Topic: Tell me about Minox cameras please

[chris667]

I always wanted a tiny, unobtrusive camera. And the best of them when I was aspiring to become a photographer was the Minox.

I never could afford one when they were new, although I see they haven't held their value well. Unlike m42 lenses, which for some inexplicable reason change hands for a fortune!

Does anyone still use a Minox? Or should I look for something else? I want a small, unobtrusive camera with a sharp 35mm lens and no flash. I just want something that I can take when I don't want the weight of an SLR.

[02Pilot]

I'm assuming you mean the Minox 35 range, not the earlier Minox micro cameras (8x11mm frame).

I don't own one, but I've done a fair bit of reading on them assuming that I'll end up with one at some point. The big failure point is the electronics, which apparently can cause the shutter to just go dead. The lens is considered quite good, and the overall package is small and light. The more common earlier models are somewhat limited in terms of available ISO settings.

The obvious alternative is the Olympus XA, which is more common and adds a rangefinder (admittedly of dubious value due the size of the window) and has a less breakage-prone method of covering the lens. If you want more control, the Rollei 35 provides it, albeit in a heavier package and with a 40mm lens.

[ManuelL]

A friend of mine got one of the Minox 35 Models recently. But unfortunately it is unuseable as the light meter is a couple of stopps off and the camera has no manual exposure settings. I guess you have to be lucky to get one with fully functional electronics.

[hookstrapped]

Another alternative, but with a 40mm lens, is the Rollei 35 line

[John Robison]

Most of these very compact 35mm cameras suffer the same limitations. Fully auto exposure with limited to no manual control and when the electronics give up, well it's not even a good paper weight.

My suggestion is go with a mechanical camera such as the Olympus 35RC.
Pros; Compact, full manual control when needed, simple, more likely to be found working or can be put right.
Cons; Little bit bigger and heavier than the plastic bodied Minox or Oly XA
The aforementioned Rollie 35 is all mechanical and has full manual control but a bit quirky handling and scale focus (no RF).
Another sleeper is the Ricoh 500G, not very expensive when you find them and all mechanical with a meter or manual control. About the same size as a 35RC and has RF focusing. Seem to be reliable from all accounts.

[Francois]

I have a minox B, one of those subminiature marvels. The biggest problem with them is just plain finding film and processing it. I personally wouldn't bother using it as hand spooling and reloading the cartridge is just a pain.

There's also the 110 option, there was a tad a few years ago about using them. You can still get film for the cameras from lomo but processing is still a bit hard.

35mm is still the simplest option. And there are quite a few unpopular models that are quite small.
One of them is the Minolta af-c. It's almost as small as the minox and is fully automatic. It's quite nice. No flash.

The stylus epic is also nice, but you have to turn the flash off every time you turn it on.

[Faintandfuzzy]

I love the Rollei 35.  Has a meter...but it is full manual.  Super sharp lenses, and ultra tiny and light.  Of course, you could always get the Diana Mini 110 

[Francois]

AFAIK, it seems that the size of the camera is not too important when it comes time to be discrete (well, maybe not if you plan on becoming a spy or shooting in a private club). It has more to do with the camera being a non-reflective color and your attitude. There's also some magic tricks you can do to make people not feel like you're photographing them. Also, a quiet shutter helps, but it depends on whether you're shooting in a noisy place or not.

[Indofunk]

Out of all the cameras mentioned in this thread, I've only used the XA and Rollei 35, but I highly recommend either. The Rollei, to me, has too many innocent quirks (film advance on the opposite side from usual, need to cock shutter before rewinding [or maybe it's the other way around], collapsible lens kinda confuses me), but it does take great pictures.

Oh, I also ran a roll through Peter's Minolta TC1 and that's also quite cool. There was something weird about the flash I seem to recall, and the autofocus gets a little getting used to. I think it had the quietest shutter out of all of the above.

[Late Developer]

Out of all the cameras mentioned in this thread, I've only used the XA and Rollei 35, but I highly recommend either. The Rollei, to me, has too many innocent quirks (film advance on the opposite side from usual, need to cock shutter before rewinding [or maybe it's the other way around], collapsible lens kinda confuses me), but it does take great pictures.

Oh, I also ran a roll through Peter's Minolta TC1 and that's also quite cool. There was something weird about the flash I seem to recall, and the autofocus gets a little getting used to. I think it had the quietest shutter out of all of the above.

I have an XA and I like it.  However, although the rangefinder is good, I end up being too picky over the focus and I suspect I lose shots as a result.  Having just acquired a Rollei 35T (zone focus 40mm f3.5 Tessar - so 1 stop slower than the f2.8 35S and XA) I've taken instantly to the film wind on the left side as the right side is the shutter release and, on such a small camera, the left side seems logical for the film advance.

