Great Wall with Minox EC

<center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6161535-lg.jpg"width=500><P>

Great Wall<P>

Minox EC<p>

Kodak Technical Pan, developed with 1+80 Rodinal Special<P>

October, 2004<P>

</center>

<center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6169535-lg.jpg"width=500 border=5><P>

The Great Wall at Badaling<p>

Minox EC<p>

Kodak Technical Pan, developed with Agfa Rodinal Special developer

diluted 1+80<P>

October 2004<p>

</center>

The Great Wall is on the list of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6281540.stm">New 7 wonders of the world</a>

Gosh, Martin, you really get around.

Bill, that was the third time I visited the Great Wall, the first time

in 1956, again in 1974, and then thirty years after in 2004, probably my last trip to the Great Wall, hence I am glad that I had a EC with me.

Martin, not seeming to be arguementative, but the pictures are actually pretty crappy (technically speaking). Wouldn't your Tessina have been a lot better? I mean, let's face it, even with Tech Pan, landscapes are NOT the best possible use for Minoxs.<P>I guess that I am being argurmentative, but what the hell, it's getting late and I'm feeling irritated about something (I know not what). Also, wouldn't a regular Minox (TLX?) set to infinity been better than the EC?

Bill, you are right, a TLX or B set to infinity is better than EC.

But that was the only Minox camera I had with me. I left all 17 other

Minox cameras including TLX, CLX, LX Platin at home, not knowing whether spy camera was even permitted in China. I did had also

a Contax T3 and Leica R4 with me on the Great Wall.

 

My point is, my Minox went with me around the world, from

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/805747-lg.jpg"><P>

Austria,

<P> Italy, France, <P>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3273920-lg.jpg"><P>

Spain <P>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5057511-md.jpg"><P>Hungary<P> Czeck, Slovakia,

China,<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5681610-md.jpg"width=500><P>

Thailand, <P>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5682691-md.jpg"width=600><P>

Cambodia....

<P>

IMO, Minox B,C,TLX,BL can stand on their own in landscape photography,

I have in fact many 8x10" enlargements from Minox hanging side by side with pictures with Leica R on the wall

of my living room and in my study.<P>

Tessina ? No, I didn't have Tessina yet. And from my experience Tessina is no better than a Minox BL, a bit disappointing.

Martin, my apologies. I was feeling a little grumpy last night. Bill.

Im new to Minox, having just purchased an EC recently. I have taken a couple rolls of film and havent even processed them yet. But I am quite interested in the opinion that a C or B would be better than an EC for landscapes. I have done 35mm, medium format, large format and recently a lot of digital photography. But Im not very up on the Minox format. Thanks for any clarification or explanation.

For sure Minox C, B, IIIs, LX, TLX is better than EC in landscape,

because EC is fixed focus at 6' or 2meter, it depends on depth of field for object at infinity, while the B,C, TLX etc has a focusing lens from 20cm to infinity, hence it is sharper than EC at infinity and also at closeup picture. The advantage of EC is light weight.

Thanks for that rapid response. Is it reasonable to find a B with a working meter? Or do people typically use estimating for exposure? It seems that a handheld meter would sort of defeat the purpose of a small camera.

I'm not sure that the meter on the B Minox is any better than guessing at the exposure (even when new). The EC, C, and LX Minox meters are quite good, however.<P>Note that for anything other than landscapes at infinity, many people consider the EC to produce sharpest results of all Minoxes.