Minox: the story from Usenet/Long

[dannyg1@IDT.NET]

I picked this set of posts up from a search on the ML. It seems to cover pretty much 
everything and should answer most older Minox 35 questions. 

From: amm@netcom.com (Alex)
Subject: Re: Pocketable 35mm
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:36:28 GMT

I currently own three Minox 35 cameras:  the (original?) Minox 35EL,
the Minox 35GL, and the Minox 35GT.  The differences are all
electronic and minor (GL adds a background compensation switch --
totally unnecessary since you can adjust the ASA film speed dial,
and the GT adds an electronic self timer.)  

The lens is great.  I would shoot lots of Kodachrome 64 and 25 and
project onto a large wall (specially prepared with titanium-dioxide
photographers white paint) using a Leitz projector.  My friends and
I would evaluate all sorts of cameras by shooting wide-open at
night, shooting with the sun hitting the lens elements, etc...
This comparison has done during the early 1980's -- so naturally
we compared the Rollei 35S (friends), 35SE (mine), Olympus XA (mine),
and so on.     

The Minox 35 and XA were great street cameras.  You could take one
out of your pocket and use the camera one-handed.  The fold-down
lid on the Minox 35 seemed to offer better protection than the
clam shell on the XA.  The electronic leaf shutter on both cameras
were essentially inaudible, the Rollei mechanical shutters were
extremely quiet.  Of course, the XA was a rangefinder, but I guess
I was pretty good at "guess-a-matic" focusing that I'd use the
XA or Rollei at f5.6 or f8 and the depth of field would cover my
little mistakes.

All three of my Minox 35 cameras are broken.  Did you wonder WHY 
I had three in the first place?  The first camera (35EL) just
suffered one too many falls onto hard floors or crashes while
on my bicycle.  The 35GL suffered from period electronic failures,
the shutter just wouldn't fire, but the camera would let me
advance the film anyway.  I think the humidity (in my pants 
pocket or bicycle jersey) was, on occaision, too much.  Eventually
the shutter stopped firing at all.  The 35GT picked up were the
35GL left off, and after a similar couple of years of VERY HARD
life, it too went the way electronic death.  I must emphasis
that I consider the Minox 35 cameras to be very durable compact
electronic cameras FOR THEIR TIME, and I was satisfied with 
the service they provided me in the rain, dropped on the ground,
sat on, stepped on, and so on.  Each camera probably had upwards
of 300 rolls of film shot in them.


From: stevec@dow.com
Subject: Re: Pocketable 35mm
Date: 16 Jul 1996 10:36:57 -0700

In article , amm@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <4se0vv$4ok@clark.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article , amm@netcom.com says...
>>>All three of my Minox 35 cameras are broken. The 35GL suffered from 
>>>period electronic failures, the shutter just wouldn't fire, but the 
>>>camera would let the advance the film anyway.
>>
>>I owned one of the earlier Minox 35 GTs, and it also developed the electronic
>>shutter failure that Alex mentions.  I wrote to Minox, and they said that the
>>problem had been fixed in the newer cameras by the addition of a capacitor.  S
o
>>rather than have the older one fixed, I bought a newer Minox 35 GTE.  Great 
>>camera, sharp lens, and so far it had survived many days of use while skiing.
>>I highly recommend it.
>>
>
>Steve, a dealer once gave me a "guestimate" of $100-$125  if I sent in my
>camera to Minox for repair.  How did you decide to buy a new Minox
>rather than have your old one fixed?  And... what do you do with 
>your dead Minox?  (I wish there was some "buy 3, get one free" deal   )
>How much more is a current Minox 35 compared with a Ricoh R1 or the
>Rollei Prego Micron?
>

Alex,

I got about the same estimate to fix my Minox 35 GT, but I couldn't bring myself
to spend $125 to fix a camera that only cost me $120 to start with!  So I gave
it away to someone who didn't mind all the shutter missfires.  A few years later
I purchased a new Minox 35 GTE for about U.S.$280, but the current price is as
high as $350.  My impression is that the electronics are more sophisticated, but
I imagine the lens is the same.  One weak spot is that the camera still has a
needle indicator for speed in the view finder, rather than the more robust LEDs.

From: martin.tai@westonia.com (MARTIN TAI)
Subject: Re: Minox 35
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 96 18:34:00 -0500

Alan Ball wrote:

- -> The Minox lens also has a great depth of field scale, very easy to
- -> find hyperfocal and stick to it in most situations except wide open
- -> at short

   Yes, that is  the best part of Minox, -- its  depth of field scale.