The shutter HAS to be cocked before the lens can be collapsed into the body - or it will damage the shutter curtain.  Not sure about the rewind - only shot one film and, as I wind on as a reflex action, I've probably got this right by sheer accident...!!

All-in-all, the 35T seems to suit me very well and the lens is just fantastic. The Sonnar (f2.8 compared to f3.5) is probably also a stellar performer. Rollei has always had a great reputation for the glass it uses (and I speak as someone who has used their TLR 3.5T and 2.8E cameras).  I can't knock Minox as I've never owned one but they do have a reputation of being a bit fragile.

[Indofunk]

The shutter HAS to be cocked before the lens can be collapsed into the body - or it will damage the shutter curtain.  Not sure about the rewind - only shot one film and, as I wind on as a reflex action, I've probably got this right by sheer accident...!!

Ah yes, that's it. And there's definitely SOMEthing about the rewind, because I ripped 2 films in the body before I figured it out (meaning, I never shot a third roll and read about the requirement much later  ).

I have an XA and I like it.  However, although the rangefinder is good, I end up being too picky over the focus and I suspect I lose shots as a result. 

I busted the XA once (well, I've busted it a half dozen times, but THIS one time...) the rangefinder just disappeared. From that point on I scale focused and actually got pretty decent at it, even around 2.8. Then I got it repaired and now I can see the focusing patch again, so I will sometimes be too picky over focus as well. But I'm trying to switch between scale focusing and rangefinder focusing to keep both skills at hand for whatever the situation may demand.

[Late Developer]

The shutter HAS to be cocked before the lens can be collapsed into the body - or it will damage the shutter curtain.  Not sure about the rewind - only shot one film and, as I wind on as a reflex action, I've probably got this right by sheer accident...!!

Ah yes, that's it. And there's definitely SOMEthing about the rewind, because I ripped 2 films in the body before I figured it out (meaning, I never shot a third roll and read about the requirement much later  ).

I have an XA and I like it.  However, although the rangefinder is good, I end up being too picky over the focus and I suspect I lose shots as a result. 

I busted the XA once (well, I've busted it a half dozen times, but THIS one time...) the rangefinder just disappeared. From that point on I scale focused and actually got pretty decent at it, even around 2.8. Then I got it repaired and now I can see the focusing patch again, so I will sometimes be too picky over focus as well. But I'm trying to switch between scale focusing and rangefinder focusing to keep both skills at hand for whatever the situation may demand.

Satish, I think you're spot-on.  My guess is that, in daylight, I'm going to use zone focus a LOT. However, when it comes to shooting the XA at f2.8 in low light, I'll spend the time focusing properly as getting it even slightly wrong will make a much bigger difference.

As far as rewinding the 35T goes, I suspect that it makes sense to leave the shutter cocked and the lens "out" to avoid any possibility that it might get in the way of the film during rewind.  I'll check the manual but it's probably not a bad habit to get into as it means that the camera is ready to go once the film is loaded fully.

[Indofunk]

Satish, I think you're spot-on.  My guess is that, in daylight, I'm going to use zone focus a LOT. However, when it comes to shooting the XA at f2.8 in low light, I'll spend the time focusing properly as getting it even slightly wrong will make a much bigger difference.

The problem (for me, anyways) is that the damn focusing patch is so nearly-invisible that I can only use it in bright daylight (ie, high-contrast scenes). It's pretty much useless to me in low light situations, which is where I slip into zone focusing. So, I guess, the opposite of what you're saying

[Late Developer]

Satish, I think you're spot-on.  My guess is that, in daylight, I'm going to use zone focus a LOT. However, when it comes to shooting the XA at f2.8 in low light, I'll spend the time focusing properly as getting it even slightly wrong will make a much bigger difference.

The problem (for me, anyways) is that the damn focusing patch is so nearly-invisible that I can only use it in bright daylight (ie, high-contrast scenes). It's pretty much useless to me in low light situations, which is where I slip into zone focusing. So, I guess, the opposite of what you're saying

Yep, s'pose you have a point..! The patch on my XA isn't too bad - though I haven't used it in a while.  Having clumsy hands and poor eyesight makes using the XA a bit difficult anyway as I can't always tell what f-stop I'm using (unless it's right at the top or I count the clicks).  I bought an XA when they first launched and fell in love with it.  30+ years later, I guess I'm still feeling the love for it without really considering if it's the right tool for me.  The slightly clunkier 35T seems to be a better option these days as the dials are a bit bigger and easier to read.  I'll have to have a go in low light and crank the ISO up to 800 / 1600 and/or use some CineStill and convert it to B&W.

[Indofunk]

Satish, I think you're spot-on.  My guess is that, in daylight, I'm going to use zone focus a LOT. However, when it comes to shooting the XA at f2.8 in low light, I'll spend the time focusing properly as getting it even slightly wrong will make a much bigger difference.

