I want to start minox, and I have some questions!

How expensive are the cameras?

Can I get tri-x for it?

Do I need a special tank to develop the films in?

How expensive is the film per roll?

 

And finally, what is minox better for that a small 35mm can't do?

Which Minox are you talking about, 35mm or subminiature?

They make 35mm minoxes?

 

I was talking about subminiature.

Yes they made a very nice and popular 35mm called the 35GL &PL (both fold up to fit in one's pocket). They also make mini-digital cameras which are replicas (exterior) of some of the popular cameras of eras past, such as the Leica M3. Anyway on to your initial question...your best place to check for Minox gear, in terms of sheet volume, is Ebay, which weekly has lots of models in various condition for sale. Dealers such as KEH also carry Minox cameras. Check either web site (Ebay for completed auctions)for prices. Sometimes you can get cut down tri-x for the Minox, or you can cut your own...lots of places with instructions on the web. Minox made a special tank for developing their subminiature film, and some photofinishers will do it for you as well. The only thing the subminiature Minox cameras are better at than 35 mm cameras is (IMHO) fitting in one's pocket, or for espionage work where small size is important. The subminiature Minox cameras are excellent cameras, but a Tessina uses 35mm film and occupies the same volume. There have also been subminiature twin lens reflex cameras. Different Minox subminiatures have different features...one site which might be helpful to you is:

 

www.pbase.com/cameras/minox

You will find info on a site called the Sub Club if it is still up.

 

http://www.subclub.org/

See

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1561&category=Basics

I have to disagree with Stephen on the only advantages of subminiature Minox cameras being their size. Minox 8x11 is a different format which is neither better nor worse than 35mm. Every medium (including digital) has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses.

 

8x11 Minox photographs have a very distinct feel, different from any 35mm or other camera. Given the right film and processing they can produce 10x8" prints which can hold their own against any format. In use, Minox cameras are also very different from any other camera. Size is one part of it, but there are lots of other, arguably more important, factors.

 

I haven't tried a Tessina (mostly because of their cost and rarity), but my impression is that they're another very unique camera with their own particular strengths and weaknesses.

 

-Anthony

<i>"Given the right film and processing they can produce 10x8" prints which can hold their own against any format."</i>

<p>

"Any format"? That is ridiculous. The 8x11mm format is interesting, and the cameras are fun, but to make a claim like that is wildly incorrect. There is no way that a 8x11mm neg can "hold it's own" against an 4x5in neg when printed at 8x10in. And I would guess that for a majority of people, the same can be said about just about any other format that is significantly larger than 8x11mm. There is no way to hide from the effect of enlarging ratios and the quality you get from having a small ratio.

<p>

The prints from a tiny 8x11mm neg can be a lot better than most people think. But your statement is like saying that a Honda CRV is just as good at offroading as a baja race truck.

Not really. It's more like saying that a Honda CRV is a good as for driving down the street to buy groceries as a baja race truck.

 

There's no doubt that a medium or large format negative offers more potential for enlargement than a 8x11mm negative, and I would be silly to claim otherwise. There's also no doubt that, if using high-speed films the grain would would be noticeable, and possibly obtrusive, even at small enlargements. And there's no doubt that medium and large format photographs look different (though not necessarily "better") than miniature and subminiature photographs at any enlargement.

 

But, given a fine grain film (e.g. APX 25 of Copex) and developer and a certain amount of care, my claim is you that you can produce an 8x10" print from a Minox negative in which the limitations of the format are not noticeable without careful examination. Just as the inferior off-roading capability of a CRV isn't going to be noticeable on your trip to the supermarket (depending on where you live of course).

 

-Anthony

If you had said 3x5 or even 4x6, I might have gone along with it. Even if you had limited your statement to 35mm, I would have given you a little bit of leeway. But making grandiose statements about "any format" is ridiculous. Given a med/large format neg and a Minox neg of the same scene using the same film, I <b>promise</b> you that I can tell the difference. There is just too much enlargement from 8x11mm to 8x10 inches.

<i>It's more like saying that a Honda CRV is a good as for driving down the street to buy groceries as a baja race truck.</i><p>You got your analogy backwards. It's like saying that a Honda CRV is as good for racing as a baja race truck. It's nonsensical.

I would guess that Josh Root (Admin) has no actual hands-on experience shooting, developing, and enlarging APX 25 or TechPan with a Minox. A really sharp, detailed 8x10 is a piece of cake, and certainly can look as good as anything but a contact printed 8x10.

Shooting = yes

 

Enlarging = yes

 

Developing = no

 

I have a Minox B in the cabinet behind me. But I will happily place money on this argument. Let's find a Minox shooter and a 4x5 or 6x7 shooter. They can both shoot the same scene with APX 25 (or techpan) and develop however they like. Let's wager $100 to the charity of the other's choice that I can tell the difference at 8x10.

 

If I'm wrong, I'll be properly amazed and admit it. If not, common sense (and logic) wins.

 

I pick the Salvation Army as my charity.

I'm sorry. I've obviously expressed myself badly, and the argument is detracting from the point I was trying to make.

