Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From: Marc Thomas <marc@cs.york.ac.uk> >Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:30:55 +0100 >Subject: [Leica] Leica mini 3 > >How does the Leica mini3 compare to something like the Yashica T5 ? > My answer is somewhat off-topic. Some years ago I offered to my wife a mi= ni 1 and...I use to borrow it when i travel.The results are really good even at full aperture, not as good as my summicron 2/35 at 3.5 of course, but the differences are not too big with standard prints (10 x 15 cm). The french review Chasseur d'images (CI) has tested the minis 1 and 2 : good (center and edge) at 3.5. The best result among the = P&S=20 mini3 : impossible to test the lens because of a problem of film flatness. It seems from CI that the mini3 is not built as seriously as the minis 1 and 2.However it is the same plastic junk made by Panasonic for Leica and others (see the Canon prima mini 2 with a 32mm lens).The optical design i= s different too. Yashica T5 : from CI the tessar is "good at f:3.5, "weak" up to f:8 (center, edge). But the body is built more seriously than the mini3. =20 p.s. :in Leica fotografie n=B05/98, there are b&w pictures made in Cuba w= ith the mini3. Dominique