I need to know about MINOX 35!

[MikeAUS]

I've been looking at flickr for sample images to see which small pocketable P&S catches my eye. An interesting experiment.
My subjective opinion only - I know people love these cameras! My assumption being that on average you have a similar quality for each sample given that these are classics and attract a good sample of photographers. Flawed?
The Stylus Epic - Very Good. Cheap. Should get one.
Minolta TC1 - Very good+. Too Expensive.
Contax T3 - Excellent. Too Expensive.
Contax T - Excellent+. Too Big? Where do I get one?
Ricoh GR1 - Excellent. 28mm? Maybe.
Minox 35. Wow - Excellent ++! Cheaper. I gotta get one. Which one? Help! Don't care if it breaks 🙂
I think the latest model GT-S would be the go. I think that model is best in low light?
Thanks for your input ...

 

[sniki]

Why don't envisage an Olympus XA (35mm)?
Definitely better!

 

[MikeAUS]

Olympus XA

Olympus XA

Why don't envisage an Olympus XA (35mm)?
Definitely better!

Because they are ugly.

 

[BTMarcais]

...in the eye of the beholder

...in the eye of the beholder

Because they are ugly.

Well, not sure I can agree with that...but it's subjective, so I probably couldn't argue it well either.

How about adding the Leica Minilux (non-zoom), and contax T2 to the list?
NIkon 35Ti (or 28Ti)?

I have or have had the (not really ugly) XA, twice, 2 Minox ML's (both died), Konica Hexar AF (not so pocketable, but great), Nikon 35Ti, and end up mostly using my Rollei 35.

Most pocketable have been the XA and the Minox's, most reliable the Rollei 35 (but not exactly a point-and-shoot), best lens the Hexar.

-Brian

 

[mh2000]

optically the Minox is miles ahead of the XA. When the XA was new, its design was really WOW! I still like it.

I don't know why the newest would be better for low light, they all have f2.8 lens. The last GT-E's have built in UV filter and were supposed to have slightly better coating, don't know if it was true... they were nominally managed by Leica.

My GL has the backlight switch, the GT-E and GT-X have an added selftimer which would be nice.

Yes, they break easily, but when they work they are great cameras. Enjoy!

 

[kiteboy]

"Minox 35. Wow - Excellent ++! Cheaper. I gotta get one. Which one?"

I have been a great fan of Minox 35s for almost twenty years.
For what it is worth I would go for the 35 EL- it is the most basic - make sure however that you get the battery holder to avoid having to source the Mercury cell equivalent.
The 35 GL is great also. Although the 35PL is fully automatic I have found it to be less than reliable.

This is a useful website:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Minox+Photography


Hope this helps
Andrew

 

[polaski]

ML gives you the most oppportunity for manual control. I've had mine for 20 years.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Minox image quality is very good. However, the aperture is diamond shaped on these cameras and there is only scale focusing (no RF, no focus confirm, all manual). I have found the light meters _very_ easily fooled and the auto-exposure function on the two I owned consistently underexposed by 2 stops. Functionally, the Olympus is a better camera, in my opinion and has a rangefinder to focus. There is a lot of plastic in both cameras and both will break if handled roughly.

Ben Marks

 

[MikeAUS]

Asa

Asa

I don't know why the newest would be better for low light, they all have f2.8 lens.

The GT-S can take up to 3200 film. The older models stop at 800. This could be an advantage?

 

[sweathog]

Just on the note of the XA.
I always thought the XA series were ugly until I got my hands on an XA2, then I changed my mind very quickly.