The problem (for me, anyways) is that the damn focusing patch is so nearly-invisible that I can only use it in bright daylight (ie, high-contrast scenes). It's pretty much useless to me in low light situations, which is where I slip into zone focusing. So, I guess, the opposite of what you're saying

Yep, s'pose you have a point..! The patch on my XA isn't too bad - though I haven't used it in a while.  Having clumsy hands and poor eyesight makes using the XA a bit difficult anyway as I can't always tell what f-stop I'm using (unless it's right at the top or I count the clicks).  I bought an XA when they first launched and fell in love with it.  30+ years later, I guess I'm still feeling the love for it without really considering if it's the right tool for me.  The slightly clunkier 35T seems to be a better option these days as the dials are a bit bigger and easier to read.  I'll have to have a go in low light and crank the ISO up to 800 / 1600 and/or use some CineStill and convert it to B&W.

Waaaiiiiitttt ... the 35T meters up to 1600? This changes everything 

[AJShepherd]

My Rollei B35 jammed a while back, and I'm not sure whether it'd be cheaper to get it fixed or buy another one.

I've not used my Minox GTS (sounds more like a car name) for a while, but I've had good results from it in the past. Scale focus 35mm auto-exposure with selectable ND filter. I've also got the flash for it but I've used that even less often.
It's a nice enough little camera and I've even got some decent low-light shots out of it where the auto-exposure handled it nicely and all I had to do was listen very closely for the very quiet 'click' of the shutter opening and some seconds later closing.
i.e. it was pretty dark when I shot this:-

boscombepiernight by Antony Shepherd, on Flickr

Damn. Really need to use that again in 2017!

[Late Developer]

Satish, I think you're spot-on.  My guess is that, in daylight, I'm going to use zone focus a LOT. However, when it comes to shooting the XA at f2.8 in low light, I'll spend the time focusing properly as getting it even slightly wrong will make a much bigger difference.

The problem (for me, anyways) is that the damn focusing patch is so nearly-invisible that I can only use it in bright daylight (ie, high-contrast scenes). It's pretty much useless to me in low light situations, which is where I slip into zone focusing. So, I guess, the opposite of what you're saying

Yep, s'pose you have a point..! The patch on my XA isn't too bad - though I haven't used it in a while.  Having clumsy hands and poor eyesight makes using the XA a bit difficult anyway as I can't always tell what f-stop I'm using (unless it's right at the top or I count the clicks).  I bought an XA when they first launched and fell in love with it.  30+ years later, I guess I'm still feeling the love for it without really considering if it's the right tool for me.  The slightly clunkier 35T seems to be a better option these days as the dials are a bit bigger and easier to read.  I'll have to have a go in low light and crank the ISO up to 800 / 1600 and/or use some CineStill and convert it to B&W.

Waaaiiiiitttt ... the 35T meters up to 1600? This changes everything 

Yes - the scale on mine goes up to 1600.....just checked to make doubly sure 

[chris667]

Does the Rollei have a rangefinder, or is it just a viewfinder?

It does look nice.

[KevinAllan]

I've had three XA's which have eventually failed, and at least one XA2 which failed; also a Rollei 35 LED which was just too fiddly.

I'm now firmly in the Olympus 35RC camp and have two of them. I don't bother putting batteries in, which are only needed for the meter.

Even if the metering and the rangefinder failed, you'd be no worse off than you would be with the scale-focus Minox's.

[chris667]

I think a rangefinder would be a useful thing to have.

I will start looking at Olympus cameras.

[chris667]

What about the Pen half frame cameras? Specifically, I'm looking at a Pen EES-2.

[Francois]

The Olympus pen is pretty nice. About the same size as the trip.
Optics are nice if you can live with the never ending 72 exposure roll (we all try it thinking it will be fun... And then November comes and you're still on the same roll)

[02Pilot]

The PEN half-frame cameras are all viewfinders, with the exception of the F range, which are SLRs. I had an EES-2, and it's fine if you want auto exposure and you find one with a working selenium cell. Personally, wanting more control, I ended up with a last-of-the-line D3, which has an f/1.7 lens, full manual controls, and an on-demand CdS meter. Remember that on half-frames the effective focal length is longer than the number indicates due to the smaller frame.

[Francois]

to be clear, a 28mm on a half frame camera will give you about the same coverage as a 40mm on a full frame model.

[AJShepherd]

Half-frames are great, I've got an EE-2 (selenium cell, point and shoot) and an Pen-FT (SLR) and as mentioned before the only problem is finishing off a roll, as it can take a heck of a long time to get through 72 exposures!

I keep meaning to try and get more lenses for my FT. I bought a battery adaptor to allow the use of modern batteries in it, but I've never got around to buying other lenses.