 

In my original post I was trying to give a counterpoint to an opinion expressed in another post that the only reason for using minox 8x11 format over 35mm is the size of the camera. For me, at least, this is not the case.

 

To give a concrete example, a couple of years ago I was in Cambodia. My main camera for the trip was a Contax 35mm slr with various lenses (including a 50mm f1.4 Planar, which I'd claim is as good as almost any 35mm lens made). I decided to take a minox BL loaded with APX25. Most of the photographs I took were with the Contax, but on a number of occasions I took a photo of the same scene with the Minox, and on some I opted to use the Minox only because I thought I'd prefer the feel it gave the photograph. When I got home and chose photographs to print/show, I found in quite a few cases I opted for the Minox photos over the 35mm photos.

 

That doesn't mean that I claim the Minox is better than, or even equal to a Contax/Zeiss. It doesn't even mean that they're comparable. All it means is that they're different, and in some cases I prefer the results of one over the other.

 

When I said "holds its own" I didn't intend the phrase to mean "is technically equal to", but rather "is of sufficient quality that I would be happy to show it along side without worrying about the quality differences". When I said 8x10" that's because, for me, that's about the limit for which is true. If you're more critical than me, perhaps you'd set the limit at 5x7" or even smaller, which is fine.

 

So, the real point I was trying to make was "up to a certain (useful) size, it is possible to make prints from Minox 8x11 negatives which are of sufficient quality to be shown along side those made using any other format".

 

Also when I said "any other format" I was really thinking of 35mm, half-frame, digital slrs, and perhaps 645. I wasn't considering large format since I don't think of large format cameras as suitable for the kind of photographs I take. I apologize for mis-speaking.

 

I'm happy to agree that other formats are technically superior, and that the differences are clearly visible at even moderate enlargements. What I have difficulty conceding is the more subjective claim - that something else is "better". To me, better, is whatever best captures the effect the photographer was trying to achieve, or, whichever you happen to like more.

 

-Anthony

 

p.s. FWIW: I have some photos up on the walls of my office, including some 8x11" Minox photos. The other day a colleague who used to be interested in photography was in my office, looked at them, and asked "Are these medium format?" :-)

"And finally, what is minox better for that a small 35mm can't do?"<P>

 

My compact 35mm cameras such as Rollei 35S, Contax T2, Minox 35

cannot do the following:<P>

1)Hide camera in palm, operate in one hand for candestine photography.<P>

2)Take closeup pictures of a flower ( or other postcard size object) at 8 inch distance (20cm) with out add on closeup lens<P>

3)None of my compact 35mm cameras can mount telephoto lens equivalent

to 400mm, I can mount my Minox IIIs on a Zeiss Ikon 8x30B monocular for telephoto picture equivalent to 400mm. I cannot do this with my Rollei 35s, I need to use R5 with Telyt 400mm<P>

4) Take micro object pictures thru a microscope.<P>

5) Take picture at shutter speed of 1/2000, Rollei 35, Minox 35, max 1/500<P>

6) Take picture without parallax error( I don't know any compact 35mm camera a has parallax compensation viewfinder.<P>

7)Take hand held picture with slow film (EI 25 ) with great depth

of field and high shutter speed to freeze motion.<P>

 

Photographer A, with Minox IIIs<P>

Photogaperh B, with Rollei 35s<P>

 

Competition conditions:<P>

1) Street scene with pedestrians, cars <P>

2)same Technical Pan film at EI25 <P>

3)handheld<P>

4) same depth of field <P>

5) Sunny bright<P>

 

Photog A took picture handheld at f/3.5, shutter speed of 1/500, easily get great depth of field and freeze movement.<P>

Photog B, to achieve the SAME DEPTH OF FIELD, must set his Rollei 35 to f/11, shutter speed of 1/50, that is too slow to freeze pedestrain, car movement or even handshake, and picture looks blurry. If he use 1/500 shutter speed, he must use f/3.5, then his picture has shallow depth of field, and thus looks unsharp.<P>I cannot imagine a photographer can handholding a Rolleiflex TLR loaded with EI 25 film standing at street corner take street scene picture with pedestrians, cars. A 6x6 camera to achieve same depth of field as Minox, the aperture ought to be f/26, with EI 25 film, the shutter would be about 1/8 (vs 1/500 of Minox )<P>

 

The strength of Minox is also its weekness, for example

 

1)With Minox it is not possible to take picture with shallow depth of field<P>

 

2)With Minox, high speed film over 400 looks too grainy<P>

 

In the above competition, if the scene is still life, and allow

tripod, then the advantage of Minox disappears, 35mm camera wins<P>

 

In summary, each format has its pecular strength and weakness<P>

Josh, if, instead of $100 to charity, you'd care to make it $1000 to the winner, you're on! Subject to be a "typical" urban landscape with buildings, people, and trees/bushes.<P>I'll provide a Minox with APX25 film, you can provide a MF or 4x5 camera with whatever film you prefer, or we can use my 4x5 Crown Graphic with coated f:4.7/135mm Schneider Xenar lens. The 4x5 lens will be used stopped down to approximate the same DOF as the Minox.<P>I'll do my developing and printing, and mail you the 4x5 film to develop and print yourself.<P>Final image sizes to be identical, 6.5"x9" on 8x10 air dried fiber base glossy paper, such as Ilford Multicontrast, developed in Dektol or Ansco 130.<P>Prints are to be judged by some agreed-on independent person. Prints are to be inspected directly visually without optical enhancement (eye glasses, loupes, etc).<P>Have I left anything out?<P>;-)

