About a year and half ago I got a Yashica T4 Super and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Lately, it seems that my most satisfying images have been shot with it, I just wish I had more control. So I have been looking into getting one of the nicer P&S cameras & leaving the bigger machines for specific tasks. I've narrowed it to the T3 and the Minilux. The T3 seems to have just about every feature I would want from a P&S and, given my T4's performance, I'm confident that the lens is up to snuff. By comparison, the Minilux seems a bit dated and a little short on useability. But I'm still drawn to the Minilux. Logically, it seems a fairly easy choice, but should logic be the overriding factor in this decision? Would the "Leica Mystique" do any thing for my photography, or am I just being duped by good marketing?

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), August 20, 2001

Answers

P.S. I would also like any advice addressing the rational side of this issue.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), August 20, 2001.

Choose the Contax T3 as I did. Join in!. I have been using the T3 for months now and before that the T2. The choice depends formost on size and quality. As far as I know the Contax is smaller than the Leica and lighter. I carry it often in my pant pocket or on my belt and rarely notice it untill a photo oportunity comes up. Then I know its there. The quality is there as are the control features and speeds. Remember speeds, the 1/1250 does come in handy. I just love this tiny thing. The pictures I have taken with it give me much joy.

-- Artur (aciesi8872@aol.com), August 20, 2001.

Sounds like you've already rationalized it yourself. I sold my Minilux and purchased a T3.

I agree with Artur-- the T3 is infinitely more pocketable and palm- able. And the custom features are a real plus (ability to leave the film leader out is a significant advantage). And:

1) T3 is much quieter especially with film advance. It's also not as loud turning on/off 2) T3 allows you to lock focus for a shot or for the duration of your shooting. Lock at 1.5 meters, set at f/16 with ISO 400/800 film and it's about a quick a street shooter as you'll get. This makes up for the slightly unwieldy manual focus (the only advantage that the Minilux has, IMHO) 3) T3 comes with a nice leather pouch. Minilux pouch is extra I believe. Small point, but I prefer the velcro pouch of the T3 to the zipper pouch of the Minilux. Quicker access. 4) Lenses are probably neck and neck, however to my eyes the T3 is more contrasty, to the extent that I've abandoned consumer color print films that I usually bought in packs for my P&S for lower contrast pro films.

Let logic prevail.

-- JM Woo (wooismyid@yahoo.com), August 20, 2001.

If you are looking for "more control" then I would get a T2 rather than a T3 because the former allows you to use the AF as a sort of rangefinder for manual focusing, which can be a help at close range with the lens wide open. I use a Rollei 35S (guess-focus) and am often thankful for the brassy but accurate Leica clip-on rangefinder I carry along. If you can live without the fast lens speed and want more flexibility, then the TVS-II or III isn't much bigger than the T2/T3 but has a modest-range zoom lens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 20, 2001.

You knew a post about the T3 couldn't go by without my 2 cents barging in. The T3 is just too small and too good to be passed up in the high end P&S market right now. By the way, I use the manual focus on mine often and it works great (it does have this feature)-- just like scale focusing the old Minox 35 I shot with for 18 years. The lens is comparable in quality to the 35mm Leica Summicron -not bad for a camera that cost less than a used Leica lens. I like to set the aperture and let the camera set the shutter speed. It is very sharp wide open and allows for easy existing low light photography. I set mine up so the flash doesn't go off unless I tell it to, and also so it focuses at stage one on the shutter release so there is near zero lag time when I want to take the shot. The camera is very quiet- I sometimes have to check the counter after I took a shot (if there is low ambient noise) because I wasn't sure if it went off or not.There is no corner light fall off at any speed or aperture. Other advantages over the Leica: Close focus 13 inches, Solid Titanium body, (not just a coating), Speeds up to 1/1250 second.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 20, 2001.

I own a Minilux and I love the quality of the photos - they have that special Leica oomph factor. The G3 colour is a little bit colder. I saw a Japanese magazine the other day dedicated to comparing the G3, the Minilux, the Ricoh GR1s and the Fuji Klasse (yup, the ENTIRE 60+ page magazine and not just an article!). There were lots of photos in all sorts of situations including flash. Fuji came marginally tops in my view (more contrasty photos) but isn't readilty available. And the other 3? Not much to choose between them in both resolution and contrast. They were all excellent. All have different lenses: 28mm (Ricoh), 35mm (G3) and 40mm (Leica). I have the Ricoh and the Leica and they are both fantastic cameras. You can't go wrong whichever one you choose. Maybe the focal length of the lens will be your deciding factor?

I have found the Minilux leathercase very handy to use on my belt.

-- David (yeo_d@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

My preference would be for the Minilux if only because it has a 40mm lens which I much prefer as a standard over a 35mm.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

I too went through this process and I have now decided on T3. Shutterbug in the issue brfore this one has an excellent review of the camera. Some of the posts on the LUG have been about getting error messages on the Minilux. As soon as I get my M4 paid for, I will get one. A black model is scheduled to be introduced, if not already on the market

-- C. W. Satterfield (cwsat@istate.net), August 21, 2001.

