Minolta versus Minox

There is a debate that continues regarding the merits Minolta subminiature cameras versus Minox subminiature cameras, or vice versa, a debate that can only end realistically with your own personal experience. Both of these cameras are superb miniature picture taking instruments, whose most unique attribute is their relatively tiny size: alone among larger film format cameras, these cameras will ensure that you never miss a moment as they are always close at hand when you need them, in your pocket or purse. Trying to determine which is the "better" of the two is rather like trying to compare apples and oranges: it can't be done well because each of these cameras was designed and produced in totally different ways, even though they are meant to serve the same purpose. When I got bitten by the Minolta bug a month ago I went out on the Web to find out more about these cameras, and was surprised to find just two really comprehensive sites relating to them, Gerald McMullon's excellent Submini.com and the delightful Minolta Mania site (both listed in the Resources section); the seeming lack of in depth information elsewhere on the Web and these two sites played a large part in my decision to try to put together a Minolta site of my own. I found it ironic that all three of us who created these sites collect and use not just Minolta cameras, but Minox cameras as well; this indicates to me that many of the same things that attract us to the Minox cameras are just as compelling an attraction with the Minolta ones. But as people will inevitably continue to make such comparisons, lets look for a moment at the two camera types.

Cost: Cost will clearly be a factour to anyone entering the submini camera world, and the Minolta cameras have a distinct advantage here in comparison to the Minox cameras: they cost a fraction of what a comparable Minox does. The Minolta cameras are no longer made, while Minox continues to produce the ECX and LX series cameras to this day. But consider that Minolta cameras were designed from the beginning to have a simpler construction well suited to mass production techniques; Minox cameras from the first were virtually hand made (with internal parts so tiny that Minox actually ended up designing and manufacturing their own tools just to be able to work on them!). What you purchase with a Minox is the level of precision and care that comes from a largely hand made camera with a mechanical works as complex and tiny as a fine Swiss watch. With a Minolta, you purchase the best of mass production techniques, with the advantages of lowered prices levels that come with it. The Minoltas are by no means a "cheap" camera (in terms of quality), being as rugged, reliable and smooth in action as any mass produced camera I've ever owned. A mint condition Model 16 II can be had on ebay for under $50.00, while an MG-S in similar condition can be had for just over that amount (I was lucky enough to get one of each camera at less than that price with a little judicious scouting about). A mint Minox IIIS will cost you over twice that amount.

Size: As can be seen by the photograph above, both of these cameras are positively tiny in comparison with the AA battery displayed for scale. Obviously, the Minox cameras come out ahead here if size is the only consideration, but the Minoltas are certainly not big by any means. In fact, the Minolta cameras appear to be almost twice as wide as the Minox ones, and about the same length. The Minoltas are significantly smaller than the smallest of the 110 cameras.

Feature set: This is the most complex aspect of the discussion, and where the analogy of "apples vs. oranges" is most clearly seen. One of the first comparisons invariably made is between the lenses of the two cameras. Although both the Minolta and the Minox lenses have each been rated as among the top ten subminiature camera lenses ever made, many people will claim that the Minox lens is superior in terms of overall sharpness. I am neither a Physicist nor a Mathematician, so I can not scientifically examine that claim, but it does appear that conversely, the larger size of the Minolta negative seems to effectively counter the Minox advantage, so in the end, photographs made with the two cameras on identical film seem to be indistinguishable. At least, this is what real world results seem to be to my unaided eye; the decision, of course, should be yours.

The range of shutter speeds available on the Minoltas seems to be limited (1/30^th of a second to 1/500^th of a second on the 16 II and MG-S, 1/30^th or 1/250^th of a second on the QT) in comparison to the 1/2 to 1/1000^th of a second on most Minox cameras (bear in mind that the more modern C and LX went from 1/30^th to 1/1000^th on the C, and up to 1/2000^th on the LX, with an Automatic setting for timed exposures down to a full 10 and 20 seconds respectively, very similar to the Minoltas in terms of what the user could actually select). However, this seems to be matched in the Minolta's full range of apertures available to the user, from a fast F/2.8 down to F/16 (F/22 on the QT), whereas the Minox cameras were limited to a fixed F/3.5 (F/5.6 on the EC series of cameras). In short, the Minox user could choose from a wider range of shutter speeds, whereas the Minolta user could choose from a respectable range of shutter speeds and a full range of apertures, along with having a slightly faster lens. Which is better? Which is more suited to the way you work with your photography? At first glance the Minox seems slightly more suited to low light photography without flash because of the extra shutter speeds, but working with ISO 100 film in the Minoltas doesn't seem to pose much problem in most, well lit rooms. Night shots will, of course require flash with the Minoltas, but probably will with the Minox cameras as well for many situations. Shots made with any camera at shutters speeds below 1/30^th of a second will need to be firmly braced or have the camera mounted on a tripod.

Focus is seems to be easier at first glance with the Minox: just dial in from 8" all the way out to Infinity. In truth, there is a great freedom in the fixed focus lenses of the Minoltas in that you don't have to think about focus for most photography, but for critical focus you will have to consider Depth of Field in terms of the aperture being used at the time of exposure. Minolta allowed for precision focus, and even close precision focus with the manufacturing of accessory close up lenses for the MG-S and QT, and with supplementary distance lenses for the 16 II. This requires a different sort of mind set when using the Minolta cameras if you've been used to the scale focusing of the Minox cameras, but new users who have never used a scale focus camera will probably never notice the difference.

So in the end, which is the better camera?

Neither…

Having enjoyed them both, I don't look at one as better than the other, but rather, just different approaches to solving the same problem: how do you produce a tiny camera that will always be there when needed, and yet still produce quality photographs and flexibility in the picture taking process? I believe Minox and Minolta have both succeeded admirably by following different paths that mark the individual nature of their creations, and we subminiature photography enthusiasts get to enjoy them both.

Happy shooting!

 © Sep 2000 by D. Scott Young, all rights reserved

Back to Index