I just realized that I did leave a couple of things out.<P>1) In order to make the pictures simultaneously with the same field of view, the 4x5 would have to have a 164mm lens to match the 15mm Minox lens. (15/11)x(120)=164mm. A f:4.5/162mm Graflex Rapter should be close enough (I can supply it).<P>2) For the same 12' hyperfokal distance, the 4x5 lens should be closed down to f:52.

I think this is a splendid idea and I volunteer to be the judge, or one of the judges. A series of judges would make great sense. Each of us could mail the prints on to the next judge after we have examined them and rendered our judgment. I live in St. Paul and I will be happy to pay the postage to mail them on to the next judge.

Martin's summary of advantages is excellent and makes the point very well.

 

One advantage I'd add to the list is ease of use - in particular I've found setting the exposure and focus of a Minox is much quicker than any manual 35mm camera I've used. Of course automatic exposure is easier but at the expense of control. Auto focus, in most small cameras adds a time lag before the exposure that I find detracts from the experience.

 

Another difference (whether an advantage or disadvantage) is that lens on a minox is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, while most small 35mm's have lenses in the 35-40mm range.

 

When thinking about Josh's challenge, I wondered why he was insisting on using the same film. It seemed to me to be throwing away one of the advantages of larger formats - that you can use faster films without the grain becoming noticeable. Honestly I can't imagine choosing to use 25ASA film for hand-held photographs in a larger format camera, for many of the reasons already described.

 

I also wonder whether there would be any benefit to using such fine grained films in a medium format camera, given that the lens resolution is usually in the 50-70 lpmm range? I don't know how large format lenses compare.

 

 

-Anthony

<i>"Josh, if, instead of $100 to charity, you'd care to make it $1000 to the winner, you're on!"</i>

<p>

Bill, a smart man never wagers more than he can afford to lose, no matter how sure he is of the outcome. $100 to a charity is one thing, $1000 to your pocket is not something I can afford nor have any interest in.

<p>

So your poker strategy of driving up the pot has succeeded. I back out and cheerfully admit that Minox images are indistinguishable from any larger format when printed at 8x10.

<p>

<small>And by 8x10 I guess I mean 6.5x9 and not looking through a loupe and not if Josh is doing the looking and only at one aperture and on fiber paper and through blurry vision if one needs glasses.</small>

<p>

And now, I have more important and exciting things to do. Like answering 200 emails about why people can't upload images over 3mb and why their images got rated 3/3. Back to your regularly scheduled Minox discussion.

Marco, to respond to your original post, I would not consider getting "into" Minox subminiature photography at this time. Minox supplies are too uncertain at this time to even consider it.

@Bill,<br />

The more people are starting to use a Minox the more demand for film etc. If everybody stops then Minox will die.<br />

@Marco,<br />

Visit www.fotoimpex.de and order 5 cassettes of Ilford Delta 100 and a bottle of Spur HRX II developer. You can also order a set containing four delta cassettes and a bottle of Spur HRX II at 8x11film.com.<br />

It will cost some bucks but you have got five cassettes you can reload with 25 feet minox-size Ilford Delta 100 film roll ordered at goathill for $12.-. A cassette will last at least 5 reloads.<br />

5 film cassettes = $65.50<br />

50 feet film for 20 reloads = $24.00<br />

So you pay aprox. $90.00 for 25 x 36 exp. That is $3.60 per cassette.

The pre WW2 designed Minox is long outdated, despite the auto-exposure added 30 years ago. It survived because for years it had little or no competition, but now there are tiny digital cameras to replace it, and give better pictures as well. Sic Gloria Minox.

What I would most like to see made available again is the Minox negative sleeves and envelopes. I don't understand at all why these are not made any more. Used ones on ebay go for anywhere from $3 to $15 a piece, which is ridiculous. They should be 50 cents, or less.

Bill, I'm skeptical about your last statement. Can you suggest a digital camera of close to Minox size which takes better pictures?

 

I bought my wife a Canon SD900 a while ago, which at the time was the top of their ELPH range. It's very good and has a lot of amazing technology and features. For colour I'd say the quality is better than Minox using any currently available films. But not for b&w.

 

On top of which there's a pause when it turns on, and another to focus when you press the shutter release, and the controls are so cramped and complicated that by the time I've got it set to the right mode, accidently touched one with my thumb, and then figured out how to get it back to where I wanted it, whatever it was I was trying to photograph will have long gone. (My wife loves it though). Plus which it's a lot bigger than even a Minox C.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that larger digital cameras and consumer digital slrs are now capable of better results than 35mm, and the current pro digital slrs can rival medium format. But I think there's still a place the humble Minox.

 

-Anthony