I bought my wife a Minilux after she turned down a new M6 (because it wouldn't fit in her purse). Despite outstanding performance, I'm not sure I'd buy another expensive P&S camera because none of them are built to the standards of a Leica M and some (like the Minilux) are pretty big and heavy for a P&S. In other words, I can justify the investment in an M6 but not the Minilux or Contax T2/T3 or Nikon 35Ti.

In any case, if the output is going to be prints processed at Walmarts, why put a lot of money in the camera?

One final note, we've never had a problem with the ergonomics of the Minilux.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 21, 2001.

Who said anything about Wal-Mart? For that matter, who said anything about prints?

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), August 21, 2001.

Ron, I wasn't directing my comments toward you personally. Sorry if it appeared that way.

My wife prefers color prints and it's a hassle trying to find a lab that produces consistant results. When they do it right, the Minilux is worth the money. When they don't, she'd be just as well off using her AF-C1.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 21, 2001.

Bud, sorry I didn't pickup on the your discussing your situation (makes perfect sense)

BTW, I placed my order for the Contax today. Guess I'll have to wait till I have 3 grand laying around before I can pickup an M6 and experience the Leica "Mystique".

Thanks for all of the advice, it was just the nudge I needed.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), August 21, 2001.

Ron -- You don't need three grand or an M6 to experience the Leica mystique. M2 & M3 "shooters" often sell for less than $500 or $600. Last month I bought an "Ugly" M3 for $550 that had recently been serviced by Leica and was in top working and viewing condition. The older M lenses--the ones LUG people turn their noses up at because they're not the latest generation--can often be had for a few hundred dollars: 50mm f/2 DR Summicrons, 35mm Elmars and Summarons, 135mm Elmarits, etc. Also, beautiful LTM (Leica Thread Mount) lenses, like the 50mm f/2 Summitar, can be had for little more than the price of the LTM-M adapter required to fit them to an M. I just bought a wonderful 85mm f/2 Canon Serenar for $175; and 90mm f/4 Elmars (the non-collectible ones) often sell for around $100 - $125. Bargains in the 35mm & 135mm lengths are also very easy to find. Remember that the Wealthy Dilettantes and the Glass Case Crowd only want certain rare and/or astronomically expensive pieces, which leaves a lot of great 'user' cameras and lenses for people who actually take pictures. In fact, it may interest you to know that many seasoned photographers regard the late SS (single stroke advance) M3 as the epitome of Leica RF cameras and the older, non-multicoated lenses as superior to the modern multicoated ones. Personally, I’d take my M3 over an M6, and my 50mm Summitar over a 50mm Summicron, any day of the week, cost notwithstanding. I have an MC meter mounted on the M3, which is very accurate and actually faster to read than the M6 TTL meter because I can read it from chest/waist level. Further, it does not take a battery, does not need to be turned on and off, and has an analog scale which is very ergonomic and informative. And if the light is too low for its selenium cell to take a reading, I have to put the camera on a tripod anyway—at which point I’ll take out my Gossen Lunasix F, which is much more accurate than the M6 meter anyway. The cost of the MC meter used is about $60.

The total cost of my 2-lens Leica outfit was about $950—significantly less than the cost of a new 50mm f/2 Summicron--and the pictures I produce with it are exquisite.

The bottom line to this rant is: Don’t be intimidated into thinking that the latest and most expensive is necessarily the best, or that older equipment is unworthy of you. You may find that the very opposite is true.

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 21, 2001.

Well all I can say is that Peter seems to be able to find cheaper Ms than I can - virtually all the ones I see are for over $800 (unless they are so bad they need immediate repair). In fact now the M2 and M3 are very highly valued and approach or can exceed M6 classic prices. The M3 is a great camera, but not good for a glasses wearer in my opinion. I do agree with most of Peter's assessment of older Leica lenses, the old Summarons, and 50 Summicrons and 90mm Elmars are very nice lenses and make wonderful images.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.

I agree that the M3 w/50mm lens is a pain to use with glasses. An 85- 90mm is easier.

My M3 was rated a 7+ by Sean at Camera West, which is where I bought it. He said it was the lowest rating in the store and I'm sure he was glad to be rid of it. Personally, I adore the thing--in fact, I'm going to start looking for more "BGN" and "UG" cameras in the future.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 22, 2001.

Ron, you'll love the Contax T3! I've been eyeing one with great desire. I have the Contax Tix and find that even on 60% of the film area that wonderful Sonnar lens produces photographs which rival my Leica M work. My friend at the local dealership KNOWS I want a black laquer one and is going to call me as soon as he gets one in ... and I'm afraid I'll just go buy it... sigh. :-)

With regard to needing three grand to experience Leica mystique ... I agree with others that it is very possible to get into Leica without spending three grand. Not that *I've* seen many M3 or M2 bodies worth buying for $500 either, but an M4-P or M4-2 body is often findable in good to exc condition for $800-900, a good used 35 to 50 mm lens is findable for $300-500.

