sharookh Posted July 6, 2011 Share #1 Posted July 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just came across a picture of the photographer Testino at the Monaco Royal wedding holding a Minox with the collapsable lens, a camera I often admire. I remember, Rollei had the Rollei 35 around at the time the Minox was manufactured as well. I suppose the equivalent Leica peer was the M6 which came closest to the size offered by these two, or was it the minlux. Such beautiful works of art, such wonderful optics. I wonder what the equivalent troika would be today! Of course they would have to be digital! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Hi sharookh, Take a look here Leica, Minox and Rollei........cult cameras!!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted July 6, 2011 Share #2 Posted July 6, 2011 ...Of course they would have to be digital! Really? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 6, 2011 Share #3 Posted July 6, 2011 Bill, how many 35mm film cameras have been introduced in the last couple of years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 6, 2011 Share #4 Posted July 6, 2011 I had a Minox as my 'carry everywhere' camera because it is so small, but of course it's manual focus (guesstimate method) and a flashgun is larger than the camera, so I opted for a Clux instead, which now has so much dust on the sensor its useless to me. I really should buy another Minox (I had some great results with it) or the Rollei perhaps.....In the meantime I've been using a couple of film P&S cameras bought from junk shops for a couple of quid - one is a Fuji with a dual 28 and 50mm lens, the other's a Canon with a 35-70 zoom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 6, 2011 Share #5 Posted July 6, 2011 Bill, how many 35mm film cameras have been introduced in the last couple of years? Check the Lomo website, they're churning them out! They've just released a new wideangle model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted July 6, 2011 Share #6 Posted July 6, 2011 The point being, the cameras mentioned are still around and still capable of stellar results. I carry a Rollei 35 SE myself, and have used Minox in the past. There are no digital compacts to compare, because there are no full-frame digital compacts. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted July 6, 2011 Share #7 Posted July 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) after reading on various forums about the re-discovered "rollei 35" and "minox" i took my minox 35 out of a drawer put a roll of B&W in it and it now is in my folio (which i take 2 and from work) as my carry all (I had to search for a battery - ebay was my only option) still looking for a rollei 35 .... are there any inexpensive scanning solutions?? i am in the tedious process of "organizing/tagging" 11000+ images and found quite a few from my clux1 which are very good considering the P&S nature of the camera..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 13, 2011 Share #8 Posted July 13, 2011 after reading on various forums about the re-discovered "rollei 35" and "minox" i took my minox 35 out of a drawer put a roll of B&W in it and it now is in my folio (which i take 2 and from work) as my carry all (I had to search for a battery - ebay was my only option) still looking for a rollei 35 .... are there any inexpensive scanning solutions?? {snipped}. Yes, it's called an "M9" Seriously, there are inexpensive scanning solutions for 35mm film but none of them are any good (IMO). There are very good scanning solutions for 35mm film but none of them are very cheap. I currently have all the stuff from my M3 and M6 scanned at develop time. They're done on a fancy Fuji imager that adds about $25 per roll of film and gives me small-ish (18mb) TIFF files. Consider an M9 TIFF file is 3 times that size and double the data depth (about) with better DR (due to limitations in scanning) and potentially noiseless and you get the idea. Colour is appallingly difficult--or slow--as well. I have a Nikon 8000 as well. It's 'ok' but slow, and not great for BW or chromes of any kind. OTH, there are exceptionally fine scanning solutions from Imacon and others, and those can be rented (here for about $75 per hour). So that's just not cheap. But you can combine the two for a reasonable workflow: 1) develop negs--minimal cost, and I can do BW myself (but this costs time!) 2) cheap/ proof scan them... either by the lab ($25) or on my own (time!) 3) pay for decent scan of outstanding frames OR 4) pay for optical print of outstanding frames (also not cheap--currently almost $75 per 8 * 10 compared with $2.50 for a digital C print, or triple that (approximately) for a Lambda. It really doesn't take very long at those prices for an M9 a couple of lenses--about 300 rolls of film without much custom or print processing, not counting the price of the Nikon scanner or the computer to run it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted July 14, 2011 Share #9 Posted July 14, 2011 Yes, it's called an "M9" Seriously, there are inexpensive scanning solutions for 35mm film but none of them are any good (IMO). There are very good scanning solutions for 35mm film but none of them are very cheap. I currently have all the stuff from my M3 and M6 scanned at develop time. They're done on a fancy Fuji imager that adds about $25 per roll of film and gives me small-ish (18mb) TIFF files. Consider an M9 TIFF file is 3 times that size and double the data depth (about) with better DR (due to limitations in scanning) and potentially noiseless and you get can be rented (here for 3) pay for decent scan of outstanding frames I guess paying my local lab for a decent scan is my option. Thanx again for the input. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.