Minox vs Mini Digital cams

-- This is not really a digital vs film question! --

 

I have another opportunity to purchase a new Minox at a very decent

price. The same things that have prevented me in the past are still

here (film processing, film choices, quality etc). I think that I

would use a tiny camera quite often. To that end I have considered a

mini digital camera for as long as I have been thinking about a Minox.

 

Does the film based Minox have any clear advantage over a c.1mg-2mg

mini-digi? Vice versa?

 

On a related note: Can Minox 8x11 survive?

 

Thanks

 

R Fred

Minox lens can resolve 150 line pair( one black and one white line) on Kodak Technical Pan, that is 300 pixel per mm. 300 x 8 x 300 x 11 = 7.9 mega pixel.<p>

 

Small digital camera is in the range of 2- 4 meg, not yet approaching

Minox 8x11 camera resolving power.<p> There is no 4-5 meg digital camera as small as Minox IIIs yet.<p>

Another consideration is economy<p>

On a trip I usually carry 30 rolls of 36 exposure B&W 8x11 film.

I slit the film from bulk, cost me about 50 cents canadian per roll

for a total of only C$15 in film cost for more than one thousand frames.<p> Assuming you want the same capacity with a 5 meg digital camera, how many memory cards you need , and what cost ? In addition to the memory cards, you probably need 6 to 10 extra batteries.<p>

One battery for my digital Minox M3 2.1 MP cost me C$15, gives me

only 150 pictures.<p>

Minox has already digital cameras:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.minox.de/minox2002/pages/templates_standard/eine_seite.phtml?&send_xx_mi=S%23produkte%23digitalkameras%24nav_produkte"> Minox digital cameas

</a><P>

Minox is currently designing a high quality digital camera about

the size of Minox TLX<p>

Don't hold your breath for a digital camera from Minox to resemble the LX or A. The nearest to that approach is the 2Mp Sony U30 and it is only Sony, Casio or Aiptek that may ever make such a device.

 

With the ECX at 65GBP, the EC Excluive at 135GBP, TLX at 415GBP and the Classics at 95GBP it is a good time to own a new 8x11 camera. There are also more film choice for 8x11 than in previous years and this continues to expand. You can always slit your own film, from 35mm films. However factory loaded, quality controlled, film at a reasonable price, should always be part of anyone's stock.

 

A number of sellers have stocks of CD70, CD112 and othes and these are going for a fraction of their former retail price. (1GBP=1.65USD=1.4EUR)

 

Film still has one great advantage - you only need an optical device to view the image. With digital you have to back up and perhaps convert from one system to another. As most storage formats become un-readable because the hardware changes and no longer supports it, it is very likely that a collection of photo CDs will be un-readable in a few years. I have CD-ROMS from 1988 that are not readable with a modern PC as well as quarter inch tape and 8" floppies for which I no longer have the hardware or O/S that could read the data.

 

With 8x11, high resolution film and a digital film scanner of 4000dpi or better, you can scan all existing negatives and use for 8x11 and 35mm in the future.

 

Minox do have a range of digital cameras. The 'fun' to use and ultra expensive DD1 and Leica M3 digital (1.3 and 2.1MP/3.0Mp) and a growning range of cameras the size of a normal compact 35mm.

 

There is a lot of competition in digital equipment and few offer the photographer feaures of high quality lens and useful images in a full range of available light. Instead only those with the most extreme high resolution have these features. For 6x4"/5x7" sharp images it might be better to look for the outdate models of previous years as the most recent camera with the same pixel resolution are cheaper for a reason; electronics is cheap and gets cheaper, but good optics is totally different.

Gerald.

 

Nothing against you, but I am amazed that people still present the argument of longevity of CD's and the need for a computer as compelling reasons to stick with film. The truth of the matter is that at least 99% of people never even look at their negatives, let alone can even find them after the first print (many actually through them away). Anyone that cares enough to store their negatives can (with the same level of care) back up their data, and periodically update to new storage every couple of years. But for most consumers this is a non-issue.

 

The argument of needing a computer for digital is also completely useless for the average consumer. I can take my digital camera into my local camera store and have them print out directly form the memory card on the same printer to the same Fuji crystal archive paper they would use with film.