   My Contax T2, though said to be capable of manual focusing, but
it has no depth of field scale at all.


From: yolin@cup.hp.com (Yolin Lih)
Subject: Re: Leica vs. Minox
Date: 14 Aug 1996 18:11:14 GMT

I had a Minox 35ML, thought it was the best all around camera
and gave my highly recommendation, but now its shutter is dead 
, after 6 years moderately heavy use. I heard from several
sources, including a reputable camera shop, that it's
not quite uncommon that Minox's magnetic parts of its shutter
wearout much earlier than anticipated. To fix is very 
expensive (fix is always expensive for today's cameras) and
probably not worthwhile.  

I would not take Minox again because of this, but I'd check
how easy to focus with Leica before I take it. One of the good
thing about Minox is it's easy to focus. --yes, you guess with
Minox and no way to verify, but somehow the Minox's focus depth
is just good enough. I have much more focus failure with my
wife's AF P&S, particularly when shot low light in short distance.

I might consider Leica CL instead of Minilux. It's much easier
to find an excellent used Leica CL than to find a Rollei
35 in the similar condition. With about the same price as a  new
Minilux, you can get a used CL with a 40mm lens, with a standard 
manual focusing capability, plus all the possibility to use 
most popular Leica M lenses. The down side is, it's a little bigger     
than Minox or Minilux. (but still quite smaller than things like
Hexar, and cheaper). The other to remember is, avoid lenses made by
Minolta, which sometimes found on Leica CL. Bodies with "Minolta" mark 
are OK. All Leica CL bodies were OEMed from Minolta.

From: "You can call me Al" 
Subject: Re: Minox GT vs GTE...
Date: 12 Aug 1997 14:14:02 GMT

GERALD HSU  wrote 
>> I need more information about Minox GT.  I personally own a GTE and I
like the pictures taken from that 35/2.8 Color-Minotar lense. Does GT also
come  with the same 35/f2.8 Color-Minotar lense? What are the major
differences between GT and GTE?

There are a few cosmetic differences between the GT-E and GT models (GT-E
body is slightly more gray in color and has dimples to aid your grip on the
camera. But there is also a difference in the lens coating.  The GT-E is
supplied with the multi-coated 35 f/2.8 Minoxar lens whereas the GT was
supplied with the standard MgF coated Color Minotar lens.  The
multi-coating of the Minotar lens should give a slight  increase in
contrast a reduction in flare which may possibly very slightly improve
image quality.  I believe there is also a subtle difference in close focus
ability.  The GT focuses down to 90cm (3 ft) whereas the GT-E focuses down
to 70cm.  Overall they are more alike than different.   

>> Minox in the past had made a series of compact 35mm; such as EL, PL, GT,
ML... etc. Is there any difference, optically, among these models?
feature-wise?<<

The EL was the first model 35mm Minox released (1974 I believe).  It is
overall quite similar to your GT-E, though subsequent models were
improvements on the EL.  The EL has no back light compensation switch and a
max ISO speed rating of 800.  The PL was the first model to include
programmed auto exposure (shutter speed and aperture), the  EL, GL, GT,
etc. are aperture priority AE.  The GT added a 2X back light compensation
button.  The ML is a slightly different body style (somewhat more squared
off on top as opposed to the GT-E style trapezoidal top), is a programmed
auto exposure model (the PL was developed after the EL & GL and was the
first Minox to have programmed auto exposure but this was dropped on
subsequent models of GT, GSE, GT-E until the advent of the ML).  The ML,
MB, and MDC share the same slightly different body style while the EL, GL,
PL, AL, GT, GS-E, GT-E, and GT-X share the same basic body style.  As far
as I know all Minox 35 cameras use the same basic 35 f/2.8 lens though
slight improvements have likely been made over time. 

I hope this helps,
Don

From: cg081@torfree.net (Martin Tai)
Subject: Re: Minox GT vs GTE...
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:52:56 GMT

    Minox  GTE is the current production model.

    Minox  GT came out in 1981 (self timer plus LED )

    Minox EL  -- 1974
    Minox GL -   1979
    Minox PL-    1982
    Minox PE --  1983
   Minox  ML     1985
   Minox  AL      1987
   Minox  GTE  1988--now
   Minox  GSE  1991
   Minox  MDC  1992
   
      Early Minoxes had  shutter problems, better stick with Minox GTE.


martin tai