Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 25/07/1997, Tore wrote: <<I bought my wife a Minilux a while ago. Thanks partly to the viewfinder she now takes much better pictures than she did previously - included those taken with my Contax point & shoot. The "small image" viewfinder on the Minilux makes the framing of the picture stand out so that the composition of the picture becomes obvious. With the larger viewfinder image on the Contax she was more prone to focusing her sight on the part of the image she was concerned about, forgetting about frames and composition. I prefer the slightly rounded shape of my Contax to the bulkier shape of her Minilux. I think the Minilux gives better pictures though.>> Men ka i svarten si' du, Tore? Kanskje du har rett! I thought about that too, but trying out the Minilux didn't persuade me. You see very little detail in the Minilux' viewfinder, compared to a T2, or a Leica M. Minilux has a 0.36x magnification, T2 has a 0.6x, and most M's has a 0,72x magnification...(M3 is almost 1:1). Isn't that one of the reasons why we like our M's, BTW? The Summarit lens is better wide open, but from f/5.6 there are no difference, as far as I can see. Then the T2 viewfinder has frames, less accurate though, than the M frames, but you find some tricks. In addition the T2 has viewfinder information which is logical and sober. Finally it is probably a matter of habit and taste. I think the T2 is closer to a Leica M, both in operating and in "feel". Bizarre... Oddmund PS: I once made some strong images with an Ilford film-in camera in Marseille, which leads me to say that...!