 

Film only makes sense to me for two applications:

 

Lots of enlargement (in which case you need a bigger negative) and traditional B&W processing. Now I admit that a 35mm provia slide is still superior to a 6mp DSLR, but not by as much as people let on. There is a reason that most professional, and armature, 35mm film users are moving to digital.

Martin.

 

Any details on the TLX digital?

Yeah, I just bought a Minox B and it's engineering is superlative. Will the new tiny

Minox digital be some plastic POS or will it be solit enough to go 50 years without

lookin a day old?

 

People ask me all the time if my Minox is a Digital Camera.

Minox camera has longevity. My Minox IIIs was 1954 vintage, still works perfectly. That is almost have a century camera<p>

I doublt any digital camera has any use after fifteen years, computer change, software change will make them useless

Martin and Co.,

 

Do you think that "modern" Minox's will have the same longevity? (The TLX, LX et al)

 

R Fred

I don't think electronic shutter Minox can outlast mechanical Minox

, however, judging from the large number ofelectronic shutter Minox C(made in 1969-78) still working today, they will certainly outlast today's digital cameras

Martin.

I agree with you that there's no way for a digital camera to last more than 15 years but who cares. The fact of the matter is that within 5 years you will be able to get a digital camera about the size of a Minox that will simply blow the minox out of the water as far as image quality goes. Now don't go thinking I view the world this way because I have a thing for digital since I still shoot 90% of my non P&S photos with slide or B&W. It's just that I see the writting on the wall. The current key to a successful digital camera is to make a camera that will be reliable, error free for about 5 years based on it's intended usage, but no better. That's why the only high quality digitals are professional press type SLR's.

 

Here is my question to everyone. Would you want to buy a 5mp minox digital camera (current practical limit) that will last for 50 years (and pay out the nose for it), when it will become totally obsolete by an 11-14mp camera the same size with 2-4x the battery life in no more than 3-5 years?

 

The best we would hope for is for minox to make a high quality case standard with completly updatable internals (lens and all) for the fetish type.

I disagree that all current digital cameras will be useless in 15 years. As long as we

don't have a huge EMP burst or something to that effect, most electronic gadgets will

be fine. My Apple II still works perfectly, and it's 25 years old! There's already free

software to do the trick with a large number of digital cameras. USB and Firewire are

likely to be around as a 'legacy' port into the foreseeable future (look at how many

computers still come with serial and parallel ports!) so I don't know why one would

assume that digital cameras will all be nonfunctional heaps by then. Or is there an

implication that we'll all somehow have cufflink-sized 5.4 Gigapixel cufflink-sized

digicams with a 3-28000 mm f/.65 lenses, which only cost $5 at Wal-mart?

Jamie and Andrew, apparently you guys are still using the big Motorola cellular phone !!

"I agree with you that there's no way for a digital camera to last more than 15 years but who cares"<p>

That is the point. A 15 year digital camera is worthless junk, a 50 year Minox keeps its value.

"within 5 years you will be able to get a digital camera about the size of a Minox that will simply blow the minox out of the water as far as image quality goes"<p>

 

Wrong ! The key to picture quality in small camera is the lens. No one else has yet make a lens as small and as sharp as Minox lens. <p>

 

The atrraction of Minox is precisely in its extremely sharp lens in a

small camera<p>

 

A good parallel to the question of "Minox vs Mini digital" is

Rolex vs digital watch, when digital watch first came out,

peole asked " Will Rolex survive " ? <p>

No doubt, Seiko quartz watch is more accurate then Rolex<p>

Yet people willing to pay thousands for Rolex<p>

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

Just recently, a 1956 vintage black Minox A was auctioned for four thousand EUR in Vienna. <p>

Minox is the Rolex of camera, that simple

martin.

 

Are you even reading my comments. I never mentioned lens.. and since we are supposedly talking about digital MINOX then all the lenes would essentailly be the same.

 

And what's with the big motorolla cellular phone comment. and for that matter, what's with Andrew's comment. I never said digital would break down.. just that no one would want it. My point is that digital changes so much that you will want to keep getting the new stuff... and if you are constantly upgrading why would anyone pay for something to last for 50 years when it will only be usefull for 5.