The lightmeter on the FT is a bit odd. The needle in the viewfinder gives you a number, and then you set that number on the ring on the lens. It's far from intuitive as you need to look through the viewfinder at the number, then look at the lens to set it, then look back through the viewfinder to take the shot.

[chris667]

The Pen F looks really nice, and a good size too.

Does it have a reasonable viewfinder? Is it easy to focus? One thing that has become apparent now I've started again is my eyesight is not as good as it was last time round. I don't know if I could live with something that had a dark, tiny viewfinder.

[02Pilot]

I haven't used a PEN F so I can't speak to the VF quality. What I can tell you is that the lenses have gotten quite expensive due to people buying them to use on mirrorless digital cameras. This cost helps to explain why I don't have a PEN F.

[chris667]

Oh bollocks. Foiled again. 

[AJShepherd]

I'm 56, and I wear varifocals, but focusing my Pen FT isn't a problem. Sure, it's not an enormous viewfinder but then it's not an enormous frame, but I've seen smaller on full frame 35mm cameras!

[cs1]

I'm now firmly in the Olympus 35RC camp and have two of them. I don't bother putting batteries in, which are only needed for the meter.

I second this. The Olympus 35RC is an excellent little camera. It's light, the rangefinder is quite nice and the 42mm f/2.8 E.Zuiko is excellent. If you want to use the meter (which you don't have to but it makes sense if you're travelling light and you don't want to carry an extra meter) you can use a zinc-air battery (type 675) for hearing aids. It's cheap, commonly available and the meter works accurately with it. Don't use a PX625A battery! It has 1.5V instead of the PX625's 1.36V and this will give you wrong meter values. You only need to wrap a little cardboard around the 675 battery so that it fits properly or you can use a small o-ring or even 3D print a little ring for it (the cardboard method works nicely and is easy). Since you can actually switch off the meter, the zinc-air battery will work for weeks and weeks. I went to the Italian dolomites with just this camera as my analogue camera and it worked nicely in all sorts of situations even on sporty hiking tours where I didn't want a SLR brick around my neck. It should also be commonly available. The only hard thing to find is the original lens hood but you can easily live without it.

Just one thing regarding the Minox 35: the older models (GT and older, I think) need a PX27 battery which isn't available anymore for good reasons (mercury). However, there's an official adaptor that allows using LR43 lithium batteries (and I guess some third party ones). The other alternative is to have the Minox modified with a diode but I doubt that this is worth the investment, it's likely that it's cheaper to simply look for the adaptor. You won't get around solving the battery issue because the Minox depends on a working battery (one of the reasons why I'd still go for the Olympus 35RC - the other reason is the fact that the Olympus 35RC has a nice and accurate rangefinder for focussing, the Minox doesn't have one).

[Mab]

I'm currently shooting my very first roll with a Minox GT. It's a nice little package. I've used a Rollei 35 for many years but I think Minox is somewhat easier to use. On the other hand Rollei is more robust and doesn't need batteries. Regarding Minox batteries a cheap DIY solution is to use four LR44 cells stacked up (SR44 cells would be even better). It gives 6V instead of the original 5.6V but Minox is indeed capable to tolerate the difference. My Minox GT works and meters just fine. A friend of mine has a GL and a GT. He has used 4xLR44 cells for years without a hitch. What you need is a small tube where to insert battery cells so that they won't touch the battery chamber. Make sure your tube is a tiny bit longer than the cells stacked up. I cut a small piece out of an office plastic sheet, wrap it loosely around cells and tape it down. The trick to find out if your Minox's shutter and meter works OK is to cover the lens completely with your hand, then trigger the shutter (it opens with a faint click), remove your hand covering the lens and the shutter should now close with another click.

[cs1]

I'm glad that your Minox GT works with the 6V. I really thought that there was an issue with it at the time I posted my earlier post. I'm sorry for any confusion that I might have caused. The GT-X, GT-E, and GT-S are supposedly adjusted to the 6V current out-of-the-box which lead me to believe that the GT wouldn't like the 6V. Mea culpa, I apologise.

[johnha]

I've not used my Minox GTS (sounds more like a car name) for a while, but I've had good results from it in the past. Scale focus 35mm auto-exposure with selectable ND filter. I've also got the flash for it but I've used that even less often.

IRRC it doesn't have an ND filter - the 2x switch is exposure compensation (+1 stop).

I also have a GTS - it's a great little camera but:
- Film speed setting via DX code (I had assumed the ISO dial on the base was for setting the speed, not just a reminder).
- The scale focussing is handy but I frequently forget to focus before shooting.
- Auto-exposure only - the only option is the '2x' exposure compensation switch.
- The meter is always on (at least when the front is open) - the manual isn't particularly clear on this one.

I've carried mine round in my jeans pocket quite a bit - seems solid enough for me (although I don't like the 'titanium' colour).

Regards,

John.