Anyone that cares enough to store their negatives can (with the same level of care) back up their data,

 

The people who took the photographs are long since gone (40 years ago) and after 40 years who would even concider the need to back-up and convert computer stored data? Some of the first video recordings have no working machine to play them on to now make a transfer. I am down to the last working VCC2000 deck. When you need particular hardware to view the media there is always this problem and only in a few years.

 

The results of prints taken from prints is very poor - at least commerically. So the digital camera user who 'dumps' to a unique set of prints is loosing out.

 

Most professionals are either backup and preserve their megapixel images or are not concerned with the image after they have been paid for the work.

 

>Do you think that "modern" Minox's will have the same longevity?

It is doubtful, I do not believe they have been built to the same high standards. A BL or AX will continue to work and be repairable long after the C and LX have failed. As the LX came out in 1978 it is already 25 years in production so may yet prove itself.

 

>there's no way for a digital camera to last more than 15 years but who cares

 

For all practical purposes, very true. Although some people love to keep an Apple IIe or Pet running 30 years on I do not expect the same affection for digital equipment as for the film cameras and the collector/users who still keep them going.

 

>cufflink-sized 5.4 Gigapixel cufflink-sized digicams

There are practical limits that may make such resolution impossible. e.g. cost, that is the majority may never need more than 5,6 or perhaps 10Mp as a print much bigger than 6x9inch isn't common and that is unlikely to ever change. There must be some limit on the sensor resolution to fit behind a 5mm lens.

 

It seems that Minox believe that 1.3Mp already out performs 8x11, at least in color negative. So far the best (low grain) color film available is the Minocolor 100 Pro. The cameras can resolve more as seen in the near grainless results of Copex demonstrated at www.8x11film.com.

 

>In the same way, people willing to pay big buck for Minox

only for collector items and the fake Minox A on the recent auction that raised $6000. New TLX cameras are now under half of their former cost and are not being sold any more rapidly than before. One of the main reasons for this is perhaps because of the large number available cheap second hand cameras in excellent working order.

 

Andrew Robertson

>Minox prints, especially above 5x7, are grainy

Does that also apply to your results with Minocolor Pro?

Comparing negatives with prints from some labs shows that they are not obtimial and if re-printed results can be significantly better. The down for for Minox 8x11 is that lab processing is more expensive than with 35mm film and far greatr care needs to be taken and for most people the hassel and cost rule out it's use.

 

Karel Peijnenborg

>I would feel tempted too by a new Minox at very decent price, but Minox 8x11 is just too expensive for a color snapshooter like me. At least, so it would seem.

<

An Aiptek 1.3Mp goes for under 30EURO and has that Minox 8x11 feature of being able to take with you at all times even if other 'popular features are missing (close focus to 8", flash, 1/2000th to 10 seconds etc). What is a decent price for a new Minox? 65GBP for an ECX, 135GBP for an EC set, 415GBP for a TLX set? Or would the TLX have to be under 100USD?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Gerald! Now a TLX for under USD100 would be very, very tempting!! But what I really meant was that I fall in your category of 'most people' for whom 'the hassle and cost rule out its use'. It's the recurring costs that drive me away from Minox. And yes, that Aiptek cam is on my shortlist, but I haven't seen it around EUR30 anywhere near me (=The Netherlands).

 

regards, Karel

"Now a TLX for under USD100 would be very, very tempting"<p>

It is as foolish to ask for a 100 USD Rolex<p>

The cheapest Minox digital camera cost 229 EUR.<p>

 

<a href="http://minox-shop.payworxx.de/index.phtml?Menue=72&minox_shop_2002=9ae09bd37bf45966a09018ac20c4a18f&minox_shop_2002=9ae09bd37bf45966a09018ac20c4a18f">Minox digital cameras prices</a><p>

 

I am sure you can find something at Radio Shack or Wal Mart which suits your need.

Martin, I think my point was that these expensive-but-worth-it cameras would become even more expensive without added value when I would start taking pictures. That stopped me. It needn't stop others, BTW. (And I was looking more for a "user" C.)

 

Regards, Karel

The Aiptek camera is a piece of crap. Ante up for a read camera with removable storage and at least 3mp. Anything less will disapoint you unless you are only going to show on Web.

Minox's new digital DD1 Diamond camera, seems has answered may questions <p>

<img src="http://www.minox.de/minox2002/gifs/kundenbilder/news/minox_dd1_diamant_g.jpg"><p>

Karel Peijnenborg , dec 08, 2003; 04:09 a.m.

that Aiptek cam is on my shortlist, but I haven't seen it around EUR30 anywhere near me (=The Netherlands).

 

I got one on Ebay last week for 17EURO, one was only 11.75EURO and the next 19EURO. All boxed complete and as near new. The manufacture sells reconditioned units direct at cut down prices. Walmart had the larger SD going for under $30.

The diamond DD1 is dressing up what is a 2.1Mp camera hardly any different to the Aiptek range. It also lacks flash and removable storage and isn't that small. Some like the 50s UFO style, other do not. If it was in the same price league as the Aiptek range or of the quality of the Casio Exlim or Sony U40 (both of which are discounted) and CR2 batteries not not universally cheap (unlike a pair of AA batteries). This is an market with hundreds of 'me too' types as regards specification. Minox win on being a different style, but could loose on value for money.

It is perhaps only right to add that I am now the owner of a Minox LX, a birthday present. I am really curious about how the pictures turn out!

 

Regards,

 

Karel

I'm considering buying a minox 8x11 camera. Because of the nice b/w film look and

mobility. I saw the films cost about 6 EUR a piece, but how should I process them. I can

scan them with my scanner but can I bring them to some local photo prossing shop? I live

in the Netherlands.

 

If processing the films after shooting isn't a real problem I defenitly would buy only.

The best way to develop and enlarge Minox 8x11 B&W yourself, it is

quite strait forward and fun using Minox daylight development tank to

develop the film then use a Minox enlarger to enlarge the negatives<p>

 

You can also simply develop the BW negative, then scan it<p>