Edixa 16 vs Minox

Comparing Wirgin Edixa 16M with Minox B.

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=13541384"border=5><p>

</center>

*The Wirgin Edixa 16 lines of subminiature cameras use 16mm

unperforated twin cassette, apparently these features were borrowed

from Minox. However, Minox B has a frame spacing compensation

mechanism to compensate for the increase of frame spacing caused by

thickening of take up spool, the Edixa 16 has no such mechanism, hence

the Edixa 16 frame spacing is not even, narrow at beginning about

3.5mm to as much as 9mm at the end of a 60 frame strip. <p>

 

*Minox has a selenium meter, Edixa 16 has a attached selenium meter

both use matched needle method; using an Edixa 16 is quite similar to

using Minox B<p>

 

*Minox B is certainly more sophisticated, with shutter speed up to

1/1000. Edixa 16 has a maximum shutter speed of only 1/150<p>

 

*Minox B has a fixed aperture of f/3.5, Edixa 16 has variable aperture

from 2.8 to 16<p>

 

*Edixa 16 has a four element Xenar lens, Minox a four element Minox

lens, these two lens are the same Tessar type structure lens<p>

 

*Edixa 16 and Minox B both has unit focusing lens.<p>

 

*The take up spool of Edixa 16 is insertion type, makes it easier to

use long film up to 70 exposures without cassette.<p>

 

*Bulk 16mm unperforated film is easily available.<p>

 

*Edixa 16 is a much rarer camera than Minox, only 60,000 made, the

Edixa 16MB is rarer than Riga Minox, only 10,000 made.

 

The following are some samples of Edixa 16MB pictures

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=18234584"border=5><P><P><P>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=18251284"border=5><P><P>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=18256784"border=5><P><P><P>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=18640384"border=5><P><P><P>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2493959-lg.jpg"border=5><P><P><P>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=18809684"border=5><P><P>

The 16mm bulk film is Agfa Copex. I use it without cassette in the Edixa 16 to avoid scratches.

The Edixa 16 uses a single cassette, the RADA Super 16. The Goldeck also used RADA cassettes but unfortunately only has a 10x14mm negative area. At the end of the film you have to rewind the film back into the cassette. The take up spool has a spring clip. The Rollei 16 instead of a secure take up spool uses the single perforations to advance the film. Because of the Rollei 16's dependance on the perforations it is therefore easier now to use an Edixa 16 than a Rollei 16. The Rollei 16s is a camera with a much superior lens and mechanically better made. Unfortunately the Rollei requires the meter to be working. The coupled light meter of the Edixa 16 can be detached and exposure manually controlled.

 

The Minolta MG-s and QT both use unperforated film. They are a match to the Rollei 16s in image quality. Cartridges are easily obtainable. Negatives are also 12x17mm. Provided the battery has not leaked the meter should be okay and both can be fully controlled manually without a battery or working meter. The depth of field on the MG-s and range of 1/30th to 1/500th makes it a very flexible camera. The QT has a focusing lens with "idiot" symbols (although the leter version has a metric/imperial dual scale), but only 1/30th and 1/250th shutter.

 

The Minolta MG-s and QT are both very cheap to purchase, lower in cost than the Edixa or Rollei 16 and are lighter in weight, except, perhaps, for a meterless Edixa.

 

The Edixa has cases for the camera only or camera with fitted meter. Cases can cost as much as a camera with case.

 

Full details on these cameras can be found at www.submin.com/16mm

 

Gerald

I have two Rollei16, one with "snakeskin". The Rollei 16 is certainly more heavy and well made. It has a four element 3 group Zeiss Tessar 25mm/2.8 front element focusing lens, I don't think it can be in any way better

than a similar Tessar type Schneider Xenar lens. The Zeiss Tessar

is certainly more famous. There are many lenses of similar structure

such as Agfa Solinar, Dallmeyer Perfac, Ernemann Ernon, Kodak Ektar,

Leitz Elmar, Rodenstock Ysar, Schneider Xenar, Comparon, Voigtlander Skopar.....for same focal length and aperture, their performance are

very close, although some are more expensive then the other.

Front focusing lens is cheaper to make and has more abberation than

unit focusing lens. My Zeiss Ikon Contaflex super B has a unit focusing Tessar 50/2.8, and my Zeiss Ikon Contessa has a front element focusing Tessar 50/2.8, the Contaflex Tessar performs a lot

better than the one on Contessa. I think the unit focusing Xenar performs better too. Although I haven't a chance to test the Rollei 16, as I cannot find perforated Copex Rapid, the severah hundred feet Copex I have are all unperforated version, there is no way to

use it on the Rollei 16, other wise I will do a side by side comparision, using same film photography same lens test pattern

(Chasseur d'Image Lens test chart ) and check their line per mm

resolution under microscope.

oops!