There are reams of information available on the Minox subminis, so I won't bother to duplicate it here. What I want to address are the user aspects of these cameras.
Firstly, I own a Minox B. This is the earliest one with a built in meter (selenium cell). The selenium cell can wear out after a while, but mine seems to agree with my Minolta Spot Meter in most situations. I guess I got lucky. The B with the selenium cell is probably the cheapest Minox on the market. The earlier, smaller models are fairly sought after. The newer models are generally more expensive, except the C which is quite a bit bigger than other Minox cameras. You can still get a Minox brand new, but it is very expensive ($1000+).
The nice thing about the Minox is that it is the smallest useful camera I have run across. The negatives are small (8x10mm) but the Camplan lens is perhaps the sharpest put into any mass produced camera. Assuming that one loads the Minox with fine grained film, this should not be a major problem even up to 8x10 inches. I often shoot 400 speed film and just cope with the grain, though, as the f/3.5 lens can sometimes be limiting indoors or in low light conditions.
One wish of mine is that I could buy a digital camera that is every bit as small as the Minox, and has real manual controls. It wouldn't need a screen or anything - perhaps an Epson R-D1 style count down needle that lets you know how much space you have left on the memory card. The smallest useful digital P&S cameras (useful = produces raw files = Leica D-LUX 3, Ricoh GX300 / GR-D) have a total volume of about 150,000 square millimeters. The Minox B (not the smallest Minox!) has a volume of about 40,000 square millimeters, or just about 1/4th the size of the tiniest useful digital cameras made today. And none of the tiny digicams that have RAW ability have manual controls that are very friendly.
I was briefly thinking about buying the GR-D, but decided that I would wait a bit instead. The GX-300 looks better so I am glad I did. I will probably wait a few months to buy it as the price will come down a bit. But for now I am happy with the Minox. As they are really quite inexpensive I would recommend a Minox to anybody looking for the ultimate pocket camera, if you are comfortable using manual controls.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The Sigma 20 f/1.8
The Sigma 20 f/1.8 is a highly controversial lens. Many people hate it, but most folks who have actually used it love it and would not part with it. This is for a couple of reasons.
The big reason is that there's no other game in town. In a world where fast prime lenses are quickly disappearing, this unexpected lens is about your only option aside from the expensive and out of production Olympus 21 f/2. Most people think that f/2.8 is 'ultra-fast' in the wide angle arena. They are wrong!
Another reason that people may not be willing to part with it is how nice it is to manually focus. The AF clutch system is kind of weird, and you are required to throw two switches to change from AF to MF and vice versa. But once you switch to MF mode, you are taken back to a time when lenses were smooth and well damped, and you could make minutely small adjustments effortlessly.
Despite these advantages it is not a lens for everybody. First, it is a large lens. Long and heavy. Second, it is a Sigma. Many people have the Sigma Stigma. I will admit to having it too. I owned a Sigma that broke in the field after just three weeks. One of the internal lens elements came untaped. Yes, you read correctly. The damned thing's lens elements were held in place by double sided sticky tape. I returned it promptly, bought a Canon, and never looked back.
Sigma had quite an awful reputation in the late 1980s and through the 1990s as building bargain basement junk. This may still be true for their budget lenses, but I would not hesitate to recommend this lens to anybody looking for something wide and fast.
As with the vast majority of lenses out there, it is better stopped down than it is wide open. Wide open, it has really good sharpness in the center and is a bit less stunning towards the edges. As you stop it down, it rapidly improves, even beating my Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, which is a better lens than both the 17-40 L and 16-35 L. This is quite a feat. By f/2.4 it is great in the center and has fair edges, and by f/4 it has even sharpness across the frame. It does flare a bit though. Notice the flare in the photograph above (a very tricky situation for that particular lens - bright lights right in front of the lens).
If it was swiped I would buy another in a second. It is invaluable in low light situations where the flash is not allowed or would kill the mood.
The big reason is that there's no other game in town. In a world where fast prime lenses are quickly disappearing, this unexpected lens is about your only option aside from the expensive and out of production Olympus 21 f/2. Most people think that f/2.8 is 'ultra-fast' in the wide angle arena. They are wrong!
Another reason that people may not be willing to part with it is how nice it is to manually focus. The AF clutch system is kind of weird, and you are required to throw two switches to change from AF to MF and vice versa. But once you switch to MF mode, you are taken back to a time when lenses were smooth and well damped, and you could make minutely small adjustments effortlessly.
Despite these advantages it is not a lens for everybody. First, it is a large lens. Long and heavy. Second, it is a Sigma. Many people have the Sigma Stigma. I will admit to having it too. I owned a Sigma that broke in the field after just three weeks. One of the internal lens elements came untaped. Yes, you read correctly. The damned thing's lens elements were held in place by double sided sticky tape. I returned it promptly, bought a Canon, and never looked back.
Sigma had quite an awful reputation in the late 1980s and through the 1990s as building bargain basement junk. This may still be true for their budget lenses, but I would not hesitate to recommend this lens to anybody looking for something wide and fast.
As with the vast majority of lenses out there, it is better stopped down than it is wide open. Wide open, it has really good sharpness in the center and is a bit less stunning towards the edges. As you stop it down, it rapidly improves, even beating my Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, which is a better lens than both the 17-40 L and 16-35 L. This is quite a feat. By f/2.4 it is great in the center and has fair edges, and by f/4 it has even sharpness across the frame. It does flare a bit though. Notice the flare in the photograph above (a very tricky situation for that particular lens - bright lights right in front of the lens).
If it was swiped I would buy another in a second. It is invaluable in low light situations where the flash is not allowed or would kill the mood.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)