The first Leicas I bought, in the mists of time, were a just post WWII IIc and slightly later IIf, one with an uncoated Summar 5.0cm and the other with an Elmar 3.5cm. I bought them both, with the lenses, for $100 in 1968. I used them alongside my Nikon F for the next 10 years and took a lot of pictures with them. Wonderful cameras and lenses...

Your new Contax T3 is the modern equivalent. You might actually find that it suffices for everything you want. :-)

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 22, 2001.

Peter, thanks for the advice. My problem with buying an older Leica is not a need for the latest & greatest (my kit consists of an 18 year old FM2 & a few lenses of similar vintage, a Yashica 124G, a 50 yr old Commercial Ektar mounted on pretty marginal view camera, and the T4 Super). The problem is lack of access to a reputable used dealer. I don't feel comfortable buying bargain/ugly equipment sight unseen (too easy for dealer to weasel out of any warranties/guarantees). And the stuff in good/excellent condition is so close in price to new equipment that you might as well buy the new.

Maybe the next time I'm in Atlanta I'll do some shopping.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), August 22, 2001.

I would like to agree with a previous David and stick up for the minilux. So everyone raves about he Contax. Sure, it has a bigger finder, cool looks, faster shutter speed. And the titanium coating does wear off the minilux. But I believe the Contax is quite a lot more than the minilux. Is it that much better? I've found the minilux produces excelent results, but for "Leica mystique" or character, you really have to go for an M or an old LTM, just for fun. You may be interested in a review in the British magazine, Amateur Photography, earlier this year, which rated minilux v Ricoh GR1 and R1, Minox 35GT, Olympus mju, and Yashica T5. The minilux won, with the best lens, followed closely by the T5 (T4 something I believe in the States). They didn't test the Contax, because no model was available, as the T3 was about to replace the T2. However, a later test rates the T3 extremely high. However, my personal view is that lens charts by themsleves do not tell the whole story. You have to feel empathy with your camera. Another tiny P/S I find produces excellent results is the diminutive mini 3 at a fraction of the price of the titanium masterpieces. I wonder if anyone else has used this model

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), August 24, 2001.

In one of Erwin Put's newsletters he talks about the lens on the Minilux being the last Leica effort using the double Gauss design.

He also talks about how he has his film processed by an old camera store owner in the neighborhood who made the remark that some of the film was from a real Leica and some not. The real Leica turned out to be the Minilux and the film that was not was from the APO 90 Summicron!

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 24, 2001.

Hello everybody,

I'm quite late to join the discussion. When my Minilux was in repair a few months ago, I had the chance to meanwhile work with a T2. I liked the pictures a lot except for one thing: the T2 definitely had a lot more flare than the Minilux. Now I don't know about the T3, but Contax better had it bettered, because we all know how beautiful photos shot against a light source can be (but only with as little flare as possible)!

Simon Bischof

-- Simon Bischof (nomis@swissonline.ch), October 16, 2001.

for those who stumble across this thread while researching a purchase, here's my opinion after a couple of months ownership
Simon, I actually did get some flare on an image I shot. The sun (very bright, cloudless, hazeless day, the sky was absolutely crystalline) was coming in from out of frame at exactly the right angle. I would have expected any unhooded lens to flare in that situation. It actually made the picture worth looking at, nice little bit of magenta located to balance against some cyan on a sign in frame (nothing like a happy accident). I've been planing to buy the filter adapter and some b&w filters, so I guess I'll have to go ahead & buy the hood too.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), October 19, 2001.

I just upgraded my Minilux for a M6 today. When I'm considering the T3 or the GR1v (upgrade of the GR1s), I find my ex-Minilux being "bulky". In fact I was ready to let it go knowing I can get something smaller. I have a mjuII and I want something more. I was very satisfied with the results produced by the Minilux, but it is just not a camera to fulfill my needs of portability. I may second any comment, test, or whatever,that demonstrates the high quality of that product as long as someone can handle the bulkiest aspect of it. I was always amazed to get my pictures back from the lab!

I'm now looking for a replacement for my Minilux and I'm greatly interested in having an experienced share about GR1("v" of preference or "s") vs T3. Feel free to email me directly also. Do I have access to the same freedom(easy to set manually or automaticaly the aperture, distance, etc) using GR1v or T3 than I was having while using my Minilux?

-- Francois Belisle (francois.belisle@bigfoot.com), December 28, 2001.

1. The Leica Mystique will do nothing for your photographs. 2. The Minilux has a 40 mm lens. For a lot of people, that is a significant change from 35mm. It gets rid of the "wide-angley" look. 3. The Minilux is half a stop faster. 4. If you don't get the Minilux, you may have gnawing feelings, as you continue to get "duped by good marketing" every time you see a Leica ad.

You can take my two bit advice for what it is worth ;-)

On the other hand, 5. The T3 is a newer, more up to date P&S with tremendous amount of user control for its type 6. Its pocketable, so you will always carry it around. You will see more pictures from it as a result. 7. The lens is as good as the Minilux, give or take. 8. It is a very quiet camera. This is an unusually nice feature of the camera.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 28, 2001.