 

Also Martin, we are talking about using digital cameras here... not camera value for a collector. When that Minox B sized digital camera with 11mp comes out I wouldn't want to use a 8x11 no matter what it's value.

 

Please read before you comment.

Digital media still has a long way to go before it can catch up with

the resolving power of film.<p>

In the above discusion, I use a figure of on film resolution of 150 lpmm for Minox, that was based on using Kodak Technical film, which

has a resolution of 320 lpmm<p>320 lpmm = 640 pixel/mm.<p>

A frame size of 8x11mm require a sensor of 640x8x640x8 = 36megapixel

In otherwords, until a sensor of 8x11mm size has 36 MP, it cannot match the resolving power of Minox using Kodak Technical Pan film<p>

And there are various film which has a resolving power of 600 lpmm

to 800 lpmm(Fuji Super HR)<p> For a digital to match Minox with

Fuji Super HR you need a sensor of 1600 x 1600 x 8 x 11 = 230 MP.

Clearly it is a long way off.

I've been wrestling with the digital question and I know all the technical arguments. My Minox B has been with me for 33 years now and I'm coming to the conclusion that the real pleasure is in owning and handling a masterpiece of engineering.

Martin, I don't use call phones. I think they're tacky and irritating. I have one in the

car because I often go so far into the backcountry that I don't see other folks.

 

On another note, finer prints can be made with (pro-level) digital cameras than with

most films nowadays. Absolute resolution may be a hair lower, but final print quality

is much better because of lack of grain.

Related thread http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006e1u

The sharpness of Minox lens blows away any digital camera <p>

 

In the following 3.5x 5" enlargement from Minox negative, there is a street sign (circled)<p>

 

<img src="http://www.accessv.com/~martntai/public_html/manual/STLAWREN.JPG"><p>

 

Enlarge this part 200 x, you can see the words 'ONE' clearly:<p>

 

<center>

 

<img src="http://www.accessv.com/~martntai/public_html/manual/one.jpg"><p>

This is the size of a dot '.' on the original frame:

<img src="http://www.accessv.com/~martntai/public_html/manual/stlawr.jpg"><P>

 

</center>

 

<p> Show me a digital camera that has similar performance, any digital camera,

show me a digital picture and a 200x enlargment

Don't get me wrong, the Minox is great. It's a camera that's so small and well-built

that I never have an excuse to be without a camera. The lens is perhaps one of the

finest normal lenses ever put in a camera.

 

I don't often shoot surveillance photos, though, so absolute extinction is less

important than smooth tonal gradients. The ultimate destination for my best digital

images is photo paper. I would challenge you to find a scene, photograph it, and then

enlarge to 16x20. If you try the same thing with a modern, high quality digital

camera, you'll get a much MUCH better print. Unless chunky grain is your thing in

fine prints (I doubt it) you'd be hard pressed to beat the digital at even 5x7. Especially

in low lighting conditions (ever shot 3200p or even TMAX 400 pushed to 650 or 800

in the Minox? UGH!!!).

16x 20 is less then 50x, no big deal.

<p> I have already show you what is

capbable of 200x, that is 68" x 94"<p>

 

Andrew, don't be shy,

show me a small portion of your digial picture from 68" x 94" print !

Martin, maybe you need to read my post again. Minox prints, especially above 5x7,

are grainy. Really, really grainy. They can show more detail (thus my use of the word

extinction) but at the same time any smooth tonality is lost. I'm aware that my 10D

only has 3000x2000 possible 'spots' of information, and the minox has far more.

That's not my point. My point is that a large, fine print is much more within reason

from a fine digital camera than from a minox, simply because of the smoother tonal

gradations.

 

Also, I have been experimenting with creating stitched virtual higher-resolution

photos recently with my 10D. With this technique, which wouldn't be impossible, but

certainly tedious, difficult, and expensive with the Minox, people have been making

terapixel images. Can the Minox produce an image to rival a terapixel image?

Admittedly, my largest stitched image was 5x5 photos, or 25 x 6.4 MP = 160

megapixel images. It only takes a few more minutes than the usual 1 shot landscapes

or studies that I do.

 

See http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html for some stunning revelations

about what stitched pans are capable of.